Monday, July 25, 2016

A rape case "free of such contradictions" is a myth.

July 25, 2016







Those are pictures of part of Dean Eramo's court filing.  Dean Eramo's lawyer has neglected to say that it was Ryan who first texted Jackie on December 3, 2014, and that Jackie initially asked who was texting her.  Ryan apologized and said that he didn't know that what had happened to her was as bad as it was described being in the article.  They had a text conversation, even though Ryan later told the Columbia Journalism Review that he hadn't communicated with Jackie since "the previous April."  He told the Columbia Journalism Review that to deny that Jackie had asked him if he would be willing to speak to Ms. Erdely about what happened the night Jackie was raped, before the article was published.  


These are pictures of part of the Columbia Journalism Review's report:









Why did the Columbia Journalism Review accept as fact Ryan's statement that he "hadn't seen or communicated with (Jackie) since the previous April"?  Did the Columbia Journalism Review then tell Ms. Erdely that Ryan hadn't talked to Jackie "since the previous April" as if it were a verified fact that proved that Jackie never asked Ryan if he would be interviewed by Ms. Erdely and that Ryan had never said that he wouldn't be interviewed by Ms. Erdely?  

Is there someone who thinks that there's a rape case anywhere that could be investigated by anyone which would be "free of such contradictions"?  

In their text conversation after the Rolling Stone article was published Jackie also told Ryan that the Washington Post reporter who had interviewed her was unpleasant to her.  






"Randall" is the pseudonym for Ryan.


It seems that Jackie's fears about what could happen to Jackie when the article was published have been realized.  



Copyright, with noted exceptions, L. Kochman, July 25, 2016 @ 10:15 a.m.