Author of botched Rolling Stone rape article expected to apologize

[shebolleth]

Source: CNN

Her tweet from late November reads likes it's in suspended animation, written in the calm before the storm.

"The Washington Post wrote an article about me, and how my UVA article came to be," she tweeted, adding a link to the profile.

Over the next several days, Sabrina Rubin Erdely would be thrust into professional turmoil as her story for Rolling Stone about a bombshell rape allegation at a fraternity house quickly fell apart.

Erdely, a contributing editor at Rolling Stone, has been silent since the magazine apologized in December for significant failures in her reporting.

Read more: http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/05/media/sabrina-rubin-erdely-rolling-stone-virginia/

[yeoman6987]

1. She should be sued by the frat

I think they went through heck with her reckless reporting and lies. At least she should be very sorry and not release a faky apology.

[Calista241]

2. Rolling Stone is going to shell out millions because of this.

They published this story without doing basic background research, or even interviewing anyone else of any consequence to the story. The level of incompetence is simply stunning, and they will be liable for that.

[Recursion]

45. Meh. Hard to argue that printing somebody's allegation is tortious

Tortious would require bad faith, and RS has been bending over backwards to present themselves as credulous and incompetent rather than malicious.

The frat will be fine. They had, what, a window egged or something, and couldn't hold parties over Christmas break? They'll be fine.

[LisaL]

47. Bad faith is only required for public figures.

[dolphinsandtuna]

3. I have no doubt that rape happened. The fact that the reporting was inadequate

doesn't change that.

[oberliner]

4. You have no doubt?

What are you basing that confidence on?

[Throd]

12. Wanting it to be true.

[hopemountain]

5. agree with your line of thinking, dolphinsandtuna.

there is coverup here (because history has proven the ease with which rape and assault on women by people with power can be covered up or turned around) and it behooves rolling stone to dig deeper / further and get to the truth. it is there.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

10. OMG. So her friends who supported her in the beginning

are in on the cover up, as well?

Why must you think there is a coverup here? Are you incapable of believing that some women are capable of lying?

The woman is either a liar and mentally disturbed or just a damn liar. I haven't the ability to judge which one.

[hopemountain]

17. oh, so twisting my words, now, eh?

no point communicating with you any further.

[ripcord]

44. Her friends did not support her from the beginning

the reporter didn't even contact them and you would think if she were raped at a party the frat would have at least have had to have hosted a party that night.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

48. I worded that badly. Jackie's friends who met with her

right after the supposed rape took place were "then" supportive of her. The friends who saw Jackie right after.

They later realized that the narrative in Rolling Stone did not fit what they actually saw and spoke out about the inconsistencies. My question was "Are they lying, too?" I don't think so.

I think we agree on this.

[LisaL]

21. This woman never reported it to police.

She provided a different name of the supposed "mastermind" to her friends at the time it supposedly took place from the one she provided to Rolling Stones.
Police found no evidence whatsoever to support her story when they investigated it after Rolling Stones article came out.

[hopemountain]

31. not reporting a rape does not mean it did

not occur. in addition, there are many possibilities for your other "reasons" why the story is faulted. and yes, there may be faults to the "story" - but a rape may still have occurred.

but you can ask yourself these questions - why did the writer of the story and rolling stone find the story believable? what would point to a woman being raped and then providing a different name? why would the "story" be mixed up? why would the police not find any "evidence" to support the story?

from my own past experience i believe a rape occurred.

[GGJohn]

32. And still you haven't presented any evidence that a rape did occur,

the police couldn't find any evidence to support her accusation, RS, I'm quite sure, dug even deeper to see if "Jackie's" story was true and apparently came to the conclusion that it was bullshit.

So, again, other than your past experience, what evidence do you have that a rape actually took place?

