<p>That’s the Savannah Dietrich case, but you linked an old article. All charges were subsequently dropped against Dietrich, and the court proceedings opened to public view. </p>
<p>I have a lot of admiration for Savannah Dietrich, whom we have discussed on other threads in the past, but I don’t think she should be pulled into this one. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I venture that you are wrong here.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Rapist is a felony term applied to someone convicted of rape; no one has been convicted here. </p></li>
<li><p>The 1st Amendment has to do with government controlling speech and does not apply to the individual citizen. A citizen does not have the right to publicly say anything they want about another citizen. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Do you think I have the right to go around telling people you are a pedophile, even though you have never been convicted as one? What would you do, sue me for slander or just take it as I drag your name through the mud all over national media? Let me guess - you will get a bevy of lawyers.</p>
<p>Bottom line, if Jackie cannot back up her story and certain males have now been labeled as rapists because of her, yes, there are juries who will convict her of slander because it is and she should be convicted if that is the case.</p>
<p>Will Dana… What are you doing?</p>
<p><a href=“'Rolling Stone' Says Trust In Gang-Rape Accuser Was 'Misplaced' : The Two-Way : NPR”>'Rolling Stone' Says Trust In Gang-Rape Accuser Was 'Misplaced' : The Two-Way : NPR;
<p>This stinks. The failure was the so-called reporter and the magazine’s misplaced trust in her. A source lied. So what? Their job is to check facts or add attribution. This is really not difficult.</p>
<p>I would like to know what Jackie told the dean when she first reported what happened.</p>
<p>That may never happen.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not, but a gang rape story sells so well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is it not possible that after thoroughly scrutinizing the reporter’s notes and records that RS realizes too that Jackie was also not telling the whole truth, if any truth? I have this inclination the end result will be there was some serious lying on someone’s part.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yup. Likely Jackie’s. </p>
<p>The problem with truth is that it is like herpes. It always outs itself.</p>
<p>Well…there is lying…</p>
<p>What happens if there are ten material facts and it turns out somebody lied sbout three? The seven are important.</p>
<p>Is that somebody discredited?</p>
<p>In the Hobart and Smith case, the accused lied and changed their stories twice. Yet, they still won the case.</p>
<p>My parents taught me that one material lie is like a drop of urine in a glass of milk. No one is going to drink the glass afterwards.</p>
<p>OK, here is morbid thought, but a real one nonetheless. Part of me would would like the story and allegations to be true to avoid the negative aspects of everything, which we are discussing here. A lie causes untold damage across the board.</p>
<p>But then, the other part of me is hoping it is not true, as I would wish that on no female. </p>
<p>What a no-win situation - inside my brain, at least.</p>
<p>
No. But people feel better thinking this is so. There are a lot of rapists running free.</p>
<p>There was a gang bang at the same fraternity 30 years ago. Three guys. One guy wrote a letter to the victim after 20 years apologizing. He got 6 months. What happened to the other two guys?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yup. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If people want to buy gang rape stories (as you stated) then can you really fault RS for selling it?</p>
<p>UVa administration owes this fraternity an apology for their rush to judgment. Faculty marched in protest. Did none, not even the law faculty who are trained to look at cases analytically, question this? </p>
<p>There are gang bang rapes. </p>
<p>There are rapists running free. I know somebody who was drugged and raped. The rapist is out there somewhere. I doubt he just raped once.</p>
<p>Then the story must have resonated with you, and through association your immediately accepted it as truth. And now it is outed as a lie and you are still trying to hang in there.</p>
<p>Let go. </p>
<p>It would not have been hard to stick a few according to Jackie’s in there so my guess is that there’s a reason they were missing, if that makes sense. A single-source accusatory piece is bad enough, some of this seems to be fiction. That’s worse.</p>
<p>dstark gets it, I think. </p>
<p>The story resonated with me. I did buy the story. </p>
<p>I have no idea what happened.</p>
<p>I can 't let it go. When the story came out, others said they were raped. </p>
<p>Even if Jackie’s story is false in every way…others were raped. </p>