That's a picture of part of the Rolling Stone article.
Those are pictures of contiguous parts of Ms. Erdely's June 30, 2016 court filing.
It seems as if it was Ms. Renda, not Jackie, who first told Ms. Erdely about the two other women who were allegedly raped by Phi Kappa Psi members or pledges.
Ms. Erdely was not prevented from getting interviews from a couple of representatives of Phi Kappa Psi, so the fraternity, for its lawsuit, doesn't have what could arguably be Ms. Eramo's contention for her lawsuit, which is that Ms. Eramo was told by the University of Virginia that she couldn't talk to Ms. Erdely before the Rolling Stone article was published.
Although media that has attacked the Rolling Stone article has claimed that Jackie falsified the reports of those two women, is there any tangible proof that she did?
If there were, isn't that all that the media would have talked about as soon as the proof was obtained?
Texts between Ryan and Jackie, texts between Ryan and "Haven Monahan"; those transcripts were publicly released. The phone number and email address for "Haven Monahan" were tracked and the email was monitored at the request of the law firm of Clare Locke, to try to make Jackie seem like a pathological liar.
If texts or emails from other women allegedly raped by Phi Kappa Psi members or pledges had gotten tracked and proven not to be from real people, wouldn't that written proof be part of the evidence introduced to the court by Clare Locke and then a part of every subsequent media discussion from the time that the written proof was obtained by Clare Locke and the court, even if the texts and emails were not published in public?
That's a picture of part of an article that Mr. Shapiro wrote and that The Washington Post published yesterday. I didn't read the article or know about it until today.
Jackie's frightened; anyone would be frightened.
Is there tracked, documented, written, printed, verified proof that texts and emails exchanged between University of Virginia administrators and two other alleged rape victims were exchanged between those administrators and Jackie using fake phone numbers and email addresses?
If there isn't, was that question to Jackie during the deposition an attempt by one of Ms. Eramo's lawyers to discredit Jackie without proof, or even in dishonest contradiction to proof that they are real women, and is that a false rumor knowingly perpetuated by Mr. Shapiro?
This is the address for the retracted Rolling Stone article, which is not provided by Rolling Stone:
This is the address for Ms. Erdely's June 30, 2016 court filing, provided by The Washington Post:
The address for that court filing is at a July 3, 2016 Washington Post article by Mr. Shapiro, called "In her own words: Rolling Stone's Sabrina Rubin Erdely on experience with Jackie."
This is a picture of part of the July 3, 2016 Washington Post article:
If Mr. Shapiro heard Jackie's deposition and has misled the public in his October 24, 2016 article, it wouldn't be the first time that he has misleadingly reported about documents having to do with the Rolling Stone article, while taking no responsibility for having used the prestige of his employer to terrify Jackie, Ms. Erdely and Rolling Stone, with the cadre of misogynist reporters at The Washington Post who have also attacked the Rolling Stone article.
This is the address for the October 24, 2016 Washington Post article written by Mr. Shapiro, called "'Jackie' stands by account but says she had concerns about Rolling Stone article":
Copyright, with noted exceptions, L. Kochman, October 25, 2016 @ 4:02 p.m.