[Warren DeMontague]

35. Okay, so explain who "Haven Monahan" is.

Because I can tell you. He's a made-up guy who never existed, who she exchanged fabricated "texts" with that she showed to her friends (including the one she was romantically interested in, who did not reciprocate the interest).. The pictures of "Haven Monahan" were pictures of some random guy she had gone to high school with, taken off social media, that she showed to her friends as "hey here is this guy who is interested in me"

The night the assault allegedly occurred, she said she went on a date, a date with a guy no one else saw, a date with (she said at the time) "Haven Monahan".

That is who she claimed assaulted her. The guy she invented out of whole cloth. BEFORE the attack allegedly occurred, so so much for "misremembering the details of an attack".

I'm sorry, but the story isn't true. There's hardly any logically consistent narrative by which it could be true. The only explanation that makes sense is, she invented the incident, like she invented the imaginary date, to get the attn of the guy who didn't like her back. Odds are, the story snowballed beyond her control, to the point where Rolling Stone got involved. I don't think it was deliberate deception all the way down.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/16/us/uva-rape/index.html?sr=fb121614uvarapestory10pVODtopLink

Duffin said Jackie was much more interested in him than he in her. He said he was happy when Jackie told friends that an upperclassman in her chemistry class asked her on a date.

Duffin and Stock decided to learn more about the upperclassman and check to "see if he's OK," Duffin said. Jackie gave them the phone number for the man, whom she identified as Haven Monahan.

Stock and Duffin said they sent him text messages and pretended to be another student from chemistry class. Monahan purportedly texted back, saying of Jackie, "I really like her," and describing her as "super smart .. hot" and liking the same music as he. At one point, he even sent a photo of himself.

Duffin never suspected Monahan may not be a real person.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/12/everything-we-know-uva-rape-case.html

Jackie's friends shared more details about how they contacted "Drew," the man she claims she was on a date with the night she was raped.

According to the Daily Caller, the name she gave them for the attractive upperclassman who had a crush on her was "Haven Monahan." No one by that name was enrolled on campus, or even lived in the area.

She encouraged them to text him, and eventually they had three different phone numbers for Haven. Research by the Washington Times determined that all three numbers are registered to internet services that allow people to text without a phone number or redirect calls to different numbers.

Ryan Duffin said he received no response when he texted the first number Jackie gave him. Someone identifying himself as Haven contacted him from a different phone, claiming he was using a friend's phone because his wasn't working. Later Haven started texting the friends from a third number, which he said was his BlackBerry. Previously, the Washington Post determined that a photo sent from that number was of one of Jackie's high school classmates, who was not in contact with her at the time and is not named Haven.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/19/more-bad-news-for-rolling-stone-jackie-u

We now know the "real" given name of Jackie's date on the evening of her alleged rape, September 28, 2012: Haven Monahan. Jackie claimed that Monahan was an older student who had taken an interest in her. Prior to September 28th, Duffin, Stock, and Hendley had pressed Jackie for details about this mysterious love interest. She gave them several different cell phone numbers for Monahan, and they corresponded with him. He eventually sent a picture of himself. Many of his messages contained not-so-subtle hints that Jackie had (unrequited) feelings for Duffin.

We now know that no one named Haven Monahan attended UVA. The phone numbers aren't even real—they redirect back to an internet service that allows people to send texts without having actual phone numbers. And the picture is of a former high school acquaintance of Jackie's who never attended UVA and spent no time in Charlottesville that year.

This strongly implies, of course, that Jackie sent the messages herself. The Daily Caller's Chuck Ross has gathered compelling evidence—including an interview with Duffin himself—that Jackie may have been trying to make Duffin sympathetic to her or develop feelings for her.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

40. The author went looking for a story

She wanted to write a story on rape culture, and there was Jackie with a claim against a southern, white male fraternity. This was going to be a dynamite story - the facts be damned.

"Journalists" like this need to be stopped. If Jackie had actually named a real person and not just a fraternity, she could have truly destroyed lives.

And because the police don't want to scare real rape victims away, Jackie gets to walk free without even a mention of her real name, when she is clearly the criminal in this story. NOT the victim.

