<p>And also this: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Too bad their records don’t go back that far. </p>
<p>Despite what has been refuted, it is still possible that Jackie was raped at that house on a different date and that Drew was there but not a member. </p>
<p>However some of her details about the house (e.g. back staircase) don’t match up to the house she identified. So it’s possible she was assaulted at a different house by a different person on a different date. By a person who may or may not have been a member of Wherever-She-Was, Whenever-It-Was. </p>
<p>RS is throwing Jackie under the bus. </p>
<p>This better not be two wrongs by RS…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The guy she named said he’s never met her. </p>
<p>Even her friends from the advocacy group are throwing her under the bus.</p>
<p>“A group of Jackie’s close friends, who are sex assault awareness advocates at U-Va., said they believe something traumatic happened to her, but they also have come to doubt her account. They said details have changed over time, and they have not been able to verify key points of the story in recent days. A name of an alleged attacker that Jackie provided to them for the first time this week, for example, turned out to be similar to the name of a student who belongs to a different fraternity, and no one by that name has been a member of Phi Kappa Psi.”</p>
<p>The bottom line is this story should never have been published. </p>
<p>It is interesting that the woman wanted to back out of the story, and the writer refused to remove her from the story. So she essentially “published” against her will, in a similar sense that the gang of men assaulted her. (not comparing the two offenses for seriousness, just noting the ‘against her will’ aspect)</p>
<p>^^ @TatinG what did you think he’d say? </p>
<p>If the “friend” who pointed out the house was one of the same ones who didn’t want her to report it, then why would she point out the house where it actually happened? Jackie could have been purposely misled. Hopefully the investigation will be thorough and the house with the back staircase, as well as her attackers, will be found. </p>
<p>Right, the cops will search the area for a house with a back staircase because Jackie can’t find it. Sorry, but that’s ridiculous. </p>
<p>What was Jackie’s motivation the last two years? She had been living the life of somebody who was assaulted. For two years! </p>
<p>She wasn’t public either as far as I know. </p>
<p>It sounds like she wasn’t asked to be in the story either.</p>
<p>No. The story as written should not have been published. </p>
<p>If the named guy had in fact dated her, wouldn’t a lot of people know that and know he was lying?. She said he took her to the Boar’s Head Inn that night (a fancy restaurant in Charlottesville). Is there a record of a reservation? A credit card slip? It’s very expensive and small. There would be witnesses.</p>
<p>At this point her credibility on anything is shot. </p>
<p>I don 't remember who I dined with two years ago. I don’t think strangers in a restaurant would remember me… though they should. :)</p>
<p>Dstark, you would remember the first time you dated your wife yes?</p>
<p>If I lived near the UVA campus, I would have no problem walking through 60 houses looking for a staircase. I would walk through for free. </p>
<p>NBC29 is reporting that she has ‘lawyered up’ .</p>
<p>That’s good. She should lawyer up. I do remember the first I went on an official date with my wife. We were friends for two years before that so there is a lot I don’t remember during those two years.</p>
<p>If you dined with your future husband in a small restaurant, and it was two years ago, I wouldn’t remember “you”.</p>
<p>I couldn 't vouch for you.</p>
<p>The one thing that is certain and I’ve always believed is that we have no business “trying” people in the court of journalism. Alleged victims deserve consideration, emotional support but also investigation, many people are messed up before this happens and they are even more messed up after. The accused deserves to be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a judge or jury. I knew the story was sensational and I expressed that I thought it was probably embellished but interesting that another newspaper took the time to do some what sounds like very basic investigation. Unfortunately it’s entirely possible that Jackie had the wrong house, the wrong guy (really?) and the wrong night…but no one is going believe much without some real hard evidence going forward and this is what I feared.</p>
<p>“Dstark, you would remember the first time you dated your wife yes?”</p>
<p>A spouse, yes. A random date? No. That’s not a reasonable expectation that everyone will remember the precise dates on which things occurred. I happen to know the date of my first <em>date</em> with my H because it was a formal and I have pictures from that evening that are time-stamped, but the day that I first met him? I remember meeting him, but I wouldn’t have a clue what day of the week it was and I’m not even sure what month it was, other than in the fall.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
Jackie remembers the location and date. </p>
<p>Well, in this case we were treated to her 3 hour getting ready process, so yeah, that should be one of the memorable ones.</p>