Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
UVA Rape Story Collapses; Duke Lacrosse Redux
Topic Started: Dec 5 2014, 01:45 PM (60,417 Views)
abb
Member Avatar

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/in-secret-letter-feds-sternly-criticized-u-va-for-handling-of-sexual-violence/2016/03/01/297e9b3a-d728-11e5-9823-02b905009f99_story.html

In secret letter, feds sternly criticized U-Va. for handling of sexual violence
By Nick Anderson February 29


The first conclusion to a four-year federal probe of sexual violence at the University of Virginia was issued in secret, and it stood for just four days.

Among its findings was that U-Va. “abdicated” its legal responsibility to act on reports of sexual violence within the school’s powerful Greek system and took a “hands off” approach, relying instead on fraternities to police their own membership in cases of alleged rape and other sexual assaults. It also detailed numerous accounts of alleged sexual assault on the Charlottesville campus, tallied more than 150 cases of possible sexual harassment or sexual violence during a six-year period and said the university failed to identify and address a “sexually hostile environment.”

That stern criticism of Virginia’s flagship public university was part of a 39-page letter to U-Va. officials presenting the findings of a U.S. Education Department Office for Civil Rights investigation that began in June 2011. The Aug. 31, 2015, letter came amid weeks of feverish maneuvering behind the scenes, with Virginia’s governor and two U.S. senators lobbying on behalf of the school amid concern about the effects of a lashing from the federal agency.

Then, the letter was buried.

A senior education official withdrew it on Sept. 4, after the university said it was riddled with inaccuracies. It remained secret until The Washington Post recently obtained a copy through the federal Freedom of Information Act.

[Read the original 39-page Education Department letter, obtained by The Post]

What the public was shown Sept. 21 — when the department and the university jointly announced a resolution — was a shorter and milder letter of findings that became the final word on the investigation. Exactly why the changes were made, and what influence the pro-U-Va. lobbying had on the process, remains unclear. The end result was a verdict that faulted the university’s record on sexual violence but was less harsh than the first version.

[Read the 26-page Education Department letter, issued Sept. 21]

The university said the Aug. 31 letter “included significant factual errors,” but it declined to elaborate. A senior Education Department official said she pulled the letter back because she learned more documents were needed to substantiate its assertions.

“It was purely for accuracy reasons,” said Catherine E. Lhamon, assistant education secretary for civil rights. “The reason I withdrew it is I don’t stand by it. . . . I’m a neutral arbiter. I need to go where the facts lead me.”

A student passes the Harrison Institute and Small Special Collections Library at the University of Virginia. (Norm Shafer/For The Washington Post)

Like the first letter of findings, the final version from OCR said that U-Va. violated the anti-discrimination law known as Title IX and pointed out numerous flaws in the school’s response to sexual-assault reports during a multi-year period.

But the second letter — 13 pages shorter — did not include several accounts of possible sexual assault that had been listed earlier, significantly softened references to fraternities, hedged some criticism of U-Va. and put much less emphasis on total counts of reports of sexual violence at the elite public school.

The first letter counted 158 reports of possible sexual harassment or sexual violence at U-Va. from 2008 through the fall of 2014, “including rape and gang rape,” and it faulted the handling of 41 percent of them. The letter highlighted this total in the summary and conclusion.

The second letter narrowed the time frame, finding 50 informal reports of possible sexual harassment, including sexual violence, from fall 2008 through spring 2012. In 22 of those cases, all but one involving alleged sexual assault, the second letter found that the university failed to take appropriate action. It also noted government concerns about U-Va.’s response in 29 of 87 informal reports of incidents from fall 2012 through December 2014.

None of those numbers was included in the letter’s summary or conclusion.

On fraternities, the Education Department originally charged that U-Va. “abdicated its Title IX responsibilities with regard to reports of sexual harassment including sexual violence that were raised against students in the Greek system, instead relying on fraternities to investigate and sanction students themselves.” It said that U-Va. took a “hands off” approach to responding to complaints of sexual violence committed by fraternity members.

