Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
UVA Rape Story Collapses; Duke Lacrosse Redux
Topic Started: Dec 5 2014, 01:45 PM (60,403 Views)
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.nbc29.com/story/33621541/rolling-stone-trial-day-15

Rolling Stone Trial: Jury Deliberations Enter Second Day
Posted: Nov 03, 2016 8:09 AM CST
Updated: Nov 03, 2016 9:31 AM CST

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. (WVIR) -

Jurors have returned to a Charlottesville federal court to continue deliberations in the defamation trial against Rolling Stone over a retracted story about an alleged gang rape at the University of Virginia.

The jury began deliberations Wednesday morning, and it is unclear how long it may take for a verdict to be reached.

Former UVA Associate Dean of Students Nicole Eramo is suing Rolling Stone, its publisher Wenner Media, and author Sabrina Rubin Erdely for defamation. Eramo claims Erdely's article "A Rape on Campus" unfairly portrayed her as a villain, indifferent to UVA student "Jackie's" allegation that she was gang raped at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house in September 2012.

Rolling Stone published Erdely's article in its November 2014 issue. An investigation by Charlottesville police in 2015 found no evidence to back up the claims made in the article. The magazine eventually retracted the article and apologized.

Eramo is seeking around $7.5 million in damages.

Jurors will need to determine if each independent defendant - Erdely, Rolling Stone, and Wenner Media - defamed Eramo on three separate statements from the original article. Then, jurors will need to determine if Erdely alone defamed Eramo on a podcast and radio show, as well as through statements to the Washington Post after "A Rape on Campus" came out.

The jury also has to determine if the magazine defamed Eramo in a statement issued to media after the article published.

Finally, the jury will have to decide if the December 5 editor's note from Rolling Stone constituted a republication of the article. If so, jurors will need to determine if those same three statements from the original article defamed Eramo in republication - given what Rolling Stone may have known at that time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.nbc29.com/story/33621541/rolling-stone-trial-day-15

Rolling Stone Trial: Jury Deliberations Enter Second Day
Posted: Nov 03, 2016 8:09 AM CST
Updated: Nov 03, 2016 4:14 PM CST

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. (WVIR) -

Jurors head home after a second day of deliberating in the defamation trial against Rolling Stone over a retracted story about an alleged gang rape at the University of Virginia.

The jury began deliberations around 9:40 a.m. Thursday, November 3, but was excused for the day shortly before 5 p.m. They have been deliberating since 10:40 a.m. Wednesday.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2016/11/jury-deliberations-continue-in-rolling-stone-trial

Jury deliberations continue in Rolling Stone trial
by Thomas Roades | Nov 03 2016

No verdict yet announced, deliberations to continue tomorrow

In its second full day of deliberation, the jury in former Associate Dean Nicole Eramo’s lawsuit against Rolling Stone magazine, Sabrina Erdely and Wenner Media, Inc. was still unable to reach a verdict and will continue their discussions into the sixteenth day of the trial.

The court adjourned at approximately 5 p.m.Thursday. Deliberation will resume Friday at 8 a.m.

Erdely is suing over her depiction in a November 2014 Rolling Stone article entitled “A Rape On Campus,” which described the alleged gang rape of a former University student named Jackie at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house and her treatment by the University and Eramo in the aftermath of the alleged assault.

In the months following the article’s publishing, it was discredited when a Charlottesville Police Department investigation of Jackie’s claims failed to substantiate her account and a Columbia Journalism Review report then condemned the article as a “journalistic failure.” Rolling Stone retracted the article in April 2015.

Eramo claims the article maliciously portrayed her as indifferent towards sexual assault victims.

The entirety of Thursday was spent in deliberation, though the court briefly met Thursday morning to answer a jury question about whether to consider as evidence a Washington Post article published in the weeks following the publication of “A Rape on Campus.”

The Washington Post article — published Dec. 1, 2014 —raised questions about the sourcing of “A Rape On Campus” and reported Erdely had not contacted Jackie’s alleged assailants.

U.S. District Court Judge Glen Conrad clarified the article should be considered as evidence, but with limiting instructions saying the jury should only consider parts containing direct quotes from Erdely.

Conrad had initially denied the jury’s request for the article during their first day of deliberations.

The judge has instructed the jury to consider each of the defendants separately in their verdict.

