Yet another bombastic rape claim bites the dust

[Toni]

And not only here:
HuffPo: Why I Still Believe Rape Survivors by John Foubert who is inexplicably a professor at Oklahoma State.
His position is that if a man denies any rape charges leveled against him he is not a real man. He doesn't even consider the possibility that rape claims might be false.
Another one at WaPo: No matter what Jackie said, we should generally believe rape claims
This article completely dismisses the negative effects on those falsely accused and says that they do not matter, only the accusers do, even if they are lying.
Guardian: Who is Jackie? Rolling Stone's rape story is about a person – and I believe her by Jessica Valenti, the same radical feminist who wants to reverse burden of proof for rape cases.
- - - Updated - - -

\
So, you decided to do the responsible thing and post a clear image?

I do think it is responsible for identity of accusers to be known. Why were the photos removed?

Of course you do: it makes it so much easier to slut shame that way.



The names of the accused rapists do not appear in the articles, either.

 

[Playball40]

Why is an inability to recall specific facts during a traumatic event automatically "lying"? Every single time. (rape victims, shooting witnesses..et al). Wouldn't it seem logical that some details would be off?

 

[repoman]

Good point, if there was no event on September 28 there might have been one a week earlier or later that Jacqueline confused for that date.

An accusation that specific to me gives 3 main possibilities:

1. She was actually forcibly raped or groped by one or more men.
2. She was part of a then willing gangbang, or just sex with one guy.
3. Was not even there and has psychological issues.

I would suggest that it is inherently unsafe now for a man to engage in a gangbang with a woman under 25 or even 30. Even disregarding STDs, I would think that a woman that young doing that may be acting out previous molestation and will have a good chance of viewing the event as rape later. I would even argue that she would have diminished capacity if she was molested previously and the younger she was when it happened the moreso.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Good point, if there was no event on September 28 there might have been one a week earlier or later that Jacqueline confused for that date.

An accusation that specific to me gives 3 main possibilities:

1. She was actually forcibly raped or groped by one or more men.
2. She was part of a then willing gangbang, or just sex with one guy.
3. Was not even there and has psychological issues.

I would suggest that it is inherently unsafe now for a man to engage in a gangbang with a woman under 25 or even 30. Even disregarding STDs, I would think that a woman that young doing that may be acting out previous molestation and will have a good chance of viewing the event as rape later. I would even argue that she would have diminished capacity if she was molested previously and the younger she was when it happened the moreso.

A traumatic event like that and she couldn't remember the date?

The third could be expanded on that she just wanted to try and get a frat house closed and she made up a story since there would be no repercussions to her. Right now it's hard to go back and do anything, however her friends that told her not to go to the hospital could come forward and back her story.

 

[Underseer]

A few weeks ago, Rolling Stone published a rather emotional article detailing a gang rape claim at a UVA fraternity.
A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA

Reactions were as predictable as they were misguided: hysteria over "rape-culture" and "patriarchy", the frat in question suspended etc.

Now it turns out RS failed to conduct even most basic vetting and that the story is most likely BS.
Key elements of Rolling Stone’s U-Va. gang rape allegations in doubt

This is why rape allegations should not be believed automatically out of misplaced concern to not "revictimize" the accuser.

Funny.

Men are much more likely to get away with rape then women are to falsely accuse someone of rape, and yet you spend an enormous amount of time complaining about the latter, but you never ever ever ever complain about the former.

Why do you suppose that is, Derec? Why is the rarer occurrence of the latter much more upsetting to you than the much more common occurrence of the former? Could the reason have to do with your attitudes about women?

 

[laughing dog]

RS automatically believed a "rape story" and now have egg of their face.

The "egg on their face" is due to their lax journalistic standards not about the accusation per se.

How is it smearing the "victim"?

Calling a rape claim "bombastic" is indirectly smearing the accuser - it implies the story is obviously unbelievable. I find it hard to believe that anyone who thinks he/she understands the term "bombastic" enough to use it a sentence does not get it.

It is very unlikely that <snip>Jackie <snip>[/URL] is the victim here anyway, and saying that her claims have been discredited is not smearing.

Whether or not they have discredited is a matter of opinion, but there is a distinct difference in degree between saying a rape claim has been discredited and that a bombastic rape claim bites the dust.

Serious crimes should be deferred to the police for investigation because universities have neither the resources nor expertise to conduct such an investigation.

Universities have a duty to keep their campuses safe. Since they are not engaged in criminal justice proceedings, the standards for evidence and judgment are permitted to be different.

Not to mention the bias inherent in many college administrators who have bought into the whole "rape culture" or "one in four" nonsense. Imagine if somebody like John Foubert is on your college tribunal.
You will be found guilty no matter how innocent you are and no matter if your accuser's credibility compares unfavorably to that of Crystal Magnum or Tawana Brawley.

