@Bay, Jackie did talk to the Charlottesville police, and it appears that she did make at least one false statement, though it doesn’t seem that the police have any intention in prosecuting her.
This is from the transcript of the press conference held by Charlottesville Police Chief Tim Longo on March 23. It’s a long quote, but I think it’s quite interesting to note the degree of interaction between Jackie and both at UVA and at the Charlottesville police department, a full 7 months before the Rolling Stone article broke.
I think two individuals with just cause to sue Rolling Stone would be Allen Groves, Dean of Students, and Nicole Eramo, Assistant Dean of Students. Both were identified by name in the Rolling Stone article. According to the Columbia report, Groves' "public statements were mischaracterized in the Rolling Stone article." And "In an email provided by her lawyers, the dean (Eramo) wrote that the article falsely attributes to her statements she never made (to Jackie or otherwise)"
According to WaPo’s Volohk “If those statements are indeed false, then they may be seen as defamatory and thus potentially libelous.”
I'm puzzled by Columbia's meek response to the stonewalling they received from Rolling Stone's legal team. The report says that
Since Rolling Stone promised to allow Columbia access to anything and everything, they should have allowed Krodel to share what legal advice she provided to the editors prior to the UVA article’s publication. In light of the potential lawsuits, it’s understandable why the lawyers have clammed up, but it’s hardly the total transparency that Jann Wenner promised. I think Columbia could have pushed back harder on this issue.
Lastly, my favorite title so far is "Rolling Stone Gathers No Facts" by Steven Hayward.
Frankly I doubt very much that Rolling Stone cares a flying fish whether some one like me – old, middle road – finds fault with their journalistic ethics. That they’ve got me riled up must actually score bonus points with their target demographic.
@CaliCash, which schools are these? My understanding is that a school may use the label “non consensual penetration” instead of “rape” in order to be more precise and all-inclusive, not that they have two separate categories, but I may be incorrect on this.
Jackie might be named as a defendant in a libel suit, not to get her to pay damages, she likely has no assets, but to compel her testimony in court. Easier to get a defendant to give a deposition or testimony than to subpoena her as a witness. And although she has no money now a judgment against her can be renewed and kept on the books so to speak until such time as she has assets.
I don’t see the benefits to suing Jackie. Presumably she’s been separated from UVa permanently and presumably her parents have her in some sort of mental health treatment I don’t think anyone, including a judge, could believe much of anything she says at this point. If anything she’s a poster child for why it is so very wrong to believe any story unquestioningly.
From a journalistic point of view, it doesn’t matter what Rolling Stone’s lawyers told them about the article. The problem here is way before the lawyers. The story should never have even reached the lawyers.
The story was unsubstantiated and untrue. Even if there were no legal liability, it still shouldn’t have been published.
As a matter of curiosity, I’d be interested to know what the lawyers told Rolling Stone, but their job is to protect Rolling Stone, nobody else.
I was just reading about the case in which the artist Whistler sued the critic Ruskin for defamation. Whistler won the suit, and was awarded…one farthing. Both parties had to absorb their own legal costs, and Whistler went bankrupt as a result.
I think this is a risk for the fraternity in this case. Probably they wanted the publicity of suing, and they’ll settle for a nominal amount in a couple of months.
Thanks for the search tip. I googled her and a name popped up. It’s still puzzling that none of the major news outlets are identifying her. Why are they protecting her?
They’re protecting her because she didn’t publish this story. Rolling Stone did. Lots of fabulists tells stories to reporters. It’s the reporter’s job to substantiate stories before putting them into print.
Perhaps there are some chapter alums who are practicing attorneys who will litigate the case for costs only. The vast majority of civil cases settle, so this one probably will too. Aside from personal damages, there seems to be some social utility in bringing it, so hope they do.
What’s the point? What does it add to your knowledge to know what her last name is? It’s easy to find online.
My heart breaks for this poor girl, as I do believe something awful DID happen to her, and she didn’t have the emotional resources to get the right kind of help / support.
I don’t see any lack of emotional resources for her. She had friends she felt comfortable sharing with, she talked to her mom, she talked to UVA’s dean and rape crisis resource center personnel, and the police. She sounds like a pathological liar to me.
The parents have a much better idea of what transpired here than any of us do. Her father made a statement a few months back that she was in fact raped. The latest statement coming either from the family or her attorney is that “it is not in her best interests to make any statement at this time.” It seems to me there is still more to this story.
I have no problem with Rolling Stone being sued. Clearly they did not do their due diligence and others suffered because of that lapse. They should be held accountable for that.
Heck, from the nominal amount they will buy a couple of kegs and “other stuff” and then give the rest to charity as they purport to do all the time.
PS I don’t think they have a real shot at something else than a quick settlement. The valuation of the damages should be extremely low. Hard to tarnish the reputation of a fraternity more than it is.
How? They have no legal standing, and AFAIK even the courts cannot compel an attorney to broach attorney-client privilege. They did as much as they could do by clearly reporting that the lawyers wouldn’t talk to them, and the reason cited.
The client (Rolling Stone) is free to disclose what their attorneys told them, however. Attorney-client privilege doesn’t bind the client.
But it doesn’t matter. Whether the attorneys said “Don’t publish, you idiots, you’ll get sued six ways from Sunday” or “You are in no legal jeopardy if you publish” is immaterial. It was Rolling Stone’s decision to publish the article without vetting it. The responsibility is Rolling Stone’s.