“Each defendant is entitled to a fair consideration of the evidence,” Conrad wrote in his instructions to the jury. “All parties are equal before the law.”
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.nbc29.com/story/33631166/rolling-stone-trial-day-16


Rolling Stone Trial: Jury Returns Verdicts
Posted: Nov 04, 2016 8:09 AM CST
Updated: Nov 04, 2016 12:43 PM CST

Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Charlottesville (FILE)
Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Charlottesville (FILE)
CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. (WVIR) -

BREAKING: Sabrina Erdely found liable with malice on six claims, Rolling Stone liable on three claims, and waiting for Wenner Media.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article112555117.html

November 4, 2016 1:43 PM
Jurors find Rolling Stone writer guilty in UVA rape defamation suit
In this Jan. 15, 2015 file photo shows students participate in rush pass by the Phi Kappa Psi house at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Va. The house was depicted in a debunked Rolling Stone story as the site of a rape in September of 2012. A defamation trial against the magazine followed, over its article about "Jackie" and her harrowing account of being gang raped in a fraternity initiation. Steve Helber AP

By ELIZABETH KOH

ekoh@mcclatchy.com

Jurors found a reporter liable in a $7.5 million libel lawsuit Friday that accused Rolling Stone magazine of defaming a university administrator in a now-discredited story about an alleged gang rape at the University of Virginia.

The jury deliberated for two full days before handing down the verdict against reporter Sabrina Rubin Erdely and in favor of University of Virginia administrator Nicole Eramo, who asked for $7.5 million in her lawsuit against the 48-year-old magazine.

The magazine, which was also named in the lawsuit, was found liable on 3 claims, according to NBC29 reporter Henry Graff.

Eramo alleged that she was unfairly portrayed as indifferent in a 2014 story called “A Rape on Campus,” which described the alleged assault of a student identified only as “Jackie” at a university fraternity house in 2012.

The article’s publication in November 2014 set off protests at the university and other colleges across the country. But the story fell apart when other news outlets surfaced questions about Jackie’s claims and uncovered that Erdely had never contacted any of the accused rapists or several others referred to by pseudonyms in the story.

Charlottesville, Va. police. said after an investigation that they could find no evidence supporting Jackie’s retelling, and Rolling Stone eventually retracted the article in April 2015. An “autopsy report” published in the Columbia Journalism Review described the article as “a failure that was avoidable,” faulting in part the journalists who “failed to surface and debate problems about their reporting or to heed the questions they did receive from a fact-checking colleague.”

But Eramo’s lawsuit, demanding $7.5 million in damages, required her lawyers to prove that Rolling Stone’s publication of the story was not only wrong but done with “actual malice,” which her attorneys addressed in closing arguments Tuesday.

“Once they decided what the article was going to be about, it didn’t matter what the facts were,” attorney Tom Clare said Tuesday, according to CBS News.

Lawyers for Rolling Stone countered during the trial that the magazine would not have proceeded with publication had they been aware of the article’s fatal flaws, and Erdely, who took the stand during the trial, testified that she had full confidence in Jackie until after the story ran. The jury began deliberating on Wednesday after the more than two-week-long trial.

The fraternity named in the article, Phi Kappa Psi, also filed a lawsuit against Rolling Stone in November 2015, which is pending.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article112555117.html#storylink=cpy
Edited by abb, Nov 4 2016, 12:49 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/jury-finds-reporter-rolling-stone-responsible-for-defaming-u-va-dean-with-gang-rape-story/2016/11/04/aaf407fa-a1e8-11e6-a44d-cc2898cfab06_story.html

11/4/16

Jury finds reporter, Rolling Stone responsible for defaming U-Va. dean with gang rape story
http://www.facebook.com/TReesShapiro

CHARLOTTESVILLE — A federal court jury decided Friday that a Rolling Stone journalist defamed a former University of Virginia associate dean in a 2014 magazine article about sexual assault on campus that included a debunked account of a fraternity gang rape.

The 10 member jury concluded that the Rolling Stone journalist was responsible for libel, with actual malice, in the case brought by Nicole Eramo, a U-Va. administrator who oversaw sexual violence cases at the time of the article’s publication. The jury also found the magazine and its publisher responsible for defaming Eramo.

The $7.5 million lawsuit centered on the 9,000-word article written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely titled “A Rape on Campus.” The article appeared online in late Nov. 2014 and on newsstands in the magazine’s December 2014 issue.

