Those are pictures of part of a December 2, 2014 Washington Post article by Erik Wemple.
That's the Web address for that article.
Slate DoubleX? I had never heard of that before tonight, so I did a Google search of it.
Those are pictures from tonight of the first part of the first page of its website.
What would the conglomerate say about me if I had published a picture and story like that as part of one of my blogs? Wouldn't it call me a slut, ridicule me all around the world, and treat me as if it were obvious that I have no credibility, particularly for talking about something like sexual assault?
The Washington Post has had a lot of harsh things to say about the reporting methods of other professional journalists.
What time did Jackie's former friends tell T. Rees Shapiro that it was when one of them got a phone call from Jackie after she was raped?
These are pictures of part of a December 10, 2014 Washington Post article by T. Rees Shapiro:
Her friends asked for Haven Monahan's phone number?
In this article from January 8, 2016, Shapiro said that Ryan was "goaded" into texting Haven:
1:00 a.m. on September 29, 2012. That's a time that seem to have been incorrectly reported by the Washington Post for when Jackie called Ryan, and that was nonetheless accepted at face value, without proof, by T. Rees Shapiro, when he wrote the December 10, 2014 article.
Who are the fact-checkers and editors at the Washington Post who have let two time errors by this reporter be printed, without apology, while that newspaper is destroying the careers of other professional journalists with its accusations of bad reporting?
This is another picture of the January 8, 2016 Washington Post article, proudly declaring its role in forcing Rolling Stone to retract its article, which led to three lawsuits being filed.
Who told the Washington Post that the phone call was at 1:00 a.m.? Was it the terrified cadre of Jackie's former friends? If it was, then isn't it probable that those former friends chose the time at which they told the Post that Ryan got the phone call because it was two hours earlier than around 3:00 a.m., the time reported by the Rolling Stone article about the rape?
It seems to me that the CBS 6 broadcast inadvertently got the time at which Jackie probably called Ryan right, and that there is finally a probable time at which that phone call happened, which is around 11:30 p.m. That time was probably gotten right by CBS 6 because it can be inferred by the transcripts of the published text messages between Ryan and Jackie from September 28, 2012.
Around 11:30 p.m. is also the time that the Charlottesville police department said in its statement was on the time-stamped picture taken at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house, which the fraternity seems to have hoped the Charlottesville police department would tell the world was evidence that no party happened and no rape took place.
Time-stamped pictures can be faked. Also; why would the fraternity choose to take the picture at almost exactly the time that Jackie had probably just left the fraternity and was calling Ryan, or to put that time on a fake picture, almost a year before the text transcripts were made public?
If it was a real picture, is it possible that it was taken after the party was precipitously ended, after Jackie ran out the door crying and her rapists were afraid that she was about to call the police? Wouldn't her rapists want to get everyone who might have seen Jackie running downstairs, with her bruised face and torn dress, out of the house? Was the person in the picture putting chairs away from where they were while the party was happening?
It seems that Phi Kappa Psi knew what time the 3-hour rape was over, even though Jackie didn't. Why else would the fraternity have an alibi-ready picture for almost exactly that time?
The only people whom Rolling Stone hurt by not insisting on trying to get interviews with everyone who is now endlessly agitating about not having gotten a chance to tell his or her side of the story before the article was published are Jackie, Erdely, and everyone at Rolling Stone who contributed to getting the article published. The people who say that nobody ever tried to get their side of the story have had all the time in the world to decide what their side of the story is, with the Rolling Stone article in front of them.
This is the Web address of the January 8, 2016 Washington Post article:
This is the Web address of the December 10, 2014 article:
Those are pictures of part of the Rolling Stone article.
Who thinks that Erdely could have gotten honest interviews from any of the people who are saying that her failure to contact them is a reason for lawsuits?
I am publishing this page on February 15, 2016.
Copyright, with noted exceptions, L. Kochman, February 15, 2016 @ 12:02 p.m.
