You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
-Lurid Crime Tales-
'Rolling Stone' Magazine's 'Jackie' To Appear In Court
2016-02-21
[NEWSWEEK] A Virginia judge has ordered "Jackie" of Rolling Stone 's now-retracted expose about an alleged gang rape at the University of Virginia to appear in court to be deposed.

"The court believes that a one-day, seven-hour deposition will be sufficient," Judge Glen Conrad wrote in a court order this week calling for the woman identified only as Jackie to appear in court on April 5.

The woman will be deposed as part of an ongoing lawsuit filed by Nicole Eramo, an associate dean at the University of Virginia, against Rolling Stone , the magazine's owner, Wenner Media, and the writer of the expose, "A Rape on Campus," Sabrina Rubin Erdely.
Ms. Erdely has written other reports that are demonstrably false. It'll happen here too.
Three days after "A Rape on Campus" was published, the university suspended all fraternities and canceled all fraternal activities. But the article came under scrutiny soon afterward, with the fraternity where the alleged rape was said to have taken place, Phi Kappa Psi, telling news hounds the events described by Erdely never occurred.
The university has yet to apologize to anyone, either...
As new details emerged, the magazine distanced itself from the story. A local police investigation found " no evidence " to support "Jackie's" claims. Rolling Stone retracted the story and asked the Columbia School of Journalism to conduct a review to determine where the magazine went wrong.
Strangely, the media didn't make much of the Columbia report...
In May 2015, Eramo filed suit against the magazine for defamation. Erdely's depiction of Eramo as callous in the face of Jackie's accusations "were not the result of an innocent mistake; they were the result of a wanton journalist who was more concerned with writing an article that fulfilled her preconceived narrative about the victimization of women on American college campuses, and a malicious publisher who was more concerned about selling magazines to boost the economic bottom line for its faltering magazine, than they were about discovering the truth or actual facts," Eramo's attorney wrote.

Jackie has remained anonymous throughout the entire process. She refused to cooperate with the police investigation that found no evidence of her claims.
Ms. Coakley refused to cooperate because she knew the penalty for filing a false police report.
Posted by:Fred

#8  Good point, #7 NG.
Posted by: Barbara   2016-02-21 22:04  

#7  Wonder what that's all about?

I wonder if the judge wants to see if the "jackie" creature exists, and does not trust any of the parties involved.
Posted by: Nguard   2016-02-21 20:45  

#6  Good catch, Barbara. My experience has been the same
Posted by: Frank G   2016-02-21 15:53  

#5  "to appear in court to be deposed"

That's a little unusual. In my experience, depositions take place either in one of the attorneys' offices (if one has an office in the deponent's area) or a neutral location such as a conference room in a local hotel. (The idea is to keep the deponent from having to pay out money to travel.)

Wonder what that's all about?
Posted by: Barbara   2016-02-21 15:22  

#4  A local police investigation found " no evidence " to support "Jackie's" claims.

FOIA. Not going to comply.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2016-02-21 12:31  

#3  ...Seems there are a few possible results here:

1:) Jackie shows up and confesses. (Damned unlikely.)
1a:) Jackie shows up and says UVa is blaming her to cover up the whole thing and make her look bad. (More likely than you might think.)
2:) Jackie shows up and refuses to testify because she feels 'unsafe'. (More likely than anything else; no judge in America today will impose any sanction on her.)
3. Jackie refuses to show up at all. (Roughly as likely as #2)

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2016-02-21 12:20  

#2  The difference: Joe the Plumber was outed by a state government official who abused her power.

Ms. Jackie Coakley's identity has been protected not by the state, but by the press -- either as a deal in exchange for an interview (per WaPo) or as part of the rape narrative.
Posted by: Steve White   2016-02-21 11:38  

#1  Jackie has remained anonymous throughout the entire process.

So unlike Joe the Plumber, her records in hands of government personnel will remain secured. One set of rules for me, another set of rules for thee.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2016-02-21 08:53  

00:00