The story opened with a graphic depiction of a fraternity gang rape that went viral online and sent shock waves across the U-Va. campus community. But within days of the article’s publication, key elements of the account fell apart under scrutiny. The magazine eventually retracted the story in April 2015.

Eramo’s lawsuit came a month later, alleging that the magazine’s portrayal of her as callous and dismissive of rape reports on campus was untrue and unfair.

[Key elements of Rolling Stone’s U-Va. gang rape allegations in doubt]

The jurors reached a verdict Friday after deliberating across three days.

The trial began on Oct. 17. In the following 16 days the jurors heard testimony from 12 witnesses along with 11 hours of video statements and more than 180 exhibits of evidence.

Both Eramo and Erdely took the stand in the case. The jurors also saw video testimony from Jackie, the U-Va. student whose allegations of a 2012 gang rape at Phi Kappa Psi were later cast into doubt.

Eramo’s lawyers wrote in their complaint that the magazine defamed her by casting the former associate dean as a villain in the article, portraying her as the public face of an administration indifferent to rape victims.

In court, lawyers representing Erdely, Rolling Stone and its corporate parent company, Wenner Media, argued the opposite. The lawyers contended that while the magazine acknowledged its mistakes it had not acted with actual malice, the high bar set for defamation cases involving public figures like Eramo.

Tom Clare, one of the lawyers representing Eramo, said in a closing statement Tuesday that his client was “collateral damage in a quest for sensational journalism.”

ABC News interviewed Nicole Eramo, the former University of Virginia administrator who is suing Rolling Stone magazine over a November 2014 story about a sexual assault. That story was discredited. (ABC News and 20/20)

ABC News interviewed Nicole Eramo, the former University of Virginia administrator who is suing Rolling Stone magazine over a November 2014 story about a sexual assault. That story was discredited. ABC News interviewed Nicole Eramo, the UVA administrator who is suing Rolling Stone magazine over story about a student's account of being gang raped on campus. (ABC News and 20/20)

Reading from a Columbia University Journalism School report on the Rolling Stone article, Clare said that the magazine made basic errors in reporting and the result was “a story of journalistic failure that was avoidable.”

Clare noted that Jackie’s account to Rolling Stone was brutal and so vile that it seemed unbelievable.

“It had all the elements of a perfect story,” Clare said. “And when something appears too perfect it usually is.”

In fact, it was.

An investigation by The Washington Post showed that aspects of Jackie’s account were not true, including that no one in the fraternity matched the name or description she gave for the person who allegedly was the ringleader of her assault. A person she had described to friends at the time as her assailant was a complete fiction, according to Eramo’s lawyers, and the Post found that a photo she shared of her alleged attacker was actually of someone she knew from high school and who attended a different school out of state.

[U-Va. students challenge Rolling Stone account of alleged sexual assault]

Eramo’s lawyers presented evidence that Erdely had a predetermined notion of what her story would be, discussing the concept of the story that became “A Rape on Campus” well ahead of her reporting, including a note describing how college administrations can be “indifferent” to rape survivors.

Eramo’s lawyers said that Erdely had “a preconceived story line,” and acted with “reckless disregard,” by ignoring conflicting information in her reporting.

“Once they decided what the story was going to be about, it didn’t matter what the facts were,” Clare said.

Clare noted that despite Rolling Stone’s reporting, Eramo had indeed cared for Jackie in the aftermath of her alleged assault, counseling her and organizing a meeting with police detectives to help bring her attackers to justice. But Jackie refused to participate in any police investigation.

Scott Sexton, a lawyer for Rolling Stone, told the jurors in his closing statement that the magazine “acknowledges huge errors in not being more dogged. . . . It’s the worst thing to ever happen to Rolling Stone.”

Sexton said that the article’s retraction cost Erdely her job at Rolling Stone and her reputation as a journalist.

“She hasn’t written a classified since then,” Sexton said.

Sexton said that in effect Erdely and Rolling Stone had fallen victim to what he called at points a “hoax,” a “fraud,” and a “perfect storm.”

The magazine’s editorial staff was no match for Jackie, Sexton said, noting that the magazine was not sure what exactly had happened to her, but admitted “she deceived us and we do know it was purposeful.”

“This young woman was very good at telling this story,” Sexton said. “Dean Eramo believed her. . . .Yet we are the ones being tried, in a sense, for having believed her.”