The second letter was not as blunt. It said that in at least two instances in 2013 and 2014, “the University did not promptly investigate information in cases that involved fraternities.” The letter also noted that the files in those cases “do not reflect the University evaluating steps necessary to protect [the] safety of the broader University community.”

The shift in language and tone is notable in part because fraternities form a powerful constituency at U-Va. and many other universities, on campus and among alumni, and they often are at the center of debates about how best to curtail sexual assaults on the nation’s campuses.

Also among the differences:

●The original findings were packed with sobering data and anecdotes, including case studies of 13 informal student reports of possible sexual misconduct. Several involved alleged sexual assault or rape. Many details were redacted in the version that the federal government provided to The Post, but these narratives generally faulted U-Va.’s response.

One narrative, labeled “Student Report #2,” said: “The University then took an entire year, with periods of three months and six months between contacts with the complainant, to determine that the University had an obligation to act, despite the complainant’s request for no action. To date, it is unclear whether the University took any action or had merely determined that it had an obligation to do so.”

The Sept. 21 letter omitted the 13 narratives.

●The first letter asserted that the chair of U-Va.’s sexual-misconduct board, which adjudicates complaints against alleged attackers, had a conflict of interest because she had multiple roles on campus. An associate dean of students, she was often a first point of contact and support for students who were considering filing sexual-assault reports.

Later, the government hedged this criticism, saying that the multiple roles created “the appearance of a conflict of interest.”

●In its summary, the first letter stated flatly, “During the period of its investigation, OCR also found that the University failed to identify and address a sexually hostile environment.”

The second letter’s summary on this point was more nuanced. It found that “a basis for a hostile environment existed for affected students at the University and that the University failed to eliminate a hostile environment and take steps to prevent its recurrence during academic years 2008-2009 through 2011-2012, as well as concerning a report filed by a student in 2013 and a report filed by a student in 2014.”

These letters and other documents The Post obtained provide a rare window inside the Obama administration’s efforts to crack down on campus sexual assault. And they show the vehement efforts that U-Va. took to push back against enforcement methods and conclusions the school deemed unfair.

As the investigation was nearing completion, U-Va. was at the center of turmoil over college sexual assault. The school had been rocked in the fall of 2014, when Rolling Stone magazine published an account of a gang rape at a U-Va. fraternity and depicted the university as indifferent to the issue, an accusation U-Va. officials strenuously denied. The gang-rape account unraveled after The Post revealed significant discrepancies in it. Although the magazine ultimately retracted the article, the episode took a toll on the university’s public image.

[Rolling Stone retracts discredited U-Va. rape story.]

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) cited the Rolling Stone fiasco in an Aug. 14 letter to then-Education Secretary Arne Duncan, saying that he worried that information federal investigators gathered before the article was retracted, in April, “could have been influenced by the atmosphere unfairly created on campus by that false article.”

Sens. Timothy M. Kaine and Mark R. Warner, both Virginia Democrats, also wrote Duncan on Aug. 25 to echo McAuliffe’s plea for fairness to U-Va.

[U-Va. and allies waged intense fight to influence federal investigation]

Lhamon, the assistant education secretary, denied that political pressure played any role in her decision to withdraw the first letter. “The findings did not get watered down,” she said. “As I’ve said in the past, the university did not want us to make the findings that we made. We made them in both letters.”

Lhamon said it was not the first time that the Office for Civil Rights, or OCR, has withdrawn a letter of findings. But she declined to say how often it happens.

U-Va. officials declined to be interviewed about the newly obtained documents, including the Aug. 31 letter.

“This letter included significant factual errors and presented findings based on factual inaccuracies,” the university said in a statement last week. “We are profoundly disappointed that the Department of Education publicly released a factually inaccurate letter that it previously withdrew due to an incomplete review of available information. This letter does not represent the final outcome of the Office for Civil Rights compliance review. . . . The University remains focused on implementing substantive initiatives aimed at providing a safe learning and living environment for every member of its community.”

