The Charlottesville police statement said that the police did an investigation at Drew's old fraternity after the police spoke to Drew in the presence of his legal counsel and had read Drew's financial records that "may have been relevant" to what happened to Jackie. That's a quote from the Charlottesville police statement, "may have been relevant." That is also how that statement described records that the University of Virginia refused to provide to the police.
If Drew lied to Jackie that he was a Phi Kappa Psi member, Jackie is blameless for Drew's lie. If Drew was suspended from the University of Virginia in 2006 and also made to leave the fraternity of which he was a member in 2006 because he raped somebody or several people in or before 2006 and his victim(s) talked about it after it happened, and if the University admitted him as an undergraduate student again in or before 2012 despite knowing that he was a rapist, all of that is exactly the pattern of neglect and subterfuge described in the Rolling Stone article for verifiable incident after verifiable incident.
Is that what happened? If it is, then Drew, a serial rapist who is so obsessed with sexual violence that he brought a victim to a fraternity house of which he was not a member so that he could be where a gang rape happened even though he didn't physically participate, is walking around doing whatever he wants while Rolling Stone is being sued by Dean Eramo and the organization, Phi Kappa Psi.
Copyright, with noted exceptions, L. Kochman, June 29, 2016 @ 6:43 p.m.
