You remember “Jackie,” surely, who was featured often in Ethics Alarms posts last year. She is the inexplicably still un-named lying fake rape victim who exploited the sloppy journalism and miserable ethics of man-hating Rolling Stone writer Sabrina Erdley, to create a sensational account of a fraternity gang rape on the University of Virginia campus…that never happened. The resulting article led the UVA president to shut down fraternities, set anti-male feminist pundits and activists into a frenzy of nation-wide victim-mongering, brought down the fires of Hell on the brow of UVA associate dean of students Nicole Eramo, who “Jackie” fingered as an unfeeling villain, and seriously— and, one hopes, permanently— wounded the credibility of Rolling Stone, which ultimately had to retract the whole thing.
No, the gang rape never happened. About that, there is no longer any doubt. No evidence of an assault was ever uncovered, besides “Jackie’s” lies. None of her “facts” could be confirmed, except by the progressive biases—mostly political, as the Obama Administration has been working overtime to represent campus romance as the equivalent of the Rape of the Sabine Women—that allowed the story to progress to publication in the first place.
Now Nicole Eramo is suing Rolling Stone for defamation, alleging that Erdley’s article vilified and harmed her recklessly. Naturally, her lawyers want to depose “Jackie,” since it was “Jackie’s” fiction, never verified by Rolling Stone, that created the false story.
Jackie’s lawyers, however, strongly argued on her behalf that she should not have to testify, since the experience would cause her serious psychological trauma by forcing her to relive the sexual assault—that never happened. She will be “re-victimized,” her lawyers say–remember, this is Jackie’s position; her poor lawyers are the ones she pays to present it without laughing.
This is indeed an unusual Jumbo (“Elephant? What elephant?”) and one of devilish complexity. For by saying she will be re-victimized, Jackie is essentially maintaining still that she was victimized once already, which is the lie that launched a thousand injustices. Unlike Jimmy Durante denying the existence of the elephant he is stealing in the movie “Jumbo,” the Jackie Jumbo Variation maintains that there is an elephant standing right by her even after all efforts to see one have failed. If she was really a victim of sexual assault as she claimed, there would be no lawsuit. She can’t be re-victimized, because she wasn’t a victim in the first place. She victimized others by falsely accusing a student, a dean, a fraternity, a fraternity system, and a university.
But answering questions about the sexual assault that never was will bring back the same trauma that the original non-rape created!
Virginia federal judge Glen E.Conrad on Tuesday rolled his eyes and ruled that Eramo’s lawyers r have up to five hours to depose “Jackie.”
It is about time, by the way, that the news media stopped shielding her from the public humiliation she deserves, publishes her name, and no longer treats her as if she were a real rape victim.
No wonder she’s confused.
22 thoughts on ““Jackie” Scores A Jumbo!”
Jumbo is how LBJ referenced his “manhood.” I thought this would be about a gem of ethics – LBJ.
This is the tip of an iceberg that schools and publications are just starting to grind up against now. For whatever reason… The “Dear Colleague” letter, threat of withheld funding, cowardice, partisan hackery… you take your pick, schools and publications have been tripping over themselves to push the myth of epidemic college rape, and all the trappings thereof.
The iceberg they’re feeling tenderly slap their port bow are lawsuits coming from truly victimized people, mostly men, who were fodder for the kangaroo courts schools felt their duty to conduct and rule on. They destroyed reputations, lives and careers in a near religious zeal to appease feminist harpies. Literally hundreds of cases are flowing through the pipes ready to rip the bottom out of dozens of institutions.
Good. Maybe after enough high profile cases involving fake rape allegations are dragged kicking and screaming into the light of day, we can do away with this “Listen and Believe” rhetoric. Anyone who says “Listen and Believe” like it means something profound should hide their head in a paper bag until the world forgets about them. (IMHO)
Man, everything you write becomes a screed against the,Obama Administration. Maybe you should visit Jackie’s therapist.
Wait, Phil, are you saying that the Obama Administration hasn’t encouraged persecution of male students on flimsy evidence with its “Dear Colleague” letter that banned due process, or that that it’s rude to mention it?
Also, one clause in a 700 word post is hardly a “Screed.” Touchy!
Since the news media encourages denial, somebody has to connect the dots. And I thought I was showing restraint not to mention the absurd Rolling Stone article claiming that this has been a marvelous presidency!
They wrote such an article?
Just for the record, here is the entire “Screed” my friend Phil thinks is unfair:
“None of her “facts” could be confirmed, except by the progressive biases—mostly political, as the Obama Administration has been working overtime to represent campus romance as the equivalent of the Rape of the Sabine Women—that allowed the story to progress to publication in the first place.”
Because I’m not making it up, and the dots do need to be connected, and the Obama apologists continue to encourage airbrushing, denial and amnesia to duck accountability. Why Phil sees himself as an agent of this, I have no earthy idea.
I can’t help but wonder if Jackie might be mentally ill – and I don’t mean personality disorder, I mean hearing voices. Maybe it’s just easier to think that she’s psychologically disturbed then it is to think she’s evil, but I think it’s a possibility.
I think she’s merely stupid, and a product of her generation, identity and biases. I think that she thought the article would better the plight of women on campuses who are being raped at rates similar to women in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (1 in 4) and she was narcissistic enough to want to be a part of it, and didn’t think that any of it would come home to roost.