Across the country, OCR investigations have proliferated since the administration warned schools in April 2011 that they were responsible, under Title IX, for investigating and resolving sexual-violence reports. Evidence has mounted that the violence is widespread. A Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation poll last year found that 20 percent of young women who attended college during a four-year span said they had been sexually assaulted; surveys at prominent U.S. universities have found similar results.

[One in 5 college women say they were violated]

As of Friday, federal investigations related to sexual violence were underway at 167 colleges and universities, according to the Education Department.

The investigations can last years. In most cases, almost everything about them is confidential until the end, unless students involved in a related incident opt to go public.

[Catholic U. student recounts struggles after reporting a sex assault]

Closing a case often requires a letter of findings from the government and a signed resolution agreement in which the school pledges to take steps to prevent and address sexual assault.

The U-Va. investigation had entered its fifth year when the government and the university hit an impasse last summer over how it would be resolved. U-Va. officials, based on their talks with federal investigators, worried about how their school would be portrayed, according to documents The Post obtained. They insisted on seeing a letter of findings before signing a resolution, but the government declined to provide an advance copy, according to the documents.

On Aug. 20, U-Va. President Teresa A. Sullivan wrote Duncan to lament the impasse.

[Read Sullivan’s letter to Duncan]

“Over the next week, 23,000 students will be returning to Charlottesville to begin a new academic year; the fact that we have not been given the courtesy of reviewing OCR’s written findings makes it impossible for us to prepare our University community adequately for what lies ahead in our process with OCR,” Sullivan wrote in a three-page letter. “This predicament is uniquely damaging to us, as our community is still recovering from Rolling Stone’s reckless journalism and now-discredited story.”

Carr’s Hill is the residence of the University of Virginia president, Teresa A. Sullivan. (Norm Shafer/For The Washington Post)

U-Va. officials that day also sent Duncan, Lhamon and Undersecretary Ted Mitchell a 41-page memo strongly criticizing OCR’s procedures and arguing against a possible finding that the school had a broad “hostile environment” regarding reports of sexual harassment or sexual violence.

“If there were concerns about the environment at the University, OCR’s failure to share compliance concerns with the University during the review, and its radio silence for nearly one and a half years of that review, contributed to any such environment and allowed issues to persist unabated for a four-year period, under OCR’s watch,” the university wrote.

[Read the university’s 41-page memo]

Eleven days later, the government issued its blistering first conclusion, which was short-lived.

Emails between the government and the university show the final 19-page resolution agreement was the product of extensive negotiation. One significant pledge that U-Va. made was to review its written agreements with fraternities and sororities to ensure they are aware the university is authorized to investigate reports of sexual violence made against their members and mete out appropriate punishment. The government’s intent with this measure, read alongside the Aug. 31 letter, seems clear: There will be no abdication of university oversight of the Greek system in Charlottesville.

A final round of negotiation occurred over a joint news release. The two sides exchanged drafts. One of OCR’s last edits inserted the word “fraternities” into the news release in a line that noted “instances in which the university did not promptly investigate information in cases that involved fraternities.” U-Va.’s preferred term had been “student organizations.”

Lhamon explained her view in a Sept. 19 email to the U-Va. general counsel, Roscoe Roberts: “We think it is important to reference fraternities, as distinct from student organizations, because it is fraternities about which we have concern.”

Students pass on the lawn at the University of Virginia. (Norm Shafer/For The Washington Post)
Nick Anderson covers higher education for The Washington Post. He has been a writer and editor at The Post since 2005.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/301512891/Aug-31-letter-from-U-S-Department-of-Education-to-U-Va

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/letter-of-finding-from-the-us-department-of-educations-office-for-civil-rights-to-the-university-of-virginia/1750/

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.newsplex.com/home/headlines/Attorneys-call-deposition-of-Jackie-part-of-scorched-earth-attacks-372162702.html

Attorneys call deposition of "Jackie" part of "scorched earth attacks"
Posted: Tue 6:11 PM, Mar 15, 2016
By: Tomas Harmon - Email


In court documents filed Tuesday, attorneys representing "Jackie" say her April deposition should be quashed because it could cause "Jackie" serious harm.