[LisaL]

43. They couldn't charge her even if they wanted to (not that they would have wanted to).

It's not illegal to tell friends or a journalist a story (even if the story isn't true). It would only be illegal to tell this to the police.
And "Jackie" never told the story to the police.

[Recursion]

46. It could be tortious, but I cannot imagine the frat suing Jackie

Even fratboys are not that stupid, and even if they are their lawyers probably aren't. Since WaPo started picking the story apart, Rolling Stone has made a huge deal about very visibly calling themselves credulous and incompetent, because simply being bad at journalism can't get you sued. The frat would need to prove malice, which seems very difficult to prove in this case.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

49. No, because "Jackie" refused to cooperate

Even with all the support she was getting from around the country over the horror of the narrative in Rolling Stone, she refused to speak to the police.

You're right. She can't be charged with falsifying a crime.

Any remedies against her will take place in civil court.

[hopemountain]

52. adding:

consider "jackie" was fearful
consider "jackie" is not completely clear about every piercing detail of what exactly occurred - just knows something happened
consider all of the faces and "names???" are a blur
consider "jackie" has ptsd
consider "jackie" succumbed to the persistence of the rs reporter and put together a story to appease the writer
consider "jackie" can't remember a damn thing but awakened to find herself in physical pain and other evidence of having been raped but does not remember any of it because she was under the influence and blacked out

also, why, why (?) would the wp be so interested in investigating the story in the first place? what would motivate the wp staff to hold a longtime reputable publication on a story about a rape? do they care about the rape survivor or are there other aspects of the story they want to prove or disprove for whatever reason?

how many rapes on this campus or any campus will be reported from here forward - by anyone? how safe will it be for them to report when they cannot remember every specific detail or were to embarrassed, humiliated and afraid to report to an emergency room for a rape kit evidence collection? how many survivors of rape will feel safe or confident enough in their story to report to police?

why don't most victims of sexual rape or sexual abuse report?

because it is not safe. because usually when one is being violated one's survival instinct is to 1. find a way to survive the trauma 2. the most effective way to survive trauma and protect one's self is to make it go away - as though it never happened. 3. keep it a secret.

[GGJohn]

22. Oh really?

And what proof is there that this rape actually happened? Are her friends now part of the cover up?
Are the police, who couldn't find any evidence that this happened, part of the cover up?

Ya know, sometimes a lie is just that, a lie.

[GGJohn]

25. What makes you think that RS didn't dig deeper attempting to find out if the story was true?

Dollars to donuts they did and came to the truth that "Jackie" lied and now they have egg on their face.

[GGJohn]

24. You have no doubt based on what evidence? eom.

The reporting was inadequate? That's the understatement of the year.

[cosmicone]

6. This post was hidden by jury decision

Yeah ... if you don't want your post hidden, you are hereby requested to state the following:

a. The rape really really really happened (many potential jurors were there remember?) and
b. Everything is being whitewashed in a major coverup conspiracy.

[alp227]

9. Why? nt

[cosmicone]

11. Any post questioning any part of a rape story

is hidden by some ultra women's/victims' rights people who don't like any discussion or debate.

I had a post hidden because I questioned why all the women against Bill Cosby were coming forward now when they chose to be silent all these years.

DU's jury system is broken and people simply vote to hide posts that they disagree with rather than checking to see if they violated the TOS.

[alp227]

13. Blaming the victim is freaking insensitive and doesn't belong in a progressive space ever. nt

[Throd]

14. What if the "victim" just made up a bunch of shit?

[shebolleth]

15. Whether she is a victim is at the center of the debate

Cosmicone does not agree with your characterization of her as a victim.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

19. Well, one side of this "debate" is void of facts, apparently

nt

[LisaL]

16. Just who are the victims in this story?

[GGJohn]

23. What evidence leads you to believe she's a victim? eom.

[alp227]

26. Not talking about the Jackie from rolling stone articles

rather addressing cosmicone's complaints about Bill Cosby related posts getting hidden

[GGJohn]

28. Ahhh, ok, my mistake and apology. eom

[cosmicone]

34. Asking questions is not blaming ...

One person may disagree with a post but the writer has every right to post it without violating TOS.

