<p>I think part of the problem with whether or not there is an investigation is semantics. I could see how someone would refer to current events as an investigation even if what it really was was trying to make a determination if they need to open an official investigation. At least that was my impression of the nuanced wording I have read in a couple of reports. </p>
<p>It is just semantics. The cops are doing an “inquiry”. They are “looking into” the situation. They are not yet doing an official “investigation”. </p>
<p>Mostly because at this point they have no report, no victim, no witnesses and no evidence. Pretty hard to lauch a full monty police investigation based on a press article and nothing more.</p>
<p>The police are not going to be able to do much unless/until Jackie officially steps forward. No indication so far that she will step forward. No indication so far that her agenda is to have her case adjudicated in the criminal justice system. But she really should go ahead and get on with doing that.</p>
<p>The dozens of people alleged to be involved here are very easily identified. Most actually have already been identified, so I’m actually surprised they all haven’t been outed yet on social media. Jackie’s story is going to be vetted publicly, probably sooner rather than later. </p>
<p>Given the nature of her story and the number of people involved, it is completely unrealistic to think that you can talk to Rolling Stone and the Wash Post (using her real name fyi!!) and keep it all hush hush.</p>
<p>There is something odd in that she will talk to very public media outlets and create a nationwide controversy but won’t talk to the police. People already know who she is. RS didn’t analyze her information or subject it to any sort of critical scrutiny, but the police would have to. As I said before, she cannot name a fraternity and create suspicion of a crime of the most heinous sort on a group of individuals in a national magazine and then not back it up with going to the police. </p>
<p>quit jumping the gun. She’d be a total fool not to lawyer up before she gets into this.</p>
<p>Also, frankly, she’s probably working on some sort of strategy with her therapist on how to deal with this emotionally.</p>
<p>The school would be acting entirely differently if they didn’t already have information regarding this case. But, Jackie needs to make sure she’s ready for this. It’s going to be a trial about her. Look at the way you guys are already talking.</p>
<p>It’s been a week. </p>
<p>“The cops are doing an “inquiry”. They are “looking into” the situation.”</p>
<p>That may be true, but both of those phrases still give the impression that they are doing something or anticipate doing something. That is why it is hard for me to believe that they are doing nothing currently, and don’t plan to do anything in the future. Doing nothing is not “doing an inquiry” and it is not “looking into the situation.” It is simply doing nothing. Then they should have said, “We are doing nothing.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The college may very well be looking into things, but in my opinion it sounds like the local police are probably not unless some one comes forward and presses charges. The Police spokesperson opened the door slightly when he said “in most cases, a formal investigation”…the “in most cases” gives the impression that they potentially could step in and assist. The colleges has an independent organization investigating on their behalf. </p>
<p>And I agree, hopefully a lawyer has stepped up to represent the her and that her family is supportive of the interview she did and what will now begin the criminal investigation. </p>
<p><a href=“http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-28/o-melveny-to-investigate-uva-rape-claims-business-of-law.html”>http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-28/o-melveny-to-investigate-uva-rape-claims-business-of-law.html</a></p>
<p>My heart breaks for Jackie and all that she has endured, and the thought of “pushing” a young woman who has endured this to the scrutiny of the police and pressing charges and so forth is horrifying … But I just don’t know how this can ever be dealt with unless young women go to the police / hospital immediately. Because once you’ve taken that shower, once time has passed, it can’t help but become a version of “he said she said.” </p>
<p>From the above link…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Regarding mandated reporting for all rape cases and those that think this is an answer: (As I’ve already mentioned in another similar thread) I spent many years investigating sexual abuse cases along with the police. Victims of rape often feel powerless and mourn that loss of control. Putting a victim in charge of how to proceed is an important step towards allowing them to regain that power. </p>