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. (NEWSPLEX) -- On Tuesday, attorneys representing "Jackie" filed a motion to quash her April deposition.

They say "Jackie's" deposition subpoena is part of several "scorched earth attacks" by University of Virginia Dean Nicole Eramo.

Eramo is suing Rolling Stone Magazine, Wenner Media and author Sabrina Erdely for defamation over her depiction in the now defunct article "A Rape on Campus."

Back in February, a federal judge granted Eramo's request to require "Jackie" to provide information for the suit, including electronic data and testimony.

But on Tuesday, "Jackie's" attorneys fired back saying Eramo is using the deposition as a way to distract from the fact that she has no legitimate defamation case.

In their motion, the attorneys said "Jackie" is fragile and a survivor of a sexual assault. They say forcing her to do a deposition would cause her serious harm, which is why they want the deposition thrown out.

According to "Jackie's" attorneys, the deposition could last up to seven hours with an unlimited scope in questions.

They say if "Jackie" is still forced to testify, both the time and questions of her deposition should be limited and that all the information remain confidential.

"A Rape on Campus" claimed "Jackie" was a gang-rape victim at a UVA frat and that Eramo did little to help her once she reported the assault.

An investigation by the Charlottesville Police Department revealed no such incident ever happened.

"Jackie" was not named in the defamation suit filed by Eramo.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Acc Esq

I don't think so......
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jewelcove

Jackie's lawyers are worried that answering questions will cause harm to someone.
She didn't seem to worry that she would cause harm to others when she answered reporters' questions on the record before the Rolling Stone story. She didn't ask for that information to remain "confidential". But now she is worried about harm her on the record answers will have. However, this time it's harm to herself, so she wants them to be limited and "confidential".
Wow.

ETA the stuff she made up for the Rolling Stone article was not even true!
Edited by jewelcove, Mar 17 2016, 09:21 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/hollywood-docket-rolling-stone-source-876225

March 16, 2016 2:43pm PT by Ashley Cullins
Hollywood Docket: Rolling Stone Source Deposition; 'Frozen' Lawsuit Chilled; Univision Sued Over 'Machete'

Rolling Stone’s now-infamous source “Jackie” could be deposed for 10 hours in the University of Virginia dean’s lawsuit against the magazine over its since-retracted article telling the story of the woman’s alleged gang rape at a UVA fraternity.

Typically there is a seven-hour time limit for depositions, which is split equally by plaintiff and defense counsel. Attorneys for UVA Dean Nicole Eramo say, in this case, that won’t cut it.

Eramo is suing Rolling Stone for defamation because the article claims she “attempted to cover up and conceal the supposed gang rape of a college student … in order to protect the University’s reputation,” according to court documents filed Tuesday.

“Given Jackie’s central role in the case, the sheer volume of her communications with Rolling Stone, the need for Plaintiff and Defendant to substantively and extensively question Jackie, and the anticipated contentiousness and difficulty of taking the deposition, there is good cause for a modest extension of the seven-hour time limit,” Eramo’s attorney Elizabeth M. Locke writes in the motion. “If Jackie and/or her counsel are as uncooperative as they have been thus far in the discovery process, a mere 3.5 hours of questioning will be insufficient.”

Eramo’s attorneys also requested that Jackie confirm by stipulation and/or testimony certain high-level facts “that have already been publicized by the Charlottesville Police Department and innumerable media outlets” to streamline questioning and show sensitivity to Jackie per her counsels’ claim that questioning her about the details of her alleged sexual assault would be traumatizing.