We are all sensitive to certain writings and consider them to be insensitive -- that doesn't mean they don't belong on a given board.

If everyone alerted on every post that they disagree with and then voted to hide it, DU will be a very lonely place.

DU has already become an echo-chamber for people of some specific view-points. The jury system the way it is currently implemented will accelerate that process and take away all legitimate dissent.

[alp227]

38. The problem I have is with people who use "disagreement" as an excuse to promote bigotry.

"It's just an opinion" "we can all disagree on things" How come people who insist on blaming rape victims or having other bigoted positions fall back on that instead of making an argument why they're right?

[cosmicone]

39. The problem with that line of thinking is that

one starts seeing every opposition as bigoted when it most probably is not.

The best way I have found is to just state the disagreement rather than try to hide the post. Silencing all opposition is not the goal of DU is it?

I would consider hiding or alerting when there is a personal attack against a member, using one of the known vile words such as the N word or the F word to denigrate LGBT people or something that is so blatantly over the top such as "holocaust is all fabricated" or "there never was any slavery" etc. -- that is when the post must be hidden.

A lot of people disagree with me on DU but it is my personal belief that in order for DU to thrive, we need to make it a big tent with some ideas that are not 100% progressive but close enough and sincere nevertheless.

[Psephos]

42. As it turned out, the victim is actually the victim of the "victim."

You are trying to protect someone whose own friends say she fabricated.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

18. And to prove your point

Someone alerted on this post...it survived...1 vote to hide, six to not hide.

[cosmicone]

30. lol n/t

[wheniwasincongress]

20. Oh my god, are you serious about your Cosby question?

Do you know nothing about sexual assault and the deterrents that prevent victims from speaking up, especially when their assaulter is massively wealthy, famous, and well-loved? I sometimes can't believe some of the things I read on DU sometimes. How backwards.


(and by the way, like a decade and a half ago Cosby was sued by a woman, and there were like 13 other women who were willing to testify to his behavior. But I suspect these silly fact thingies don't really matter to you.)

[cosmicone]

29. No one is blaming the victims

However, some questions remain. Not all of Cosby's victims were powerless women or who depended upon being in his good graces.

Cosby is scum and I wish he rots in hell. That is not the point. My heart goes out to the victims and if one of them was my daughter or sister, there would be far less smugness on Bill Cosby's face.

I simply wanted a more complete picture from the victims that have come forward.

Asking for additional info doesn't mean one is not believing or blaming the victim.

[wheniwasincongress]

33. Gee I don't know

Fear of public humiliation and blame (as you are indeed doing,) fear of financial ruin, lack of legal resources...


(to other DUers, is cosmicone a known troll?)

[cosmicone]

36. Are you resorting to personal attacks now with calling me a troll? n/t

[wheniwasincongress]

37. I was going to say

you're either a troll or a sick puppy

What do you think about the reasons I stated to not have come forward with their allegations earlier? (which women HAD done towards Cosby for years, what do you think about that as well?)

[cosmicone]

41. You are letting personal feelings interfere with your judgment

What if a certain even more powerful person in hollywood had threatened the victims to not come forward? Wouldn't you want to know if there is an uber enabler to Bill Cosby?

What if Cosby had a partner in assaulting women while they were asleep and leaving before they woke up?

Not all info is "blaming the victim" -- although you seem to have a one-track mind that is incapable of handling multivariate discriminants.

[bluestateguy]

7. Maybe she can hire Mike Nifong as her attorney, to help her draft the apology

Too soon?

[alp227]

8. Nifong is disbarred. nt

[GGJohn]

27. I think it was meant as sarcasm. eom.

[MisterP]

50. like Zimmerman or Crystal Mangum people like this simply do not stop

they're coddled by courts and police to the point of impunity and have hordes of online backers cheering them on as brave, persecuted underdogs who represent everything good and noble in the human race, feeding the confabulation and megalomania

I'm just sayin' her future paramours better sleep with an eye open