I would choose to characterize this as simply your biased opinion not as misogynistic bombastic bullshit.

It was a rhetorical question. I know that they don't because it does not fit the ideological commitment to the "rape culture" narrative.

Really, you know the outcomes of all university disciplinary hearings? Do you a have a link to that database or is this the result of some mind-meld?

I use the term as "deliberately making false statements" and if a woman is found (using the same standard used to expel men accused of rape) that she lied about a rape claim she should be expelled. Fair? Or is that considered "smearing of rape victims" in your book?

I know the term, but I have seen you and others consider allegations that are unproven to be "deliberate false statements" when, in fact, they are not proven to be deliberately false statements. So, I would choose to characterize your response as another example of your biased opinion not as misogynistic bombastic bullshit. I would expect if expulsion is dictated as the usual punishment this behavior, then I would expect expulsion no matter who lied about a rape.

 

[Derec]

Of course you do: it makes it so much easier to slut shame that way.

I do not care who she has sex with or how often so it has nothing to do with slut shaming.
False accuser shaming on the other hand, I am down with that.

The names of the accused rapists do not appear in the articles, either.

Usually the names of the accused are published while the name of the accuser is protected, even when her claims are highly dubious. Since I think that in this case it is much more likely that the accused are the victims and the accuser the perpetrator, keeping their names secret is protecting the victims.

Why is an inability to recall specific facts during a traumatic event automatically "lying"? Every single time. (rape victims, shooting witnesses..et al). Wouldn't it seem logical that some details would be off?

It's not inability to recall specific facts, it's making up details that didn't happen/ Details like having a bloody dress and injuries that nobody can corroborate. It's the missing staircase she said was there. Sheer lack of verisimilitude in her story, especially reactions of her friends, led some to question her account as soon as the RS story was published.

 

[Playball40]

Good point, if there was no event on September 28 there might have been one a week earlier or later that Jacqueline confused for that date.

An accusation that specific to me gives 3 main possibilities:

1. She was actually forcibly raped or groped by one or more men.
2. She was part of a then willing gangbang, or just sex with one guy.
3. Was not even there and has psychological issues.

I would suggest that it is inherently unsafe now for a man to engage in a gangbang with a woman under 25 or even 30. Even disregarding STDs, I would think that a woman that young doing that may be acting out previous molestation and will have a good chance of viewing the event as rape later. I would even argue that she would have diminished capacity if she was molested previously and the younger she was when it happened the moreso.

A traumatic event like that and she couldn't remember the date?

The third could be expanded on that she just wanted to try and get a frat house closed and she made up a story since there would be no repercussions to her. Right now it's hard to go back and do anything, however her friends that told her not to go to the hospital could come forward and back her story.

Yes. It was two years later. As for your "alternate explanation".....to what end? Why would a young woman go to that kind of effort merely to shut down a frat house? And why?

 

[Derec]

Yes. It was two years later.

Another red flag. Why did she wait so long?

As for your "alternate explanation".....to what end? Why would a young woman go to that kind of effort merely to shut down a frat house? And why?

Why would a 15 year old girl smear herself with dog feces and crawl into a garbage bag merely to get out of trouble with her step dad?
Why would a stripper falsely accuse lacrosse players of rape for no logical reason whatsoever?

 

[Derec]

Men are much more likely to get away with rape then women are to falsely accuse someone of rape, and yet you spend an enormous amount of time complaining about the latter, but you never ever ever ever complain about the former.

Citation needed.
Those convicted of rape face long prison sentences. Those convicted of filing a false rape report face a slap on the wrist, if they are prosecuted at all, which most often they aren't even when their guilt is undeniable. Crystal Magnum, the false Duke Lacrosse accuser, was never charged with anything for example.

 

[coloradoatheist]

A traumatic event like that and she couldn't remember the date?

The third could be expanded on that she just wanted to try and get a frat house closed and she made up a story since there would be no repercussions to her. Right now it's hard to go back and do anything, however her friends that told her not to go to the hospital could come forward and back her story.

Yes. It was two years later. As for your "alternate explanation".....to what end? Why would a young woman go to that kind of effort merely to shut down a frat house? And why?

The two years later would also be a key, wait until much later make up a story. She became an activist and since it's reported that rapes happen more at frats then in her mind that's who she went after. The story read like, "Imagine what are all the good essentials of a rape story are to put everyone in the worst light is" Multiple guys, roofied, walking down the stares and noone caring, her friends worrying about their reputation on the spot and the college doing nothing about it.

 

[Derec]

The "egg on their face" is due to their lax journalistic standards not about the accusation per se.

The lax journalistic standards had to do with automatically believing the rape claim because it fit into the author's agenda. It shows why people should not believe rape claims automatically.