“Plaintiff thus proposed that Jackie stipulate and testify to certain facts that did not require such specific questioning about the details of her sexual assault — for example, that the description of Jackie’s supposed gang rape published by Rolling Stone was false, and that Jackie was not in fact sexually assaulted at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity on September 28, 2012,” Locke writes. “This attempt at compromise was flatly rejected.”
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2016/03/eramo-requests-additional-time-to-depose-jackie

Eramo's lawyers request additional time to depose Jackie
Jackie’s lawyers call motion “scorched earth attacks”
by Hannah Hall | Mar 17 2016 | 5 hours ago

The defense has filed a motion in court March 15 to quash Jackie’s deposition in University Assoc. Dean Nicole Eramo’s defamation lawsuit against Rolling Stone magazine.

The motion is a response to a motion filed by Eramo’s lawyers requesting more time for Jackie’s deposition.

Judge Glen E. Conrad ordered the deposition, which was set at a maximum of seven hours, in February. According to court documents, Eramo’s lawyers believe additional time is necessary in order for a “fair examination of the deponent.”

A memorandum of law filed cites three reasons for the request for additional time.

First, Jackie played a role as central source for Rolling Stone’s now-retracted article “A Rape on Campus.”

Second, both sides have indicated Jackie will be questioned extensively, and third, the plaintiff anticipates the questioning will be especially time consuming.

“For these reasons, Plaintiff requests a total of 6.5 hours to question Jackie on the record, exclusive of breaks, extended objections, colloquy among counsel or court conferences,” Eramo’s memorandum reads.

In response to the memorandum, the defense argued spending more time deposing Jackie will cause more harm than good.

“Eramo has exhibited no interest in attempting to balance her supposed need for any information with the inevitable and undeniable damage that will result from Respondent having to sit for this deposition,” Jackie’s lawyers argued in their memorandum.

Jackie’s lawyers said Eramo’s motion for additional time in the deposition “continues her scorched earth attacks on [Jackie].”

They further argue Eramo has no grounds for the lawsuit, as the “Office of Civil Rights of the Department of Education reached conclusions regarding Dean Eramo’s violations of Title IX that soundly defeat her sole causation and damages theory in this case.”

Eramo filed the lawsuit in May 2015 against Rolling Stone, journalist Sabrina Rubin Erdely and Wenner Media LLC for statements made in the article “A Rape on Campus.” Jackie is not a party to the lawsuit.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill Anderson
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
In their motion, the attorneys said "Jackie" is fragile and a survivor of a sexual assault. They say forcing her to do a deposition would cause her serious harm, which is why they want the deposition thrown out.

According to "Jackie's" attorneys, the deposition could last up to seven hours with an unlimited scope in questions.

They say if "Jackie" is still forced to testify, both the time and questions of her deposition should be limited and that all the information remain confidential.

"A Rape on Campus" claimed "Jackie" was a gang-rape victim at a UVA frat and that Eramo did little to help her once she reported the assault.


So, Jackie's lawyers still are trying to claim that she was sexually assaulted at the non-existent party. This woman is a psychopath, pure and simple, a congenital liar. As I see it, the dean has a great case, as Rolling Stone already has publicly admitted that it engaged in actions that would pass muster for Times v. Sullivan (1964). There is no doubt that the magazine engaged in what would be called "reckless disregard for the truth," which is one of the barriers in the Times/Sullivan case.

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

http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/local/jackie-of-rolling-stone-article-resists-subpoena-in-court-filing/article_dbf613c6-ecac-11e5-9abf-b7dde90ae7b7.html


‘Jackie’ of Rolling Stone article resists subpoena in court filing

By Dean Seal | Posted: Thursday, March 17, 2016 9:58 pm

The young woman whose story of her alleged gang rape served as the centerpiece of a now-retracted Rolling Stone article is resisting the subpoena filed by her former counselor.