The case continues this week as the jury will consider damages and hear additional evidence from Eramo and her lawyers about how she was affected by the actions of Rolling Stone. Eramo originally asked for $7.5 million but can ask for a different sum after the verdict.
Edited by abb, Nov 4 2016, 12:51 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/rolling-stone-rocked-by-jurys-verdict-campus-rape-story-was-defamatory-943860

November 04, 2016 10:46am PT by Eriq Gardner
Rolling Stone Rocked By Jury's Verdict That Campus Rape Story Was Defamatory
University of Virginia associate dean Nicole Eramo sued the magazine for allegedly casting her as the "chief villain" in its since-retracted article.
Chance Yeh/Getty Images
Rolling Stone founder Jann Wenner
University of Virginia associate dean Nicole Eramo sued the magazine for allegedly casting her as the "chief villain" in its since-retracted article.

Rolling Stone, the Jann Wenner-founded magazine that went beyond its musical roots to embrace youth culture in the '60s, gonzo journalism in the '70s, and hard-hitting political coverage from Richard Nixon to Barack Obama, has suffered perhaps its greatest legal blow in the publication's storied half-century history. On Friday, a federal jury in Virginia delivered a rebuke a rebuke to Rolling Stone in a closely-watched defamation case over a controversial article about the gang rape of a freshman identified as "Jackie" at a University of Virginia campus fraternity. The verdict that Rolling Stone, parent company Wenner Media and writer Sabrina Rudin Erdley were liable on multiple claims was announced after a two-week trial. The decision on what damages to award will come later.

Nicole Eramo, the university's former associate dean, sued Rolling Stone in May 2015, claiming the publication's controversial story cast her as the "chief villain," who "silenced" Jackie or "discouraged" her from reporting her alleged gang rape to the police. Eramo was seeking $7.5 million in damages.

The story in question, titled "A Rape on Campus" and written by Erdley, was published in the magazine's Nov. 19, 2014 issue, and immediately came under fire when The Washington Post identified discrepancies in the reporting. Within weeks, Rolling Stone had to apologize for not thoroughly fact-checking it. After the Columbia School of Journalism led a commissioned investigation, Rolling Stone retracted the campus rape story in April 2015.

The publication then was hit with multiple defamation lawsuits. One from members of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity where the rape allegedly happened didn't survive very far, but in September, U.S. District Judge Glen Conrad allowed Eramo to move to trial by rejecting a summary judgment bid by Rolling Stone.

To prevail, Eramo had to convince the jury that the statements in the story directed at UVA administration were "of and concerning" her, that the statements were factually untrue, and that her reputation was damaged. Ruled to be a limited-purpose public figure, Eramo also had to prove the magazine acted with actual malice, meaning its reporters and editors had knowledge of falsity or had reckless disregard for the truth.

Although the faulty campus rape story became a black eye for Rolling Stone, the publication was handed certain advantages on the path to today's verdict. In the midst of trial, Judge Conrad ruled as a matter of law that Eramo couldn't win on a claim she was defamed by implication. Moreover, the judge instructed the jury that a mere failure to investigate doesn't establish actual malice.

In closing arguments delivered Tuesday after a two-week trial, plaintiff's attorney Tom Clare aimed to convince the jury of Rolling Stone's recklessness by saying the publication had completed its article with a preconceived notion.

“Once they decided what the article was going to be about, it didn’t matter what the facts were,” said Clare, adding that Ederly was "blind to the facts" and that she painted Eramo as the villain because the university official represented an “easy target."

In turn, Rolling Stone attorney Scott Sexton told the the jury that "everyone who encountered this young woman believed her," referring to Jackie, including members of the administration at the University of Virginia. As did Ederly, Sexton continued, acknowledging the writer now feels foolish for doing so. "But foolish doesn't count," he added.

The trial gave the jury an opportunity to weigh the work of one influential journalistic institution and send a message in the midst of a highly charged election season featuring tales of sexual assault and cries of dishonesty and bias in the press. It also comes in a year when many members of the media were shocked by Hulk Hogan's $140 million verdict in Florida against Gawker in an invasion-of-privacy case that brought down that news website.

