Jackie was bullied a lot by the Charlottesville police. Is that what the Charlottesville police and the University of Virginia would rather that the Rolling Stone article had said? Would Ms. Eramo like to explain what she meant when she told Jackie that she noticed that the police questioning of Jackie was "aggressive"? Did that aggressive questioning of Jackie also intimidate Ms. Eramo?
What Ms. Erdely said when Jackie was afraid before the article was published was that she wanted Jackie to continue to be involved in the article, not that she or anyone else was going to force Jackie to be involved. The New York Post's representation of that interaction is misleading.
You can get criminally charged and also sued for lying about being the victim of a crime. No matter how Jackie feels about Ms. Eramo, she probably doesn't want that to happen to her. Not only could Jackie go to jail, she could also lose a lawsuit and have to pay, TO HER OWN RAPISTS, a large part of her wages from any work that she's able to get now that her reputation is ruined around the world.
When all you care about is winning, call the victim a crazy liar. That's what Rolling Stone's lawyer is doing, and that is a real disservice to all victims of sexual assault.
What's going to happen is that rape victims aren't going to talk to journalists. Universities, and a lot of other people, like rapists, will also scare rape victims by reminding them of what happens to rape victims whose stories are published by newspapers. Nobody will be exaggerating who tells rape victims that telling a newspaper what happened can ruin your life. The media source to which you tell your story will be attacked by other media and sued, and that media source will call you a crazy liar.
This is the address for the New York Post article, which was published yesterday:
Copyright, with noted exceptions, L. Kochman, October 19, 2016 @ 3:06 p.m./I will publish my preliminary page and other pages again soon./addition @ 6:14 p.m.