<p>Some rape victims aren’t ready to move forward immediately but after counseling decide to go forward with an investigation. Sometimes this takes time to get to that point in recovery. Others never want to face their rapist - and forcing them to do so would be counterproductive for them. Then there are other victims that find moving forward with the court system part of their recovery and do so willingly. But part of the whole recovery process is giving the victim the power to make that decision themselves.</p>
<p>Without getting into the many separate issues of a police investigation, court prosecution process, etc., I have no doubt that if there were mandated reporting laws for all rape victims, many would not move forward to get the medical or mental health support they need. While there clearly needs to be a change, it would do a real disservice to rape victims to have a cross the board mandated reporting policy.</p>
<p>I specifically worked with child abuse investigations and we do have a mandated reporting policy. (for all the reasons you all know about already). I have seen many times firsthand with older adolescents the recanting and backing away from a disclosure once they found out that the case would automatically be reported to the police.</p>
<p>So was Jackie’s. You were saying that other confirmation was needed and I am saying it wasn’t. </p>
<p>This is probably to nuanced to make clear on here but the problem with the writing style used in this piece is that you can’t tell what is attributed and what is not and the only attribution is to anonymous sources and advocates including one extremely discredited advocate so no it’s not journalism. Imagine it was a political expose or something and it was just one anonymous person slinging charges about an event and a few people who weren’t there and are also anonymous throwing in their two cents summed up by an advocate or two saying that stinks. It wouldn’t be published.</p>
<p>I’m not saying other confirmation is always needed. It’s perfectly fine to tell one person’s story. But, in this situation chunks of it are reported as fact without the Jackie says part. And even Jackie has said that she didn’t say all of it. No, it’s not okay. And, it’s probably true something but not everything in the piece happened and I do think that will become known. And, really how likely is it that she found the one girl who had the situation that hit every mark she wanted to touch on in her rape story which kind of creeps me out as a concept, anyway. But, that’s advocacy not journalism.</p>
<p>I support a woman’s right to not do anything, but then there has to be separation between any counseling at a university and the Title IX office. If you make a decision to keep it confidential it stays confidential covered by FERPA or HIPPA or whatever we need to keep confidential information confidential. But once a student decides to choose an adjudication route - either with the local authorities or with the colleges adjudication and i do support mandatory reporting at this point - then the wheels are in motion and there are obligations and those inherent risks. Clearly for “Jackie” it’s not over or she would have refrained from telling her story in national media and as I said earlier she has a moral and ethical obligation to all the students at UVa to come forth and follow through. Hopefully she has been well advised through this sequence. </p>
<p>I fear and in my opinion if she does not cooperate with the police now it will set back any small gains that have been made regarding the desires and truthfulness of accusers. </p>
<p>@marie1234 Who is the “extremely discredited advocate”?
Jackie said the RS author embellished her story?</p>
<p>Wendy Murphy </p>
<p>
It is an interesting idea as long as it doesn’t spill over to the general population wherein police can just barge into a room without knocking and identifying themselves.</p>
<p>Marie1234, Wendy Murphy?
So?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. Wendy Murphy lost a lot of credibility for her highly inflammatory and very wrong commentary during the Duke Lacrosse case. Since then she has been very, very quiet until this article.</p>
<p>Marie1234, She isn’t material to this case as you know. </p>
<p>This is the best response from a blog discussing whether the Jackie story is real because some idiot said it “didn’t feel right”:</p>
<p>“I don’t believe that Chicago exists. I have never been there; no one I know has ever been there (except for my friend Jackie who changed planes at O’Hare, but she said it was real snowy so it could have been a different airport covered in white paint); “Chicago” is a funny word and “City of Broad Shoulders” rings real high on the ole bullshit meter, you know? STOP LYING TO AMERICA ABOUT CHICAGO.”</p>
<p>Really. What possible reason would someone have for lying about this? What - fame? Fortune? No one wants that kind of fame and fortune. </p>
<p>RS could have used a campus rape story in which the perp was convicted, found guilty. Why would they use an unproven and now likely unprovable case but for its sheer sensationalism. </p>