Attorneys for “Jackie,” the former University of Virginia student involved in the controversial “A Rape on Campus” article published by Rolling Stone in November 2014, filed a motion in federal court this week asking the court to throw out a deposition subpoena from the counsel of Nicole Eramo, a UVa associate dean.

Upon its release, the article came under intense scrutiny, with several sources saying Jackie’s account of her brutal gang rape at an off-Grounds fraternity house never occurred. After an investigation, Charlottesville police said they could find no evidence the rape had occurred; the magazine would go on to retract the story the following spring.

Eramo filed a multimillion-dollar defamation lawsuit against Rolling Stone magazine in May, alleging that the article portrayed her as a “villain” in her role as an administrator tasked with aiding student survivors of sexual assault. In January, a judge ruled that Jackie, who was counseled by Eramo after her alleged rape, will have to cooperate in the discovery portion of the lawsuit by turning over her communications with Rolling Stone and author Sabrina Rubin Erdely, and by sitting for a seven-hour deposition April 5.

According to court filings, counsel for Eramo and Jackie have clashed repeatedly since the deposition was ordered. Eramo’s attorneys have asked to rescind the “confidential” status of transcripts and audiotapes of Jackie’s conversations with Erdely, “despite the fact that all of these materials clearly and unequivocally contain [Jackie’s] confidential information,” according to the latest motion from Jackie. That motion also states that Eramo has attempted to expand the scope of questioning in the deposition.

“As part of [Eramo’s] committed strategy to attack [Jackie], a third-party sexual assault victim, she now insists that [Jackie] should sit for a deposition unlimited in scope,” the filing reads. “She refuses to agree that any topic is off limits during the upcoming deposition.”

That refusal “reveals Dean Eramo’s true motive,” according to the motion, of using “scorched earth attacks on [Jackie] in the misguided hope that her unwarranted attacks can distract from the fact that Dean Eramo has no valid claims.” The motion suggests that Eramo’s Title IX violations as previously uncovered by the Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education would defeat Eramo’s claims.

The motion goes on to say the deposition “ignores the very real risk of significant and irreparable harm that [Jackie] will suffer if forced to answer questions about the trauma she suffered,” and that it should be thrown out for that very reason.

If it is to move forward, Jackie’s attorneys argue that the deposition should be limited in scope to only communications that occurred between Jackie and Erdely about Eramo after July 12, 2014, and restricted to written questions. By using only written questions, Jackie will be able to answer in a “safe and controlled environment, letting her take as many breaks as are needed,” and will eliminate the ability of Eramo’s attorneys to “verbally attack or intimidate [Jackie] whenever they receive an answer to a question they do not like,” the motion states.

Any further questioning, they argue, should be deferred until and if Eramo’s claim survives summary judgment.

The motion was filed on the last day that Eramo would have been able to request additional time to depose Jackie — which she did. While originally allotted half of the seven-hour deposition time window, Eramo filed a motion this week asking for a total of six and a half hours to depose Jackie on the record, excluding breaks and other delays.

Due to Jackie’s role as a “central source” in the article, it likely will take more than three and a half hours to get a “fair examination” of what Jackie told the magazine, the motion argued, which is all the time Eramo would be allowed given that counsel for Rolling Stone has said that they too would like to question Jackie extensively. On top of that, Eramo anticipates that the questioning of Jackie will be “particularly time consuming” because her attorneys likely will assert frequent objections to the scope of the questioning.

“Moreover, the voluminous evidence that Jackie has a well-documented history of making untruthful statements about the very subject matter at issue here is likely to complicate the deposition,” Eramo’s motion states.

Attorneys for both Jackie and Eramo did not respond Thursday to requests for comments on the motions.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

https://kcjohnson.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/jackie-quash.pdf

NON-PARTY RESPONDENT’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF’S RULE 45 DEPOSITION
SUBPOENA OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 

Eramo's lawyers request additional time to depose Jackie



Do plaintiffs normally get to depose witnesses without having to wait three years
or so for the presiding judge to make up his mind about a motion to dismiss?

