That doesn't mean that I think that she was acted against with malice, which is why I thought it would be a good idea if she and Rolling Stone tried to settle before the end of the trial for an undisclosed amount, with sealed records, so that she could get the financial settlement that she needs and the terms for the basis of the settlement could be negotiated to be less punitive and less public for Rolling Stone and for all defendants than a verdict from a jury, if the verdict weren't favorable to Rolling Stone's side. The verdict has turned out to be not entirely favorable to Rolling Stone's side, but it's not entirely unfavorable, either, which fact every article that I have read is ignoring.
My issue is that, since Rolling Stone couldn't get an interview with Ms. Eramo before the article was published, Rolling Stone did not have to print her name and picture. Also, if Ms. Erdely had been able to interview Ms. Eramo, Ms. Erdely might have had another impression of her than the one that Ms. Erdely had when the article was published. The University of Virginia did not allow that interview to happen.
My idea about settling out of court for an undisclosed amount and with sealed records was something that I thought of after having read for a while about lawsuits and trials. It was not advice from anyone to me or a result of questions that I asked anyone. If it is not procedurally sound, I'd rather be corrected than not.
Copyright L. Kochman, November 7, 2016 @ 4:26 p.m.