Just days before the country elects its next leader, seven jurors in a Virginia courtroom took almost 20 hours across three days to consider Rolling Stone's liability — a marathon session that was nearly three times the amount of time that jurors spent deliberating in the Hogan trial. These citizens, directed to weigh contested facts and apply them within a legal framework established with the goal of ensuring a free and vigorous press, but also a responsible one, came to the conclusion that Eramo had proven the story was defamatory.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.newsplex.com/content/news/Day-three-of-deliberations-in-Rolling-Stone-case-400014471.html

Jury finds Rolling Stone, Sabrina Erdely defamed former UVA dean
By Courteney Stuart |
Posted: Fri 11:42 AM, Nov 04, 2016 |
Updated: Fri 1:54 PM, Nov 04, 2016

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. (NEWSPLEX) -- The jury has returned a verdict in the Rolling Stone defamation case in Charlottesville, finding the magazine and article writer Sabrina Erdely liable for damages against former University of Virginia Associate Dean Nicole Eramo.

Jurors discussed the case for more than 20 hours over three days.

They were looking at three statements regarding the 2014 article "A Rape on Campus."

One of those statements is a quote the woman at the center of the article, who is only known as Jackie, attributed to Eramo.

Jackie said Eramo stated that "no body wants to send their daughter to the rape school" when asked why numbers of sexual assaults were so difficult to find for universities and colleges.

The jurors also decided Erdely defamed Eramo in media interviews after the article was published, originally online in November 2014.

Third, they ruled on whether a Dec. 5, 2014 Rolling Stone editor's note posted on the online version of the story counted as a retraction or if the story was republished at that time.

According to testimony, that was after Erdely and her editors at the magazine already knew that Jackie was an unreliable source.

In order to find Rolling Stone liable for defamation, the jury must believe that Erdely and the magazine acted with actual malice.

In other words, they published the story knowing it contained false information or they acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

Actual malice is a tougher standard for the jury to rule on than negligence. And the jurors have to consider it because a judge ruled that Eramo is a public figure with regards to this case.

The trial now moves into the damages phase, which will involve testimony from Eramo and others about the impact the article had on her life.

Eramo's lawsuit asks for $7.5 million in damages.

She reportedly started crying in court when the verdict was read on Friday afternoon.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/05/business/media/rolling-stone-rape-story-case-guilty.html?_r=0

Rolling Stone Loses Defamation Case Over Rape Story

By HAWES SPENCERNOV. 4, 2016

Charlottesville, Va. — A jury on Friday found Rolling Stone magazine liable in a defamation suit brought by a former dean at the University of Virginia involving a discredited article about a supposed gang rape at the university.

The suit was brought by Nicole P. Eramo, a former associate dean of students at the university, who said the Rolling Stone article depicted her as the “chief villain” of the story.

The jury found liability on the part of Rolling Stone; its parent company, Wenner Media; and the author of the article, Sabrina Rubin Erdely. Lawyers for Ms. Eramo argued that Rolling Stone and Ms. Erdely were reckless in their reporting and editing, and that Ms. Erdely deliberately avoided following leads that could have disproved the story.

This was the first of two lawsuits that Rolling Stone faces over the article. The second, filed in a Virginia state court by the fraternity that was portrayed as the setting for the supposed rape, seeks $25 million in damages and has not yet gone to trial.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MikeZPU

abb
Nov 4 2016, 12:51 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/jury-finds-reporter-rolling-stone-responsible-for-defaming-u-va-dean-with-gang-rape-story/2016/11/04/aaf407fa-a1e8-11e6-a44d-cc2898cfab06_story.html

11/4/16

Jury finds reporter, Rolling Stone responsible for defaming U-Va. dean with gang rape story
http://www.facebook.com/TReesShapiro

CHARLOTTESVILLE — A federal court jury decided Friday that a Rolling Stone journalist defamed a former University of Virginia associate dean in a 2014 magazine article about sexual assault on campus that included a debunked account of a fraternity gang rape.

The 10 member jury concluded that the Rolling Stone journalist was responsible for libel, with actual malice, in the case brought by Nicole Eramo, a U-Va. administrator who oversaw sexual violence cases at the time of the article’s publication. The jury also found the magazine and its publisher responsible for defaming Eramo.

The $7.5 million lawsuit centered on the 9,000-word article written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely titled “A Rape on Campus.” The article appeared online in late Nov. 2014 and on newsstands in the magazine’s December 2014 issue.

The story opened with a graphic depiction of a fraternity gang rape that went viral online and sent shock waves across the U-Va. campus community. But within days of the article’s publication, key elements of the account fell apart under scrutiny. The magazine eventually retracted the story in April 2015.

