"In her meeting with Dean Eramo, 'Jackie' indicated that there were two other sexual asaults that had taken place in 2010 and 2014 at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house. No victims have reported those incidents to the Charlottesville Police Department, nor have any witnesses come forward to report such an incident."
That's a quote from the Charlottesville Police Department's March 23, 2015 statement.
That's the address for a Washington Post article that says it has the full text of the statement.
The Rolling Stone article said that Jackie had told Dean Eramo that two other female students were gang rape victims of Phi Kappa Psi. The article said that those victims were contacted by Rolling Stone and they decided not to be interviewed for the article.
Was the Charlottesville Police Department's mention of those two other victims the result of a meeting that investigators from that police department were also part of, or was that section of the statement just something from the article that the police department mentioned to refute the entire article, ignoring everything else in the article about the University of Virginia's systemic failure to prevent rape or to help get rapists arrested and prosecuted?
Has someone tried to say that the two women who told Jackie that they were gang raped at the Phi Kappa Psi house were liars? Has someone tried to say that Jackie lied about them being raped, that she randomly and falsely identified two women to Rolling Stone? Why would she do that? Wouldn't anyone who was never raped and who was contacted by a journalist who was doing a story about rape be shocked by the request to be interviewed, and wouldn't that reaction have cast doubt on Jackie's account of her own assault? Where did Jackie get the names for Ms. Erdely to contact, if those Phi Kappa Psi gang rape stories weren't true?
This is a quote about those victims, from the Rolling Stone article:
"One, she says, is a 2013 graduate, who'd told Jackie that she'd been gang-raped as a freshman at the Phi Psi house. The other was a first-year whose worried friends had called Jackie after the girl had come home wearing no pants. Jackie said the girl told her she'd been assaulted by four men in a Phi Psi bathroom while a fifth watched. (Neither woman was willing to talk to RS.)"
Jackie lied about all of that? That's a lot of people to lie about, isn't it? A group of friends who told her that their friend had no pants on when she got home, who then told Jackie that four men raped her while a fifth watched? Jackie thought of that specific lie? Anyone would know that her own rapists would refute her story; even someone who lies about being raped knows that the people whom she falsely accuses will lie to defend themselves, and that they and their friends will be hostile toward her. Why would someone risk alienating a group of people by telling lies about someone else being raped, knowing that the entire group of friends of the person whom she's lying about would refute the lie?
It would seem that there are a lot of people who could be contacted about information from the Rolling Stone article. Has anyone done that?
Copyright, with noted exceptions, L. Kochman, March 30, 2016 @ 7:41 p.m.
