<p>I also think those of you who aren’t familiar with Greek systems think that the house moves “en masse.” Let’s say Phi Psi at UVA is 100 members, for the sake of argument. Within there, perhaps there were 10 guys who thought this was cool / funny / lulz / whatever, and the other 90 could have had no idea and been horrified by it. There are always “sub cliques” and friendship groupings. I was in a house with 120 women, but there could have easily been a clique who did things I would have had no clue that they did. Believe me, those 10 guys should be drawn and quartered, but my point is - it is plausible that guys outside of the “bad guys” didn’t know what went on and would be horrified to know that it did.</p>
<p>Yes Pizzagirl, there are also guys now living in that fraternity house who were in high school when that event occurred. I believe everyone has now moved out for their own safety, after windows were smashed.</p>
<p>It is a complete overreach for anyone to claim that the story is a complete fabrication. When recounting traumatic events that occurred 2 years ago, it is understandable that the victim may have gotten some of the details wrong. That is why it is important for victims to report the crime soon - when there is a much higher chance that the police and prosecutors can gain a conviction. </p>
<p>@alh, The Washington Post continues to report on this . Here is a more recent report from yesterday from Paul Farhi regarding all of this. <a href=“https://twitter.com/farhip”>https://twitter.com/farhip</a></p>
<p>The author of the RS article ‘could not locate’ (?) any of the accused seven perpetrators? C’mon. I don’t believe that. </p>
<p>When I read the story I figured it had to be true, in large part because if it wasn’t, the legal liability was too huge for RS to publish a story that effectively destroyed the Phi Psi house at UVA and the reputation of all of its members past and present.</p>
<p>I believe the story, but also that the author may have embellished it a bit, which could come back to hurt Jackie’s case (if there ever is one), if the facts don’t line up perfectly.</p>
<p>The part that was not plausible to me was the implication that this gang-rape (or any rape) was a traditional initiation ritual for this house. I could believe there might be a silly, informal requirement that a pledge was supposed to present some sort of evidence that he was not a virgin in order to be initiated, but not rape or gang-rape. </p>
<p>It is perfectly understandable if none of the accused would respond to a reporter’s questions. They probably warned each other about the reporter’s interest. Also, you cannot contact UVa students by email by just typing their name - each student has a set of random numbers after their initials. </p>
<p>The reporter didn’t try to contact anyone and hasn’t confirmed that she has anyone’s identity. She’s being extremely cagey. And, of course an accused rapist probably wouldn’t reply to a reporter’s ? email. But, that didn’t happen.</p>
<p>If you have a person’ real name, the year they graduated, the fraternity they belonged to, which may also have been their address, it’s not difficult to locate the person. How many of us have located old friends on the internet in a few minutes without even that much information? It doesn’t appear that this journalist tried. </p>
<p>Wait, how do we know the reporter didn’t try to contact anyone from the fraternity?
It stands to reason - if only for legal reasons - that the reporter tried to contact the students or representatives, just as it stands to reason that they all lawyered up and refused to speak to a journalist who would try to make them incriminate themselves,which is their right and most logical course of action. They maybe thinking of coming forward, or of denying everything, but they’ll do so to the police and in a court of law, not to a journalist.</p>
<p>Well, good lord, if I were a member of Phi Psi (even completely innocent / unaware of any of this) I wouldn’t talk to anyone without a lawyer. That’s just common sense. </p>
<p>Bay, when I saw this: " I could believe there might be a silly, informal requirement that a pledge was supposed to present some sort of evidence that he was not a virgin in order to be initiated, but not rape or gang-rape."
It reminded me of the classic Top Gun “You’ve Lost that Lovin’ Feeling” line –
Goose: Okay. you have to have carnal knowledge – with a lady this time – on the premises.
Maverick: On the premises!
Goose (as Maverick spots Charlie sitting down at the bar): C’mon, Mav, a bet’s a bet.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/author-of-rolling-stone-story-on-alleged-u-va-rape-didnt-talk-to-accused-perpetrators/2014/12/01/e4c19408-7999-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/author-of-rolling-stone-story-on-alleged-u-va-rape-didnt-talk-to-accused-perpetrators/2014/12/01/e4c19408-7999-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html</a></p>
<p>This requires a very careful reading but it’s pretty clear she is trying very hard to not answer these questions. And, these questions are getting louder every day.</p>
<p>Continuing my previous line of thought, it is plausible that upon discovering that some pledges were virgins, a member was charged (in this case, Drew) with finding a women willing to change their status in a group setting. Drew may have lied to them and said Jackie had agreed to this. It would explain the scenario, but not how it proceeded to rape, because presumably Jackie would have made clear that she did not consent to this.</p>
<p>PG,
I was thinking about the movie 16 Candles, where the nerdy kid tries so hard to get the girl’s panties as “evidence” of his carnal knowledge.</p>
<p>From what I understand, and I have no journalism background, it is common practice that when reporting on a crime, that the journalist contact or try to contact the alleged perpetrators for comment. They may have their lawyers respond with a ‘no comment’ but it appears this author took the story at face value without any attempt to corroborate.</p>
<p>It makes me wonder if the identities of the alleged perpetrators have been “outed” on something like Reddit or The Smoking Gun or by Anonymous, though I don’t want to wade into those cesspools either. </p>
<p>Her out is that she’s reporting the story through Jackie’s eyes and Jackie is also anonymous so that leaves nothing, zilch. confirmed by anyone on the record. Yes, this is unusual at best. </p>
<p>I am a good-faith person and there is no reason not to assume that Jackie’s tale is substantially true. I’m sure psychiatrists examining her would be able to discern the trauma. It’s just a real shame that she didn’t go straight to the police / hospital, however imperfect the police / hospital may be. You’d have a real-time statement and real-time evidence of injuries. </p>
<p>Now I’m even wondering if Jackie is real. What sort of a libel suit would the fraternity have if this is a lie? Or UVa? </p>
<p>Also, UVa should know if there was a Phi Kappa Psi member who was in Jackie’s anthropology class that same semester. Also who from Phi Kappa Psi was a lifeguard that year. If there are people to fit that description, have their names been turned over to police? </p>
<p>Why has the story gone quiet in the press?</p>
<p>Well, if there’s a police investigation they’ll get to the bottom of it but it’s not journalism and it’s bubbled into a very high-profile story with a lot of collateral damage already My guess is something happened and the details have been embellished but as Tatin says it’s not that hard to locate this many young men with the specifics provided. So, they either exist or they don’t and it will become known at some point. There’s really no good outcome except the attention on the issue which was the stated goal of piece. Publishing a 9,000 word highly accusatory story based on the good faith of an anonymous person is questionable at best, and it’s being questioned as it should be,</p>