Calling a rape claim "bombastic" is indirectly smearing the accuser - it implies the story is obviously unbelievable.

The original story wasn't very believable in the first place. But given the revelations of false statements she made, then yes it has become an obviously unbelievable story.

I find it hard to believe that anyone who thinks he/she understands the term "bombastic" enough to use it a sentence does not get it.

I find it hard to believe that anyone can read a story of a horrific gang rape and callous reactions by her friends when they found her barefoot, injured and bloodied and think that "bombastic" is not a proper term for the story when it gets discredited.

Whether or not they have discredited is a matter of opinion, but there is a distinct difference in degree between saying a rape claim has been discredited and that a bombastic rape claim bites the dust.

It's the sheer scale of the initial claim that dials the degree a couple of notches, don't you think?

Universities have a duty to keep their campuses safe. Since they are not engaged in criminal justice proceedings, the standards for evidence and judgment are permitted to be different.

That still does not mean that they are not incompetent to investigate claims of crimes. And the standard that they have to use by federal decree (preponderance of evidence) is way too low. Do you think a woman should be expelled from a college if it is found that she is likely to have lied about rape? I mean sauce for the gander should be sauce for the goose, right?

would choose to characterize this as simply your biased opinion not as misogynistic bombastic bullshit.

Obviously you have not read the John Foubert article I linked to above.

Really, you know the outcomes of all university disciplinary hearings? Do you a have a link to that database or is this the result of some mind-meld?

I do not know of any case where "preponderance of evidence" standard was used to expel a female student for "more likely than not" falsely accusing someone of rape. Do you?

I know the term, but I have seen you and others consider allegations that are unproven to be "deliberate false statements" when, in fact, they are not proven to be deliberately false statements.

It's not a question of her claims merely being unproven but that the weight of the evidence is on the side of her having made it up. Her account included very specific claims that have proven to be untrue.

I would expect if expulsion is dictated as the usual punishment this behavior, then I would expect expulsion no matter who lied about a rape.

So do you think Jackie <snip> should be expelled if it is merely "more likely than not" (and that threshold is easily met given the falsehoods in the RS article) that she lied about rape? And yes, UVA honor code does list expulsion as a punishment for serious lies. So I guess you support expelling Jackie <snip>?

 

[Playball40]

Another red flag. Why did she wait so long?

As for your "alternate explanation".....to what end? Why would a young woman go to that kind of effort merely to shut down a frat house? And why?

Why would a 15 year old girl smear herself with dog feces and crawl into a garbage bag merely to get out of trouble with her step dad?

Oh I don't know.....to get out of trouble with her step dad?

This girl has nothing to gain that I can see.

 

[Playball40]

Did this "Jackie" person actually proof the story? How do we know it wasn't the Rolling Stone writer that added all these sensational details?

 

[laughing dog]

The lax journalistic standards had to do with automatically believing the rape claim because it fit into the author's agenda. It shows why people should not believe rape claims automatically.

From what I can tell, the lax journalistic standards were caused by Rolling Stone's desire to have an exclusive story.

The original story wasn't very believable in the first place. But given the revelations of false statements she made, then yes it has become an obviously unbelievable story.

I would choose to characterize this as simply your biased opinion not as misogynistic bombastic bullshit.

I find it hard to believe that anyone can read a story of a horrific gang rape and callous reactions by her friends when they found her barefoot, injured and bloodied and think that "bombastic" is not a proper term for the story when it gets discredited.

I would choose to characterize this as as misogynistic bombastic bullshit not as simply your biased opinion.

It's the sheer scale of the initial claim that dials the degree a couple of notches, don't you think?

No.

That still does not mean that they are not incompetent to investigate claims of crimes. And the standard that they have to use by federal decree (preponderance of evidence) is way too low.

I would choose to characterize this as simply your biased opinion not as misogynistic bombastic bullshit.

Do you think a woman should be expelled from a college if it is found that she is likely to have lied about rape? I mean sauce for the gander should be sauce for the goose, right?

The penalty for lying about such things is up to the university.

I do not know of any case where "preponderance of evidence" standard was used to expel a female student for "more likely than not" falsely accusing someone of rape. Do you?

University disciplinary actions are typically private matters. So unless you can show that you have access to the outcomes of all university disciplinary hearings, your claim reflects your ignorance and nothing else.

So do you think Jackie <snip> should be expelled if it is merely "more likely than not" (and that threshold is easily met given the falsehoods in the RS article) that she lied about rape? And yes, UVA honor code does list expulsion as a punishment for serious lies. So I guess you support expelling Jackie <snip>?

If she is found to have lied and if other similar liars have been expelled, then yes.

 

[Toni]

I do not care who she has sex with or how often so it has nothing to do with slut shaming.
False accuser shaming on the other hand, I am down with that.

