<p>Well, I already knew all of that but nobody does anything if the alleged victim just wants a shoulder to cry on and nothing more. That’s what she wanted. Nothing. And, that’s what she got. Also, the investigation into the fake texts is turning up fake texts thus far. I do feel sorry for this girl, though. She wasn’t counting on an official investigation and having one may not do her credibility any favors. The old HS classmates photo and the texting with nobody who exists is a big problematic turning point. Until then I thought something probably happened. Now, I don’t know anymore. Her lack of co-operation even now speaks volumes, though.</p>
<p>Jackie can’t win now. She may have made up the whole thing. She can’t win if she didn’t make up the whole thing.</p>
<p>When and where did the story that Jackie told the asst dean about the 5 guys become public?</p>
<p>When and where did the story come out that the asst dean told the president in Sept?</p>
<p>The dean was noted in the RS story and right after that she issued a statement saying that printed version of the episode was different from the story she was told about the event. I assumed that was the oral sex and opposed to gang rape part. Also, the UVA rape victim advocate that referred Jackie to RS works for the dean so it wasn’t a secret in that office. I don’t know about the president but by then everybody knew they were about to be a national news story and Jackie wanted out. She was reportedly extremely upset when the writer said no deal.</p>
<p>I guess I will just add that if the story is true about the president and asst dean, that is the big story.</p>
<p>This excuse doesn’t work. As you know…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There has to be an investigation whether what you said is true or false. The accusation is too big. Can you imagine if what Jackie told the asst dean was true and the school did nothing and somebody else was assaulted in the same way? </p>
<p>I would sue for so much money, the school would be my school. ;)</p>
<p>I am speculating…I don’t know what happened. </p>
<p>The president better have known about this before Sept of this year. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then you knew wrong. Read the Amherst guidelines that LF posted: they are explicit that if someone comes with a complaint, the administration does not have to keep it confidential if in their judgment other students might be at risk. </p>
<p>Here’s [the</a> story:](<a href=“http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/local/uva/uva-officials-were-aware-of-sexual-assault-allegations-two-months/article_38273862-84c8-11e4-96d8-a32f18fad49b.html]the”>UVa officials were aware of sexual assault allegations two months before Rolling Stone controversy)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If this is true, UVa is run by idiots. There’s no defense for Erdley’s reckless irresponsibility, but UVa could have investigated, discovered all the inconsistencies and loopholes that have been discovered, told Rolling Stone about them and quashed the story. And everyone – the college, the fraternity, us – would have been better off. </p>
<p>I have speculated quite a bit.</p>
<p>That daily progress story better be false or the school better have information they haven’t released.</p>
<p>I agree with CF.</p>
<p>Could they, or is there some privacy rule that forbids them doing that, though? I would bet they have information they haven’t released. Otherwise, I agree they are idiots. I mean, a simple asking for a name would have sufficed if the goal was to protect other students. And, there should be an answer to that question. Who is Drew? </p>
<p>Usually when I read about stories like this, I use Fang’s Razor: people are not idiots. Rolling Stone is not run by idiots, I thought to myself, so they wouldn’t have published a story like the UVa story without doing some basic fact checking. Otherwise, I thought to myself, they’d be setting themselves up for the biggest defamation suit in the world if the story didn’t pan out. </p>
<p>Fang’s Razor is a pretty good guideline, but sometimes it fails me.</p>
<p>Won’t know who Drew is without an investigation. Good thing the Jackie story looks false for UVA. Otherwise, heads are going to roll into the gutter.</p>
<p>Edit: heads may still roll.</p>
<p>By the way, oral sex by multiple guys against an unwilling gal is gang rape.</p>
<p>This shocked me. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>CNN’s Don Lemon suggests biting. But, that was about Bill Cosby.</p>
<p>That’s a way to end up with a broken skull.</p>
<p>I am confused. I thought the RS article claimed that Jackie went to Eramo in Spring of her fisherman year. Is that not correct but did not want to pursue an investigation. Is this article saying that no one in charge at UVA knew until this September? </p>
<p>My personal hunch - given that Jackie’s friends clearly corroborated the oral - that that is the truth. Who knows if Jackie embellished it for Erdeley or Erdeley embellished it herself. But I bet UVA knows what the original accusations are. </p>
<p>Article on possible legislation to have colleges put any disciplinary actions placed on transcripts so a student found responsible for sexual assault will not be able to transfer schools so easily:</p>
<p><a href=“Lawmakers Consider How To Address Sexual Assault Offenders Transferring Colleges | HuffPost College”>Lawmakers Consider How To Address Sexual Assault Offenders Transferring Colleges | HuffPost College;
<p>"In some cases, as HuffPost reported, schools have changed a student’s record to remove expulsion in order to help the student get into another college after being found responsible for sexual assault.</p>
<p>Following HuffPost’s reports, Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) said she plans to introduce legislation making it clear that schools are allowed to share information about sexual misconduct punishments, despite current federal privacy law. The legislation is still being drafted, according to her office staff."</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I understand it, that’s what the guys at William Paterson are charged with, and everyone’s calling that an alleged gang rape.</p>
<p>If oral sex vs intercourse was the only discrepancy in Jackie’s story, to me that would be an inconsequential difference. A group of guys forcing someone to have oral sex with them is a serious crime. Whether Jackie’s friends supported her going to the cops is also immaterial to the charge, though Erdley should have checked with the friends. But as I understand it, there are at other serious discrepancies in Jackie’s story.</p>
<p>Well, the group of guys in Jackie’s story cannot be found which may be because they don’t exist which is looking more and more likely but either way she did nothing to help anyone find them and refused to even file a complaint after talking to the dean which was somewhere between months and a year later according to various news sources. Those are the biggest differences. The WP victim immediately called the cops. Also, just for the record the charges in the WP case are aggravated sexual assault and kidnapping. . </p>
<p>Marie1234, Jackie’s accusations were felonies. Forget Jackie. You don’t think The school has an obligation to investigate felonies or turn this over to police? This wasn’t some guy touching her butt as she walked by. (I don’t like that too much either).</p>
<p>This was a potential crime against the state. There could be gang rapers living in a community of college students. </p>
<p>Whether the accused can be found two years after the fact is not relevant.</p>
<p>Right now schools are not mandatory reporters because the students are called adults. . </p>
<p>If a school did nothing after a student reported a gang rape, and another gang rape occured, what would happen? </p>