Eramo’s lawsuit came a month later, alleging that the magazine’s portrayal of her as callous and dismissive of rape reports on campus was untrue and unfair.

[Key elements of Rolling Stone’s U-Va. gang rape allegations in doubt]

The jurors reached a verdict Friday after deliberating across three days.

The trial began on Oct. 17. In the following 16 days the jurors heard testimony from 12 witnesses along with 11 hours of video statements and more than 180 exhibits of evidence.

Both Eramo and Erdely took the stand in the case. The jurors also saw video testimony from Jackie, the U-Va. student whose allegations of a 2012 gang rape at Phi Kappa Psi were later cast into doubt.

Eramo’s lawyers wrote in their complaint that the magazine defamed her by casting the former associate dean as a villain in the article, portraying her as the public face of an administration indifferent to rape victims.

In court, lawyers representing Erdely, Rolling Stone and its corporate parent company, Wenner Media, argued the opposite. The lawyers contended that while the magazine acknowledged its mistakes it had not acted with actual malice, the high bar set for defamation cases involving public figures like Eramo.

Tom Clare, one of the lawyers representing Eramo, said in a closing statement Tuesday that his client was “collateral damage in a quest for sensational journalism.”

ABC News interviewed Nicole Eramo, the former University of Virginia administrator who is suing Rolling Stone magazine over a November 2014 story about a sexual assault. That story was discredited. (ABC News and 20/20)

ABC News interviewed Nicole Eramo, the former University of Virginia administrator who is suing Rolling Stone magazine over a November 2014 story about a sexual assault. That story was discredited. ABC News interviewed Nicole Eramo, the UVA administrator who is suing Rolling Stone magazine over story about a student's account of being gang raped on campus. (ABC News and 20/20)

Reading from a Columbia University Journalism School report on the Rolling Stone article, Clare said that the magazine made basic errors in reporting and the result was “a story of journalistic failure that was avoidable.”

Clare noted that Jackie’s account to Rolling Stone was brutal and so vile that it seemed unbelievable.

“It had all the elements of a perfect story,” Clare said. “And when something appears too perfect it usually is.”

In fact, it was.

An investigation by The Washington Post showed that aspects of Jackie’s account were not true, including that no one in the fraternity matched the name or description she gave for the person who allegedly was the ringleader of her assault. A person she had described to friends at the time as her assailant was a complete fiction, according to Eramo’s lawyers, and the Post found that a photo she shared of her alleged attacker was actually of someone she knew from high school and who attended a different school out of state.

[U-Va. students challenge Rolling Stone account of alleged sexual assault]

Eramo’s lawyers presented evidence that Erdely had a predetermined notion of what her story would be, discussing the concept of the story that became “A Rape on Campus” well ahead of her reporting, including a note describing how college administrations can be “indifferent” to rape survivors.

Eramo’s lawyers said that Erdely had “a preconceived story line,” and acted with “reckless disregard,” by ignoring conflicting information in her reporting.

“Once they decided what the story was going to be about, it didn’t matter what the facts were,” Clare said.

Clare noted that despite Rolling Stone’s reporting, Eramo had indeed cared for Jackie in the aftermath of her alleged assault, counseling her and organizing a meeting with police detectives to help bring her attackers to justice. But Jackie refused to participate in any police investigation.

Scott Sexton, a lawyer for Rolling Stone, told the jurors in his closing statement that the magazine “acknowledges huge errors in not being more dogged. . . . It’s the worst thing to ever happen to Rolling Stone.”

Sexton said that the article’s retraction cost Erdely her job at Rolling Stone and her reputation as a journalist.

“She hasn’t written a classified since then,” Sexton said.

Sexton said that in effect Erdely and Rolling Stone had fallen victim to what he called at points a “hoax,” a “fraud,” and a “perfect storm.”

The magazine’s editorial staff was no match for Jackie, Sexton said, noting that the magazine was not sure what exactly had happened to her, but admitted “she deceived us and we do know it was purposeful.”

“This young woman was very good at telling this story,” Sexton said. “Dean Eramo believed her. . . .Yet we are the ones being tried, in a sense, for having believed her.”

The case continues this week as the jury will consider damages and hear additional evidence from Eramo and her lawyers about how she was affected by the actions of Rolling Stone. Eramo originally asked for $7.5 million but can ask for a different sum after the verdict.
Great news! Glad that Rolling Stone was held liable despite
the Judge making the bar higher!