That last part, by the way, is especially damning if you think of it. She thought that no one would take the time and connect the dots as to whom she was talking about, or ask those people what actually happened. She thought people would “Listen and Believe”. She took it for granted. People only take for granted things that happen normally. Perhaps if she named fewer names, was a little more vague and a little less sensational, she’d be right.
By the way… Women on campuses are NOT being raped at levels similar to the DNC, I want to be clear: Women on campuses are less likely than women off campus to be raped, and the ratio off campus is closer to 1 in 30 (Which is still too many, let’s be real, but this is one of those situations where I think the dialogue is better served by the truth.), I was attempting to unpack the mindset of someone who makes up stories like this.
And in before “But HT, think of all the highly publicized cases where people cast huge amounts of doubt on the alleged victims.”
Ok. The two most important words in that sentence are: “Highly Publicized.” The vast majority of rape cases never hit the news, and I think once they do, two things happen: 1) People see the violation of rape as gravely embarrassing, and find it hard to believe that anyone truly victimized like that would go to the lengths some of these people do to collect fame as rape victims. And 2) Rape cases usually become highly publicized when the accused perpetrator has some kind of degree of fame, or has been shot into some kind of degree of fame, at which point cognitive dissonance starts to take hold.
When you look at some of the cases where the accused were not only innocent, but they were obviously innocent, and people still believed they were guilty because as good progressive or feminist sheep, that’s what their job was (I’m lookin’ at you, Duke Lacrosse) it’s hard to come to the conclusion that alleged victims have an uphill battle in belief.
They do have an uphill battle in conviction. It’s hard to prove a rape. It’s hard because unlike killing a person, which is almost always a crime, having sex is almost never a crime, and the only thing that differentiates sex from rape is the mind frame of the victim and the knowledge of that mind frame of the part of the other person. This is unfortunate, it’s true, and it’s why I at least understand the misguided “sex contracts” some universities are trying to roll out: They’re trying to make rape easier to prove. Those efforts are at least legitimately trying to address a legitimate concern, even if I think they’re bound to fail. I can’t think of anything less sexy that filing paperwork before coitus, but that’s just me. I cannot condemn trying to water down due process because rape is hard to convict in strong enough terms. The justice system is predicated on the understanding that it is better for a hundred guilty people to walk free than a single innocent person be convicted, because there is no violation of justice larger than punishing the innocent.
Do you believe strict liability should be the standard?
Why on Earth would they do that? Jesus. Do you even know what that term means?
Or is this maybe a misplaced comment meant for the mine-collapse case? Because that makes more sense and seems something akin to reasonable.
Jack claims to favor strict liability in criminal cases.
The Seventh circuit did not even go that far in Chicago v. Matchmaker, 982 F.2d 1086 (7th Cir. 1992) Matchmaker was a civil case where both compensatory and punitive damages were appealed by the defendant. it is clear from Matchmaker that punitive damages would not arise from a strict liability claim.
That’s an over generalization of what I’ve written.
>A product of her generation
Let’s leave inter-generational politics out of this. It’s incorrect, unproductive, and contributes to the further fragmentation of this country by setting one age group against another – as if we don’t already have enough things dividing us.
Aside from that… You may be right. We can’t actually know, and I guess it doesn’t really matter to anyone but her and hers, why exactly she did this.
Seems to me that this is a case of, “This is my story, and I’m sticking to it.”
Plus, it has the “virtue” of both consistency and feeding the biases of the audience she hopes to convince. I doubt it was hard to find lawyers willing to put it forward, given what we have seen over the years, but I bet it was hard to find ones that wouldn’t roll their eyes in private. 🙂
Jack said, “…her poor lawyers are the ones she pays to present it without laughing.”
What the lawyers are doing by presenting her nonsense “without laughing” is exactly why some lawyers give a bad name to lawyers in general. How ethical is it in the world of lawyers to knowingly present complete nonsense?
P.S. Many years ago while going through a divorce that was anything but routine, my soon to be X-Wife was dumped by no less than 5 ethical lawyers because of her continuous blatant lies; she ended up finding a well deserved bonehead for her sixth lawyer who must have believed her blatant lies who then proceeded to made them both look like the blithering idiots in court.
A lawyer can’t assert what is untrue as fact. A lawyer can and MUST put the best spin on the facts and focus attention on any possible defense a client might have, including the client’s own claims, which is most cases the lawyer cannot “know” are false, even if he or she is pretty sure they are.
Regarding laughing, I was thinking of the recent revived controversy over Hillary’s taped reminiscence about her defense of an accused rapist, where she is heard laughing about how obviously guilty he was and yet that he passed a polygraph.
My niece went on and on at a dinner (before she graduated) about sexual abuse of women on her college campus, and opined that the accusation alone was enough for the administration to take action against the supposed abuser. I was astonished. When asked why the victims didn’t call the police and just charge the guy with rape, the answer became rather convoluted, including the fact that most involved alcohol abuse, etc., and that police involvement would ruin the young woman’s reputation and life. No thought at all about ruining the young man’s reputation and life. Amazing.
(In the course of this conversation I learned that this well-respected institution of higher learning not only allowed alcohol at official campus functions, but also paid for it part of the time! An undergraduate campus in a state with a drinking age of 21. What’s wrong here? There must be some institutional responsibility for a bunch of drunken students having problems with accusations of sexual abuse…)