Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

shebolleth

(38 posts)
Sun Apr 5, 2015, 03:12 PM Apr 2015

Author of botched Rolling Stone rape article expected to apologize

Source: CNN

Her tweet from late November reads likes it's in suspended animation, written in the calm before the storm.

"The Washington Post wrote an article about me, and how my UVA article came to be," she tweeted, adding a link to the profile.

Over the next several days, Sabrina Rubin Erdely would be thrust into professional turmoil as her story for Rolling Stone about a bombshell rape allegation at a fraternity house quickly fell apart.

Erdely, a contributing editor at Rolling Stone, has been silent since the magazine apologized in December for significant failures in her reporting.

Read more: http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/05/media/sabrina-rubin-erdely-rolling-stone-virginia/

52 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Author of botched Rolling Stone rape article expected to apologize (Original Post) shebolleth Apr 2015 OP
She should be sued by the frat yeoman6987 Apr 2015 #1
Rolling Stone is going to shell out millions because of this. Calista241 Apr 2015 #2
Meh. Hard to argue that printing somebody's allegation is tortious Recursion Apr 2015 #45
Bad faith is only required for public figures. LisaL Apr 2015 #47
I have no doubt that rape happened. The fact that the reporting was inadequate dolphinsandtuna Apr 2015 #3
You have no doubt? oberliner Apr 2015 #4
Wanting it to be true. Throd Apr 2015 #12
agree with your line of thinking, dolphinsandtuna. hopemountain Apr 2015 #5
OMG. So her friends who supported her in the beginning TexasMommaWithAHat Apr 2015 #10
oh, so twisting my words, now, eh? hopemountain Apr 2015 #17
Her friends did not support her from the beginning ripcord Apr 2015 #44
I worded that badly. Jackie's friends who met with her TexasMommaWithAHat Apr 2015 #48
This woman never reported it to police. LisaL Apr 2015 #21
not reporting a rape does not mean it did hopemountain Apr 2015 #31
And still you haven't presented any evidence that a rape did occur, GGJohn Apr 2015 #32
Okay, so explain who "Haven Monahan" is. Warren DeMontague Apr 2015 #35
The author went looking for a story TexasMommaWithAHat Apr 2015 #40
They couldn't charge her even if they wanted to (not that they would have wanted to). LisaL Apr 2015 #43
It could be tortious, but I cannot imagine the frat suing Jackie Recursion Apr 2015 #46
No, because "Jackie" refused to cooperate TexasMommaWithAHat Apr 2015 #49
This message was self-deleted by its author hopemountain Apr 2015 #51
adding: hopemountain Apr 2015 #52
Oh really? GGJohn Apr 2015 #22
What makes you think that RS didn't dig deeper attempting to find out if the story was true? GGJohn Apr 2015 #25
You have no doubt based on what evidence? eom. GGJohn Apr 2015 #24
This post was hidden by jury decision cosmicone Apr 2015 #6
Why? nt alp227 Apr 2015 #9
Any post questioning any part of a rape story cosmicone Apr 2015 #11
Blaming the victim is freaking insensitive and doesn't belong in a progressive space ever. nt alp227 Apr 2015 #13
What if the "victim" just made up a bunch of shit? Throd Apr 2015 #14
Whether she is a victim is at the center of the debate shebolleth Apr 2015 #15
Well, one side of this "debate" is void of facts, apparently TexasMommaWithAHat Apr 2015 #19
Just who are the victims in this story? LisaL Apr 2015 #16
What evidence leads you to believe she's a victim? eom. GGJohn Apr 2015 #23
Not talking about the Jackie from rolling stone articles alp227 Apr 2015 #26
Ahhh, ok, my mistake and apology. eom GGJohn Apr 2015 #28
Asking questions is not blaming ... cosmicone Apr 2015 #34
The problem I have is with people who use "disagreement" as an excuse to promote bigotry. alp227 Apr 2015 #38
The problem with that line of thinking is that cosmicone Apr 2015 #39
As it turned out, the victim is actually the victim of the "victim." Psephos Apr 2015 #42
And to prove your point SickOfTheOnePct Apr 2015 #18
lol n/t cosmicone Apr 2015 #30
Oh my god, are you serious about your Cosby question? wheniwasincongress Apr 2015 #20
No one is blaming the victims cosmicone Apr 2015 #29
Gee I don't know wheniwasincongress Apr 2015 #33
Are you resorting to personal attacks now with calling me a troll? n/t cosmicone Apr 2015 #36
I was going to say wheniwasincongress Apr 2015 #37
You are letting personal feelings interfere with your judgment cosmicone Apr 2015 #41
Maybe she can hire Mike Nifong as her attorney, to help her draft the apology bluestateguy Apr 2015 #7
Nifong is disbarred. nt alp227 Apr 2015 #8
I think it was meant as sarcasm. eom. GGJohn Apr 2015 #27
like Zimmerman or Crystal Mangum people like this simply do not stop MisterP Apr 2015 #50
 