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

:toast: :party: :cher:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LaDukie

:smilfacak:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2606494

Rolling Stone, publisher, author found liable for defamation
By Ashe Schow (@AsheSchow) • 11/4/16 2:17 PM

A jury has determined that Rolling Stone, its publisher and one of its authors are liable for defamation with malice when they published their now-retracted article about a gang rape at the University of Virginia.

NBC 29 reports that Sabrina Rubin Erdely, the author of the story, was found liable on six claims, while the magazine was found liable on three. Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner was also found liable on three claims.

The verdict marks the end of a two-week trial, which was brought on by a lawsuit filed against the defendants by U.Va. dean Nicole Eramo, who said she was portrayed as callous toward sexual assault accusers.

During the trial, jurors listened to an audio recording of Erdely interviewing the alleged victim, "Jackie," who claimed she was gang-raped by seven men as part of a fraternity initiation. Jackie told Erdely she wanted "bad publicity" for her school, while Erdely insinuated that fraternities were inherently bad.

We also learned that Rolling Stone edited out information favorable to Eramo. The dean had tried to get Jackie to go to the police, but the final draft of the story made it seem as if Eramo was no more in favor of that then, say, an informal resolution.

When Wenner testified, he said he wished the magazine hadn't issued a full retraction to the article, apologized to Eramo, but said that he had "suffered as much as" she had.

In closing arguments, Eramo's attorney, Tom Clare, told the jury that Rolling Stone came into the story with bias (as evidenced in Erdely's interview with Jackie).

"Once they decided what the article was going to be about, it didn't matter what the facts were," Clare said.

Jurors heard how Erdely failed to locate the men Jackie said raped her, or even talk to Jackie's friends who were there the night of the alleged assault. The accuser's story fell apart after police determined that no party occurred at the fraternity house the night in question and that the man Jackie claimed lured her to the party didn't exist. Her friends also disputed her account of that night, saying they didn't find her in a torn and bloody dress, as she claimed.

The jury began deliberating on Wednesday. The amount of damages Eramo will receive (she sought $7.5 million) will be determined at another time.

While an appeal is certain to happen, this is a stunning development in what has been a years-long scandal for the magazine. This verdict comes after another jury held Gawker responsible for publishing a private video of wrestling great Hulk Hogan.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

Jury finds Rolling Stone liable for defamation
By Peter Sterne
11/04/16 02:14 PM EDT

A federal jury in Virginia found that Rolling Stone magazine, parent company Wenner Media and reporter Sabrina Rubin Erdely were liable for defamation.

The defamation case concerns a November 2014 cover story in Rolling Stone magazine about an alleged rape at the University of Virginia. The story was later discredited and the magazine retracted it, in April 2015.

After Rolling Stone retracted the story, U.Va. dean of students Nicole Eramo — who was portrayed very negatively in the article — sued Rolling Stone for defamation, arguing that the magazine should have known that the story was false.

After deliberating for multiple days, a federal jury on Friday found that the defendants in the case acted with "actual malice" and were therefore liable for defamation. The jury will determine the amount of damages to award to Eramo at a later date. Eramo is seeking at least $7.5 million.

Rolling Stone released the following statement after the verdict was announced:

For almost 50 years, Rolling Stone has aimed to produce journalism with the highest reporting and ethical standards, and with a strong humanistic point of view. When we published ‘A Rape on Campus’ in 2014, we were attempting to tackle the very serious and complex topic of sexual assault on college campuses, a subject that is more relevant today than ever. In our desire to present this complicated issue from the perspective of a survivor, we overlooked reporting paths and made journalistic mistakes that we are committed to never making again. We deeply regret these missteps and sincerely apologize to anyone hurt by them, including Ms. Eramo. It is our deep hope that our failings do not deflect from the pervasive issues discussed in the piece, and that reporting on sexual assault cases ultimately results in campus policies that better protect our students. We will continue to publish stories that shine a light on the defining social, political and cultural issues of our times, and we will continue to seek the truth in every story we publish.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/media/story/2016/11/rolling-stone-guilty-of-defamation-virginia-jury-finds-004847#ixzz4P49zFiDa
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

Jacob Gershman Verified account
‏@jacobgershman

Key factor in Rolling Stone verdict was magazine's delayed retraction and decision to keep article online with an editor's note about Jackie
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply