If Jackie wasn't the person whom Drew took to dinner at the Boar's Head Inn on the night that Jackie says she was later raped, who was? Is there someone who has told the police or anyone else that he or she was the person whom he took to dinner, a meal which the Charlottesville police statement of March 23, 2015 said was corroborated by Drew's financial records?
This is some of what the statement said about Drew, the "male subject" of the following paragraph:
"Another male subject was identified during the course of our investigation. This subject was both a member of a fraternity (not Phi Kappa Psi) and worked at the Aquatic and Fitness Center at the same time as Jackie. This individual cooperated fully with investigators in the presence of legal counsel to include providing copies of his work schedule and financial records which may have been relevant to a dinner date that 'Jackie' had with her alleged offender at the Boars Head Inn on the evening of September 28, 2012.
Investigators turned their attention to the fraternity house in which this subject was a member in 2006."
That's a quote from the March 23, 2015 statement which the Charlottesville Police Department had published at its website for a while.
In other words, the person who facilitated Jackie's rape, and her rapists, got all of their legal rights respected by the Charlottesville police. Unlike Jackie, they were treated not only respectfully but even deferentially. Everything that they said was accepted at face value by the police, even when it contradicted evidence that they were lying. The police made strenuous efforts to support the criminals' lies and even more strenuous efforts to discredit Jackie and make her look like a liar.
Why did the police investigate the fraternity house where Drew was a member in 2006? What about the discussion that they had with him, "in the presence of legal counsel," caused them to think that they should ask some questions about him at that fraternity, in spite of their wanting nothing more than to forget the entire situation so that they wouldn't get their careers destroyed by the University of Virginia's network of powerful alumni and the rape-promoting conglomerate media?
"They were provided the names of (six) 6 members who were living at the house at the time of this alleged incident; five (5) of the six (6) provided interviews. None of them knew 'Jackie,' admitted to any involvement in a sexual assault having occurred on September 28, 2012, nor did they see or hear anything about a sexual assault occurring in the fraternity at the time they lived there.
Investigation revealed that on September 28, 2012, this fraternity had a cook out for prospective members, and a themed event on September 29, 2012. Both of these functions were listed on the social calendar."
Did the police talk to anyone who was a 2006 member and resident of the fraternity of which Drew was a member in 2006? Did they ask him or anyone else why he was a UVA student and a fraternity member in 2006 and then seemed to have left the university and then matriculated again, 6 years later?
Drew's disappearance and reappearance at the University of Virginia, 6 years apart, are consistent with the University of Virginia's approach to serial rapists, which is neither to expel them nor assist with their arrest or prosecution. If the University takes any disciplinary action at all, the most that it does is ask a student to leave or suspend him for a while; then he's back to school as if the felony or felonies that he committed never happened.
Throughout the police statement, the failure of the police to find someone named "Drew" is presented several times, as if it is evidence that the Rolling Stone article has no factual basis. "Drew" is a pseudonym; neither Jackie nor Sabrina Erdely nor Rolling Stone nor anyone else ever said that "Drew" is the real name of that person. The police found the person who lured Jackie to be gang raped anyway, probably because it's obvious who he is and a lot of people who are or were at that school know what happened, even though they're not talking now.
"In addition, federal laws governing privacy and protection of certain records in the possession of academic institutions obstructed our ability to access records that may have been relevant to our investigation."
That sentence is almost at the beginning of the police statement. It is presented as if the records to which the police are trying to say that they could not get access are records pertaining to Jackie and not Drew, as if there's all sorts of evidence that Jackie is lying and that the University of Virginia is protecting her privacy. However, the language that the police used for that sentence is identical to the way that the police described Drew's work and financial records. It seems at least possible to me that the records at UVA (and other schools?) which the police made no effort to obtain were about Drew and/or Phi Kappa Psi and other fraternities and the school(s)' coddling of rapists, and that what the records "may have been relevant" to were Drew's habit of raping and facilitating the rape of female students and the systematic, institutional subterfuge about his crimes and others like them.
The police got a lot of records from the University of Virginia about Jackie. This is a quote from the statement about some of those records:
"redacted copies of documents that reflect Dean Eramo's previous meetings with 'Jackie'; specifically those documents referencing the sexual assault, physical assault, and an anonymous sexual assault report.
None of the documents we were given or had access to revealed any facts similar to what was disclosed in the Rolling Stone article."
"Redacted" means that things were taken out.
Although I took some pictures of the March 23, 2015 statement about the Charlottesville Police Department's investigation when it was published at the Department's website, this blog was suddenly disabled from publishing pictures from my phone several weeks ago, when I was publishing pages about rape at the University of Virginia. The blog was removed from the Internet, not by me, soon after it was disabled from publishing pictures. Although the blog was restored to the Internet, its ability to publish pictures wasn't.
This is the address of a Washington Post article that says it has the text of the police statement:
Why did the Washington Post or anyone else think that the Charlottesville police statement was a definitive disproval of Jackie's alleged rape? Even the police department didn't say that it was sure that Jackie wasn't sexually assaulted. This is a quote from the 'Conclusion' section of the statement:
"The department's investigation cannot rule out that something may have happened to 'Jackie' somewhere and at some time on the evening of September 28, 2012."
What was it about meeting with police in the presence of people who work for the University of Virginia that did not help Jackie feel that she could talk to the police about what had happened to her or say that she wanted the police to investigate? Also, did all of the police officers who had contact with Jackie or who read documents provided by the University of Virginia respond the way that the investigator responded to the picture of Jackie's bruised face, from an incident in which she was stalked, harassed and attacked for talking about being raped, by denying that the injury she described was verified by the evidence that she tried to present?
The protection of rapists and the discrediting of their victims by colleges, universities and other institutions are documented by a lot of people other than Ms. Erdely and Rolling Stone. That rape culture is particularly prevalent at the University of Virginia is also documented by a lot of people other than Ms. Erdely and Rolling Stone.
Although the police statement claims at its beginning that "investigators were never afforded the opportunity to interview 'Jackie,'" it then describes several instances in which Jackie spoke to the police. If Jackie finally got the feeling that talking to the police was not helping her, then her decision to stop talking to the police was her right, as it was always her right not to talk to the police at all. She didn't rape anybody.
What does "cooperating fully" mean, according to the Charlottesville police? Does it mean not saying anything that the police don't want to hear? Does it mean being the rapist who's lying instead of the rape victim who's telling the truth?
Jackie was often afraid to talk about what has happened to her. Does anyone blame her for being afraid?
Copyright, with noted exceptions, L. Kochman, March 27, 2016 @ 5:12 p.m.