yeoman6987

(14,449 posts)
1. She should be sued by the frat
Sun Apr 5, 2015, 03:40 PM
Apr 2015

I think they went through heck with her reckless reporting and lies. At least she should be very sorry and not release a faky apology.

Calista241

(5,586 posts)
2. Rolling Stone is going to shell out millions because of this.
Sun Apr 5, 2015, 03:48 PM
Apr 2015

They published this story without doing basic background research, or even interviewing anyone else of any consequence to the story. The level of incompetence is simply stunning, and they will be liable for that.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
45. Meh. Hard to argue that printing somebody's allegation is tortious
Mon Apr 6, 2015, 12:18 AM
Apr 2015

Tortious would require bad faith, and RS has been bending over backwards to present themselves as credulous and incompetent rather than malicious.

The frat will be fine. They had, what, a window egged or something, and couldn't hold parties over Christmas break? They'll be fine.

hopemountain

(3,919 posts)
5. agree with your line of thinking, dolphinsandtuna.
Sun Apr 5, 2015, 04:42 PM
Apr 2015

there is coverup here (because history has proven the ease with which rape and assault on women by people with power can be covered up or turned around) and it behooves rolling stone to dig deeper / further and get to the truth. it is there.

TexasMommaWithAHat

(3,212 posts)
10. OMG. So her friends who supported her in the beginning
Sun Apr 5, 2015, 05:50 PM
Apr 2015

are in on the cover up, as well?

Why must you think there is a coverup here? Are you incapable of believing that some women are capable of lying?

The woman is either a liar and mentally disturbed or just a damn liar. I haven't the ability to judge which one.

 

ripcord

(5,553 posts)
44. Her friends did not support her from the beginning
Sun Apr 5, 2015, 11:01 PM
Apr 2015

the reporter didn't even contact them and you would think if she were raped at a party the frat would have at least have had to have hosted a party that night.

TexasMommaWithAHat

(3,212 posts)
48. I worded that badly. Jackie's friends who met with her
Mon Apr 6, 2015, 08:49 AM
Apr 2015

right after the supposed rape took place were "then" supportive of her. The friends who saw Jackie right after.

They later realized that the narrative in Rolling Stone did not fit what they actually saw and spoke out about the inconsistencies. My question was "Are they lying, too?" I don't think so.

I think we agree on this.

LisaL

(45,037 posts)
21. This woman never reported it to police.
Sun Apr 5, 2015, 07:22 PM
Apr 2015

She provided a different name of the supposed "mastermind" to her friends at the time it supposedly took place from the one she provided to Rolling Stones.
Police found no evidence whatsoever to support her story when they investigated it after Rolling Stones article came out.

hopemountain

(3,919 posts)
31. not reporting a rape does not mean it did
Sun Apr 5, 2015, 07:50 PM
Apr 2015

not occur. in addition, there are many possibilities for your other "reasons" why the story is faulted. and yes, there may be faults to the "story" - but a rape may still have occurred.

but you can ask yourself these questions - why did the writer of the story and rolling stone find the story believable? what would point to a woman being raped and then providing a different name? why would the "story" be mixed up? why would the police not find any "evidence" to support the story?

from my own past experience i believe a rape occurred.

GGJohn

(9,951 posts)
32. And still you haven't presented any evidence that a rape did occur,
Sun Apr 5, 2015, 08:09 PM
Apr 2015

the police couldn't find any evidence to support her accusation, RS, I'm quite sure, dug even deeper to see if "Jackie's" story was true and apparently came to the conclusion that it was bullshit.

So, again, other than your past experience, what evidence do you have that a rape actually took place?

