<p>She named the restaurant that she dined in with “Drew” before he took her to the house. The Boars Head or something like that. That should be easily verifiable either by the restaurant or perhaps by Drew’s credit card records.</p>
<p>Also could be she saw a bunch of people drinking and carrying on that Saturday night in whatever house she was in, and labeled it a “party” when it was not. I do believe something happened to the girl but agree that RS should have done more checking before naming the fraternity in the article. Other than that, I am not sure what they are apologizing for as the girl stands by her story.</p>
<p>She stands by her story but we still don’t know what her story is and what the reporter added for dramatic effect. RS probably doesn’t know either. But they know they have a problem.</p>
<p>My wife and I disagree on the first time we met, and the first time we talked. Our first real date was pretty memorable, but I would have to look at a calendar even to guess at the exact day, and I would still probably be guessing between a couple of weekends. </p>
<p>I would think someone would have no trouble remembering the day she was gang raped and her life destroyed, or the guy who she believed set her up. I don’t have a hard time believing that she might be mistaken about which fraternity house she was in, and which Greek letters were on the wall, especially when she says she knows which one it was because a friend told her some months later. I also don’t have a hard time believing that the guy might lie about knowing her, under the circumstances.</p>
<p>It’s awful that Erdeley and Rolling Stone screwed up so badly here. It’s horrible if the whole story is a fabrication – which seems really unlikely to me, but not impossible – and it’s even more horrible if the whole story is essentially true except for some mistaken details that could have been cleared up but weren’t.</p>
<p>There were alot of questions about this story among the greek community. It was just so unbelievable. Because fraternities don’t work like this. The number one thing that was noticed was that fraternities at UVA weren’t allowed to recruit/have pledges during the time of the rape. The pledge process is confusing, but they wouldn’t have even been considered pledges yet. Which is why the “ritual” makes no sense. You can’t do a ritual with an uninitiated person. It just doesn’t add up recruitment/pledging wise.</p>
<p>Krillies, of course Jackie remembers the date. I am saying the others who ate in the same restaurant at the same aren’t going to remember her or be able to vouch for her. </p>
<p>Jackie’s story about three friends who met her after the rape and her roommate would be logical places to start investigating. </p>
<p>I disagree, TransferGopher. Many of the hazing ‘rituals’ of the past were for pledges to perform before they were eligible for initiation. Many of the deaths that have occurred have been of pledges who were drinking too much, left in a field to find their way home, painted, etc. as part of their pledge period. Since there are no fall pledges at UVA, no one was checking off any boxes, formal or informal, leading to initiation on Sept 28.</p>
<p>It’s not true that there are never pledges in the fall at UVA fraternities. They just can’t be freshmen. It may be that Phi Psi usually didn’t pledge upperclassmen, but fall pledging of upperclassmen is possible.</p>
<p>Twoinanddone - I think what TransferGopher is saying is that there were no actual pledges who needed to “prove themselves” somehow prior to being initiated. If UVA has a winter rush, then they get their new crop of pledges in January and then after that would be when any prove-yourself types of activities would start to take place. </p>
<p>IOW, you don’t take guys who are merely attending your parties and ask them to “prove themselves.” You take guys who have already pledged and ask them to “prove themselves.” (Of course, it goes without saying that this should be done with things that are of no consequence, like wearing a tie on Tuesday or running errands for the brothers or memorizing silly facts or making up nicknames or whatever.)</p>
<p>Either way, it’s terrible – either a terrible thing occurred to Jackie and she might have mixed up dates and houses, or she’s a sadly very disturbed person if it’s all imagination. No one wins with any outcome. </p>
<p>The Boar’s Head is a nice hotel / restaurant in Charlottesville. (Since someone asked upthread.) It would be a nice place to take a date to – and a reason to suspect the date was going well and that this was a boy who was interested in you.</p>
The troubling thing is when some of us posted to please wait for the facts first before throwing darts at the alleged seven deadly pigs, we were questioned why we didn’t believe the story hook, line and sinker. </p>
<p>“The troubling thing is when some of us posted to please wait for the facts first before throwing darts at the alleged seven deadly pigs, we were questioned why we didn’t believe the story hook, line and sinker.”</p>
<p>Because even if they weren’t guilty of this, frat guys must be guilty of something. Smearing their names and false accusations are not a high priority action to avoid.</p>
<p>And yet it was OK to talk to a national media outlet and slander an entire fraternity and make her “friends” look like stupid idiots yet not think that anyone was going to verify her story? Come on, it’s not “tearing someone apart”, you can not accuse people of something heinous and not expect that people are going to challenge what you say so make sure you walk the talk. I believe she was sexually assaulted - could she possibly believe that it was not rape-rape so made some stuff up? Thank goodness she’s got a lawyer now. </p>
<p>I think she was manipulated by a writer with an agenda and I believe something happened to her but it wasn’t the story in the magazine. And, the writer and the magazine have a bigger problem than the anonymous girl named Jackie. </p>
<p>Who? I think the fraternity itself could sue. The article made the whole place look like gang rape central, accused the frat of having a rape hazing ritual and accused half of its members of being participants.</p>
<p>Negligence? That the WaPo was able to interview people and cut down the Rolling Stone’s story pretty quickly shows negligence of RS. i.e. it wasn’t hard to get the facts if they’d only tried. Simple things just don’t check out. For example, the house has no back staircase, the one Jackie claims she came down from afterwards. Rolling Stone admits that its writer didn’t even do the basics of fact checking just relied on one source. </p>
<p>Damages? Accusing someone or a group of a crime is slander per se. </p>
<p>Truth is a defense but with her credibility shredded and that she’s not sure where this happened and named someone that even her friends don’t believe, that could be a tough sell. Even RS is throwing her under the bus saying our belief in her truthfulness was misplaced. </p>
<p>So yes, Jackie (judgment proof) could be sued. Rolling Stone, it’s editors, its corporate owners, the author all could be sued. </p>
<p>Yes, RS is in deep doo-doo,but now whether Jackie likes it or not she has claimed a rape by a UVa student in national media and the university has turned it over to a private investigative team and the police. Over time the facts as can be ascertained will emerge. She has some degree of ethical obligation now. If she wanted to keep this personal, confidential and not drag accusers into it, she took a 360 degree turn from keeping her story confidential to “telling her side” in national media and you know what happens in a 360 degree turn - you end up right back where you started. </p>