Sure it has to do with slut shaming. And the assumption that non-virginal women are sluts and definitely, if anything actually happened, it was entirely consensual and probably her idea. Based on your posting history.

Usually the names of the accused are published while the name of the accuser is protected, even when her claims are highly dubious. Since I think that in this case it is much more likely that the accused are the victims and the accuser the perpetrator, keeping their names secret is protecting the victims.

According to the original article, names of accused were not published because of the victim's fear of reprisals. Also, to the best of my knowledge, no legal charges have been filed. It seems to be prudent to not reveal names until and unless charges are brought.

Why is an inability to recall specific facts during a traumatic event automatically "lying"? Every single time. (rape victims, shooting witnesses..et al). Wouldn't it seem logical that some details would be off?

It's not inability to recall specific facts, it's making up details that didn't happen/ Details like having a bloody dress and injuries that nobody can corroborate. It's the missing staircase she said was there. Sheer lack of verisimilitude in her story, especially reactions of her friends, led some to question her account as soon as the RS story was published.

Do those friends-actually, former friends, have any reason of their own to play down the incident? Unless I am mistaken, at least one pledged a fraternity and indeed, at least one expressed concern about the repercussions for his own future if she went forward and told police or school authorities.

If you ask any group of witnesses about an event, there is disagreement over details. In fact, if everyone agrees about every detail, that suggests collaboration instead of independent corroboration.

Except in the case of stranger abduction and rape, I don't know of any rape case where the victim's account isn't questioned. For comparison, see the accounts given by Jerry Sandusky's victims. In fact, just look at that case, from start to finish, to see how much rides on accusations of sexual misconduct and the potential to have devastating repercussions for institutions. There is at least one website devoted to proving that Joe Paterno was framed.

 

[whichphilosophy]

A few weeks ago, Rolling Stone published a rather emotional article detailing a gang rape claim at a UVA fraternity.
A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA

Reactions were as predictable as they were misguided: hysteria over "rape-culture" and "patriarchy", the frat in question suspended etc.

Now it turns out RS failed to conduct even most basic vetting and that the story is most likely BS.
Key elements of Rolling Stone’s U-Va. gang rape allegations in doubt

This is why rape allegations should not be believed automatically out of misplaced concern to not "revictimize" the accuser.

This issue is still going on

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Rolling-Stone-apologizes-gang-rape-story.html

http://abcnews.go.com/US/uva-student-rolling-stone-rape-story-reportedly-hires/story?id=27437138

We can conclude nothing until this is fully investigated.

 

[laughing dog]

A few weeks ago, Rolling Stone published a rather emotional article detailing a gang rape claim at a UVA fraternity.
A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA

Reactions were as predictable as they were misguided: hysteria over "rape-culture" and "patriarchy", the frat in question suspended etc.

Now it turns out RS failed to conduct even most basic vetting and that the story is most likely BS.
Key elements of Rolling Stone’s U-Va. gang rape allegations in doubt

This is why rape allegations should not be believed automatically out of misplaced concern to not "revictimize" the accuser.

This issue is still going on

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Rolling-Stone-apologizes-gang-rape-story.html

http://abcnews.go.com/US/uva-student-rolling-stone-rape-story-reportedly-hires/story?id=27437138

We can conclude nothing until this is fully investigated.

According to the Guardian account link,

The magazine's managing editor, Will Dana, has said that Jackie is now unsure if the man who allegedly lured her into the room to be raped by the seven men was a member of Phi Kappa Psi.

If that is the only reason that Rolling Stone has lost its confidence in the story, then that makes the conclusion of "..that the story is most likely BS" appear to be the result of extremely poor or biased reasoning.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A few weeks ago, Rolling Stone published a rather emotional article detailing a gang rape claim at a UVA fraternity.
A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA

Reactions were as predictable as they were misguided: hysteria over "rape-culture" and "patriarchy", the frat in question suspended etc.

Now it turns out RS failed to conduct even most basic vetting and that the story is most likely BS.
Key elements of Rolling Stone’s U-Va. gang rape allegations in doubt

This is why rape allegations should not be believed automatically out of misplaced concern to not "revictimize" the accuser.

This issue is still going on

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Rolling-Stone-apologizes-gang-rape-story.html

http://abcnews.go.com/US/uva-student-rolling-stone-rape-story-reportedly-hires/story?id=27437138

We can conclude nothing until this is fully investigated.

What we do know is Ron Hubbard was there. He has been everywhere! He may not have been able to see things too well, however.

 

[credoconsolans]

*sigh*

Wow.

One rape claim busted as false.

In the meantime, 255 other rapes have been reported today - TODAY - with only an arrest rate of 25% (according to the National Crime Victimization Survey by the Bureau of Justice Statistics).

Wonder how many are unreported?