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
35. Okay, so explain who "Haven Monahan" is.
Sun Apr 5, 2015, 08:13 PM
Apr 2015

Because I can tell you. He's a made-up guy who never existed, who she exchanged fabricated "texts" with that she showed to her friends (including the one she was romantically interested in, who did not reciprocate the interest).. The pictures of "Haven Monahan" were pictures of some random guy she had gone to high school with, taken off social media, that she showed to her friends as "hey here is this guy who is interested in me"

The night the assault allegedly occurred, she said she went on a date, a date with a guy no one else saw, a date with (she said at the time) "Haven Monahan".

That is who she claimed assaulted her. The guy she invented out of whole cloth. BEFORE the attack allegedly occurred, so so much for "misremembering the details of an attack".

I'm sorry, but the story isn't true. There's hardly any logically consistent narrative by which it could be true. The only explanation that makes sense is, she invented the incident, like she invented the imaginary date, to get the attn of the guy who didn't like her back. Odds are, the story snowballed beyond her control, to the point where Rolling Stone got involved. I don't think it was deliberate deception all the way down.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/16/us/uva-rape/index.html?sr=fb121614uvarapestory10pVODtopLink

Duffin said Jackie was much more interested in him than he in her. He said he was happy when Jackie told friends that an upperclassman in her chemistry class asked her on a date.

Duffin and Stock decided to learn more about the upperclassman and check to "see if he's OK," Duffin said. Jackie gave them the phone number for the man, whom she identified as Haven Monahan.

Stock and Duffin said they sent him text messages and pretended to be another student from chemistry class. Monahan purportedly texted back, saying of Jackie, "I really like her," and describing her as "super smart .. hot" and liking the same music as he. At one point, he even sent a photo of himself.

Duffin never suspected Monahan may not be a real person.


http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/12/everything-we-know-uva-rape-case.html

Jackie's friends shared more details about how they contacted "Drew," the man she claims she was on a date with the night she was raped.

According to the Daily Caller, the name she gave them for the attractive upperclassman who had a crush on her was "Haven Monahan." No one by that name was enrolled on campus, or even lived in the area.

She encouraged them to text him, and eventually they had three different phone numbers for Haven. Research by the Washington Times determined that all three numbers are registered to internet services that allow people to text without a phone number or redirect calls to different numbers.

Ryan Duffin said he received no response when he texted the first number Jackie gave him. Someone identifying himself as Haven contacted him from a different phone, claiming he was using a friend's phone because his wasn't working. Later Haven started texting the friends from a third number, which he said was his BlackBerry. Previously, the Washington Post determined that a photo sent from that number was of one of Jackie's high school classmates, who was not in contact with her at the time and is not named Haven.


http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/19/more-bad-news-for-rolling-stone-jackie-u

We now know the "real" given name of Jackie's date on the evening of her alleged rape, September 28, 2012: Haven Monahan. Jackie claimed that Monahan was an older student who had taken an interest in her. Prior to September 28th, Duffin, Stock, and Hendley had pressed Jackie for details about this mysterious love interest. She gave them several different cell phone numbers for Monahan, and they corresponded with him. He eventually sent a picture of himself. Many of his messages contained not-so-subtle hints that Jackie had (unrequited) feelings for Duffin.

We now know that no one named Haven Monahan attended UVA. The phone numbers aren't even real—they redirect back to an internet service that allows people to send texts without having actual phone numbers. And the picture is of a former high school acquaintance of Jackie's who never attended UVA and spent no time in Charlottesville that year.

This strongly implies, of course, that Jackie sent the messages herself. The Daily Caller's Chuck Ross has gathered compelling evidence—including an interview with Duffin himself—that Jackie may have been trying to make Duffin sympathetic to her or develop feelings for her.

TexasMommaWithAHat

(3,212 posts)
40. The author went looking for a story
Sun Apr 5, 2015, 09:02 PM
Apr 2015

She wanted to write a story on rape culture, and there was Jackie with a claim against a southern, white male fraternity. This was going to be a dynamite story - the facts be damned.

"Journalists" like this need to be stopped. If Jackie had actually named a real person and not just a fraternity, she could have truly destroyed lives.

And because the police don't want to scare real rape victims away, Jackie gets to walk free without even a mention of her real name, when she is clearly the criminal in this story. NOT the victim.

