The rest of the ad also references the student who harassed me in my Chinese class in the Spring semester, whom my school did nothing to confront about his behavior until his lies and the administration's failures to deal with the situation had forced me out of school and he felt that he would be able to harass me online and be rewarded for that, also. It was only when I took a picture of the message that he wrote to me and sent it to the school that the school acknolwedged that the school knew who he was and said that he would be confronted.
He's gotten exactly what he wanted when he started to harass and stalk me at school. The conglomerate is calling him a hero. I lost another opportunity both for school and for work. I am in debt because I left work-study when I left school, my federal school loans from college years ago are out of deferment, and I got a $600 bill from withdrawing from the class that I was taking at the beginning of the summer before being harassed by another male student every time I was at school and the failure of the administration to deal with that made me feel too demoralized to cope with it. I am paying almost $150 more every month to pay for my past and trucated education than I was paying when I was in school in the Spring 2016 semester.
I'm the one who got harassed, again. I'm the one who got hurt for asking that someone tell the harasser to leave me alone, again. I'm the one who's being attacked by the conglomerate because the conglomerate's bullying of me encouraged someone to harass me so much in person that I lost another opportunity to do something productive, after all the work that I had done for it, again. I'm the one who's being punished by the conglomerate again, for what someone else did, again, while the person who aggressed upon me because he thought it was funny and wanted the conglomerate's attention is getting that attention, again.
Every place that this has happened since the conglomerate started to persecute me in 2010, it's always the worst person in the situation who does it. The meanest, the laziest, the most dishonest, the most vicious, the one who contributes the least to whatever's supposed to be happening, whether it's at a job or a mental hospital or a homeless shelter or a school.
The male employee who stalked and harassed me at the Pine Street Inn was able to abuse me for 8 months before he finally had stalked and harassed so many other homeless women that they also started to report him. That was when he was finally fired; my emails and phone calls to supervisors and my every attempt to get the behavior confronted through appropriate channels failed. I was called crazy, and he got away with it, so he felt like he could abuse other women, also, and he did, for most of a year.
Bunker Hill Community College has two large banners on its main building. They are both referencing what happened to me at that school, and they are also congratulating him. The banners were put there before the start of the Fall 2016 semester. When the harasser got to school and saw them, that was probably what made him think that he could send a message to YouTube, using his full name, calling me a paranoid schizophrenic, so he could start a conversation at my blog with other people who write public messages to each other there to call me crazy.
I didn't know his full name before he wrote that message. When he wrote the message, I took a picture of it and sent it to the school, which until then had refused to admit that the school knew who he was.
This is the address for the CBSN video, which features a CBS News Legal Analyst who doesn't know the case and clearly has a side, even though she accuses Ms. Erdely of having had an agenda for the article:
Ms. Erdely attempted several times to get an interview from Ms. Eramo as part of Ms. Erdely's investigation. It was the University of Virginia that told Ms. Erdely that Ms. Eramo would not be available to be interviwed.
The Columbia Journalism Review took at face value everything that it was told by people who didn't like the Rolling Stone article. Ryan even lied to the Columbia Journalism Review about when the last time was that he had talked to Jackie, as the transcripts of the texts between him and Jackie after the Rolling Stone article was published proved. That's significant, because Ryan has told every reporter who has interviewed him since the Rolling Stone article was published that he would have talked to Ms. Erdely if she had contacted him before the article was published, and that he never had a conversation with Jackie prior to the article being published in which Jackie asked him if he would talk to Ms. Erdely and he said he wouldn't because he didn't want to be part of Jackie's "s---show."
After the Rolling Stone article was published, Ryan texted Jackie, starting by apologizing because he hadn't known that her assault was "that bad." During that texted conversation, Ryan realized that people who were interviewing Jackie after the article's publication, specifically Mr. Shapiro of The Washington Post, were hostile to her and that Ryan would be able to lie to the media and be praised for it, so that's what he did.
The Columbia Journalism Review's report about the Rolling Stone article also failed to consider the possibility that Phi Kappa Psi had deliberately not registered the party that the fraternity had on September 28, 2012 because the fraternity was planning to haze/rape people that night and the fraternity wanted to be able to lie that there was no party. The Columbia Journalism Review should have considered that possibility, because fraternities do it all the time. There are articles about it online about fraternities all over the country, and those articles were there before the Rolling Stone article was published. It's been a problem for years, which school administrations, school police departments, and local police departments all over the country also know.
It wouldn't even have mattered if Phi Kappa Psi had registered the September 28, 2012 party:
That's a picture of part of the Charlottesville Police Department's March 23, 2015 statement, which CBS's analyst probably has never read. Also, what does anyone think that a legal analyst for a media corporation is going to say? The major media have attacked the Rolling Stone article for almost two years. Those attacks are what caused the article to be retracted and the lawsuits to be filed.
Jackie doesn't want to get sued, and she doesn't want to be criminally charged for false report of a crime.
Copyright, with noted exceptions, L. Kochman, October 24, 2016 @ 5:17 p.m.