Did Mr. Shapiro tell the alleged victim that "by identifying herself she is lending accountability to her experience," and then, after having obtained her consent by telling her that, did Mr. Shapiro then inaccurately portray the words he told to her as if they were a quote to him from her?
If so, what he didn't tell her was that he wasn't trying to get accountability for the alleged perpetrator or the University of Virginia; he was trying to get her, the alleged victim, identified to the public.
What did Mr. Shapiro say to the alleged perpetrator that caused him not to give his name?
The article was published on July 14, 2016. The school's investigation had ended in May of 2016 and had decided that the alleged perpetrator did not violate any school policy. The police investigation was also already suspended.
The alleged victim had nothing to gain and a lot to lose by letting the Post publicize her name.
The title of the article is "He said it was consensual. She said she blacked out. U-Va. had to decide: Was it assault?"
The article starts by saying the alleged victim's full name. This is what it says, with my removing the name of the victim:
"When (name of alleged victim), was found alone in a stranger's bathroom, she was naked and in a drunken stupor, barely able to stand or speak, a raucous party raging around her. She awoke in her bed hours later, her head pounding, leaves in her hair, soaked in her own urine."
Mr. Shapiro seems to think that the first paragraph of his article is a fair description of the alleged victim's perception. It's only much later in the article that there's any indication that the first sentence of the article describes something that was told to Mr. Shapiro or to the University of Virginia by someone else who said that he had tried to help her. Mr. Shapiro never acknowledges that the first line of his article is hearsay by someone who might have raped the alleged victim and who is not described by the article as having been investigated by the University of Virginia or by Mr. Shapiro.
This is the third paragraph of Mr. Shapiro's article, his contrast to his portrayal of the alleged victim:
"A clear memory"? What about this:
"A teammate who accompanied (the alleged victim) to the meeting then asked the freshman if there was any sign that (the alleged victim) was incoherent. The freshman athlete responded: 'I mean, I was so drunk myself.'"
That's a quote of part of Mr. Shapiro's description of part of a "30-minute recording, which was part of the U-Va. investigation and was obtained by the Post," according to the article.
It seems to me that Mr. Shapiro's article is explicit about who everyone who reads the article is supposed to think "the drunken mess" is; the alleged victim.
___________________________________
Those are pictures of noncontiguous parts of the article.
"No evidence that the liquor drink was tainted with drugs." Did someone think that there would be evidence of drugs, months after the party?
"A four-gallon backpack sprayer that the investigators noted in their report was designed for spreading agricultural chemicals" is not enough evidence that the University of Virginia does nothing to stop the inebriation of its students at parties?
This is the address of the article:
Could the alleged victim sue the Washington Post for manipulating her into being publicly identified for a biased and degrading article which exploited her?
The Washington Post article, and articles by other media referencing the Washington Post article, are at the first page of search results for a Google search of the alleged victim's name. That's what will be read about this woman by prospective employers, landlords, friends, and everyone else who wants to know anything about her, for years, if not for the rest of her life.
All pictures at this blog page are of parts of the Washington Post article.
Copyright, with noted exceptions, L. Kochman, July 25, 2016 @ 12:53 p.m.