LisaL

(45,037 posts)
43. They couldn't charge her even if they wanted to (not that they would have wanted to).
Sun Apr 5, 2015, 10:37 PM
Apr 2015

It's not illegal to tell friends or a journalist a story (even if the story isn't true). It would only be illegal to tell this to the police.
And "Jackie" never told the story to the police.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
46. It could be tortious, but I cannot imagine the frat suing Jackie
Mon Apr 6, 2015, 12:21 AM
Apr 2015

Even fratboys are not that stupid, and even if they are their lawyers probably aren't. Since WaPo started picking the story apart, Rolling Stone has made a huge deal about very visibly calling themselves credulous and incompetent, because simply being bad at journalism can't get you sued. The frat would need to prove malice, which seems very difficult to prove in this case.

TexasMommaWithAHat

(3,212 posts)
49. No, because "Jackie" refused to cooperate
Mon Apr 6, 2015, 08:53 AM
Apr 2015

Even with all the support she was getting from around the country over the horror of the narrative in Rolling Stone, she refused to speak to the police.

You're right. She can't be charged with falsifying a crime.

Any remedies against her will take place in civil court.

Response to TexasMommaWithAHat (Reply #49)

hopemountain

(3,919 posts)
52. adding:
Mon Apr 6, 2015, 04:23 PM
Apr 2015

consider "jackie" was fearful
consider "jackie" is not completely clear about every piercing detail of what exactly occurred - just knows something happened
consider all of the faces and "names???" are a blur
consider "jackie" has ptsd
consider "jackie" succumbed to the persistence of the rs reporter and put together a story to appease the writer
consider "jackie" can't remember a damn thing but awakened to find herself in physical pain and other evidence of having been raped but does not remember any of it because she was under the influence and blacked out

also, why, why (?) would the wp be so interested in investigating the story in the first place? what would motivate the wp staff to hold a longtime reputable publication on a story about a rape? do they care about the rape survivor or are there other aspects of the story they want to prove or disprove for whatever reason?

how many rapes on this campus or any campus will be reported from here forward - by anyone? how safe will it be for them to report when they cannot remember every specific detail or were to embarrassed, humiliated and afraid to report to an emergency room for a rape kit evidence collection? how many survivors of rape will feel safe or confident enough in their story to report to police?

why don't most victims of sexual rape or sexual abuse report?

because it is not safe. because usually when one is being violated one's survival instinct is to 1. find a way to survive the trauma 2. the most effective way to survive trauma and protect one's self is to make it go away - as though it never happened. 3. keep it a secret.

GGJohn

(9,951 posts)
22. Oh really?
Sun Apr 5, 2015, 07:33 PM
Apr 2015

And what proof is there that this rape actually happened? Are her friends now part of the cover up?
Are the police, who couldn't find any evidence that this happened, part of the cover up?

Ya know, sometimes a lie is just that, a lie.

GGJohn

(9,951 posts)
25. What makes you think that RS didn't dig deeper attempting to find out if the story was true?
Sun Apr 5, 2015, 07:37 PM
Apr 2015

Dollars to donuts they did and came to the truth that "Jackie" lied and now they have egg on their face.

GGJohn

(9,951 posts)
24. You have no doubt based on what evidence? eom.
Sun Apr 5, 2015, 07:35 PM
Apr 2015

The reporting was inadequate? That's the understatement of the year.

 

cosmicone

(11,014 posts)
6. This post was hidden by jury decision
Sun Apr 5, 2015, 04:57 PM
Apr 2015

Yeah ... if you don't want your post hidden, you are hereby requested to state the following:

a. The rape really really really happened (many potential jurors were there remember?) and
b. Everything is being whitewashed in a major coverup conspiracy.

 

cosmicone

(11,014 posts)
11. Any post questioning any part of a rape story
Sun Apr 5, 2015, 05:50 PM
Apr 2015

is hidden by some ultra women's/victims' rights people who don't like any discussion or debate.

I had a post hidden because I questioned why all the women against Bill Cosby were coming forward now when they chose to be silent all these years.

DU's jury system is broken and people simply vote to hide posts that they disagree with rather than checking to see if they violated the TOS.

 

shebolleth

(38 posts)
15. Whether she is a victim is at the center of the debate
Sun Apr 5, 2015, 06:12 PM
Apr 2015

Cosmicone does not agree with your characterization of her as a victim.

alp227

(32,191 posts)
26. Not talking about the Jackie from rolling stone articles
Sun Apr 5, 2015, 07:38 PM
Apr 2015

rather addressing cosmicone's complaints about Bill Cosby related posts getting hidden

 

cosmicone

(11,014 posts)
34. Asking questions is not blaming ...
Sun Apr 5, 2015, 08:12 PM
Apr 2015

One person may disagree with a post but the writer has every right to post it without violating TOS.

We are all sensitive to certain writings and consider them to be insensitive -- that doesn't mean they don't belong on a given board.

If everyone alerted on every post that they disagree with and then voted to hide it, DU will be a very lonely place.

DU has already become an echo-chamber for people of some specific view-points. The jury system the way it is currently implemented will accelerate that process and take away all legitimate dissent.

alp227

(32,191 posts)
38. The problem I have is with people who use "disagreement" as an excuse to promote bigotry.
Sun Apr 5, 2015, 08:44 PM
Apr 2015

"It's just an opinion" "we can all disagree on things" How come people who insist on blaming rape victims or having other bigoted positions fall back on that instead of making an argument why they're right?

 

cosmicone

(11,014 posts)
39. The problem with that line of thinking is that
Sun Apr 5, 2015, 08:59 PM
Apr 2015

one starts seeing every opposition as bigoted when it most probably is not.

The best way I have found is to just state the disagreement rather than try to hide the post. Silencing all opposition is not the goal of DU is it?

I would consider hiding or alerting when there is a personal attack against a member, using one of the known vile words such as the N word or the F word to denigrate LGBT people or something that is so blatantly over the top such as "holocaust is all fabricated" or "there never was any slavery" etc. -- that is when the post must be hidden.

A lot of people disagree with me on DU but it is my personal belief that in order for DU to thrive, we need to make it a big tent with some ideas that are not 100% progressive but close enough and sincere nevertheless.



Psephos

(8,032 posts)
42. As it turned out, the victim is actually the victim of the "victim."
Sun Apr 5, 2015, 09:22 PM
Apr 2015

You are trying to protect someone whose own friends say she fabricated.

wheniwasincongress

(1,307 posts)
20. Oh my god, are you serious about your Cosby question?
Sun Apr 5, 2015, 07:13 PM
Apr 2015

Do you know nothing about sexual assault and the deterrents that prevent victims from speaking up, especially when their assaulter is massively wealthy, famous, and well-loved? I sometimes can't believe some of the things I read on DU sometimes. How backwards.


(and by the way, like a decade and a half ago Cosby was sued by a woman, and there were like 13 other women who were willing to testify to his behavior. But I suspect these silly fact thingies don't really matter to you.)

 

cosmicone

(11,014 posts)
29. No one is blaming the victims
Sun Apr 5, 2015, 07:50 PM
Apr 2015

However, some questions remain. Not all of Cosby's victims were powerless women or who depended upon being in his good graces.

Cosby is scum and I wish he rots in hell. That is not the point. My heart goes out to the victims and if one of them was my daughter or sister, there would be far less smugness on Bill Cosby's face.

I simply wanted a more complete picture from the victims that have come forward.

Asking for additional info doesn't mean one is not believing or blaming the victim.

wheniwasincongress

(1,307 posts)
33. Gee I don't know
Sun Apr 5, 2015, 08:12 PM
Apr 2015

Fear of public humiliation and blame (as you are indeed doing,) fear of financial ruin, lack of legal resources...


(to other DUers, is cosmicone a known troll?)

wheniwasincongress

(1,307 posts)
37. I was going to say
Sun Apr 5, 2015, 08:17 PM
Apr 2015

you're either a troll or a sick puppy

What do you think about the reasons I stated to not have come forward with their allegations earlier? (which women HAD done towards Cosby for years, what do you think about that as well?)

 

cosmicone

(11,014 posts)
41. You are letting personal feelings interfere with your judgment
Sun Apr 5, 2015, 09:03 PM
Apr 2015

What if a certain even more powerful person in hollywood had threatened the victims to not come forward? Wouldn't you want to know if there is an uber enabler to Bill Cosby?

What if Cosby had a partner in assaulting women while they were asleep and leaving before they woke up?

Not all info is "blaming the victim" -- although you seem to have a one-track mind that is incapable of handling multivariate discriminants.

MisterP

(23,730 posts)
50. like Zimmerman or Crystal Mangum people like this simply do not stop
Mon Apr 6, 2015, 03:01 PM
Apr 2015

they're coddled by courts and police to the point of impunity and have hordes of online backers cheering them on as brave, persecuted underdogs who represent everything good and noble in the human race, feeding the confabulation and megalomania

I'm just sayin' her future paramours better sleep with an eye open

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Author of botched Rolling...