Will wonders never cease?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.c-ville.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/jackie-quash-memo-3-15-16.pdf

http://www.c-ville.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/eramo-motion-addl-time-to-depose-jackie-3-15-16.pdf
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Payback
Member Avatar

How they are slanting the news! Calling her a "woman" now! That is so prejudicial! She was a little girl wanting attention. A GIRL. Now they are treating her like a grownup, as if she could do real damage. That is so wrong!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MikeZPU

jewelcove
Mar 16 2016, 06:25 PM
Jackie's lawyers are worried that answering questions will cause harm to someone.
She didn't seem to worry that she would cause harm to others when she answered reporters' questions on the record before the Rolling Stone story. She didn't ask for that information to remain "confidential". But now she is worried about harm her on the record answers will have. However, this time it's harm to herself, so she wants them to be limited and "confidential".
Wow.

ETA the stuff she made up for the Rolling Stone article was not even true!
:toast:

Yes! I don't have much sympathy for Jackie, when it comes
to answering some questions.

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rolling-stone-rape-hoaxer-doesnt-want-to-answer-questions-anymore/article/2586739
Rolling Stone rape hoaxer doesn't want to answer questions anymore
By Ashe Schow (@AsheSchow) • 3/24/16 12:28 PM

The woman known as Jackie who shocked the world with her lurid tale of being gang-raped at a University of Virginia fraternity party doesn't want to answer any more questions as part of a lawsuit.

Filed by U.Va.'s associate dean of students, Nicole Eramo, the lawsuit alleges Rolling Stone Magazine, which published the false rape story, defamed her when it accused her of being cruel to sexual assault accusers. In late January, a judge ordered Jackie to turn over any and all communications between her and Eramo, as well as between her and the author of the article, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, that related to her accusation.

A judge has given Eramo's attorneys seven hours to depose Jackie, but because of the sheer volume of communications between her and Erdely, and the fact that Eramo would have to share the time with Rolling Stone's attorneys, the U.Va. dean is asking for another three hours. Naturally, Jackie and her attorney don't want to talk anymore, and Jackie especially doesn't want to talk about her rape claims.

Jackie wants mention of her sexual assault claims excluded from the deposition. Eramo's lawyers have said that would be fine — if Jackie admits she lied about the gang rape. Evidence uncovered after the Rolling Stone article was published, as well as a statement from local police, proved that the accusation described in the article could not have happened.

Jackie's lawyer maintains in a motion to quash the deposition subpoena that the woman who was proven to have lied to Rolling Stone and the world is, in fact, a "sexual assault victim," and therefore entitled to compassion. They say each of Eramo's requests are a "negative attack" on Jackie, which demonstrate "a complete lack of compassion for" her.

The attorney also claims Eramo wants to "use the deposition as a weapon to inflict as much harm on [Jackie] as possible, with utter disregard for the significant and undeniable psychological harm that will result and without regard to the actual asserted claims in the case." Jackie and her attorney also claimed that she will "suffer if forced to answer questions about the trauma she suffered and the aftermath" of her accusation.

Sorry, but Jackie's feelings don't matter any more. She made false accusations and created a false narrative that seriously harmed many innocent people. Also, as K.C. Johnson (author of the book on the Duke Lacrosse rape hoax) noted on Twitter: "Can 'trauma' result from an assault that never occurred?"

Jackie's attorney also claims in the motion that because the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights condemned U.Va. for violating the Title IX anti sex-discrimination statute, what was said of Eramo in the Rolling Stone article must be true.

The attorney says that Eramo just wants to use Jackie's deposition "to extract money from Rolling Stone for reporting opinions about [Jackie] that the Office of Civil Rights [sic] has already independently concluded to be true."

But this is a wildly generous reading of OCR's finding. For starters, OCR bends over backwards to find schools in violation as part of a political agenda, which leads to the agency contradicting itself in its findings. Activists insist that accusers should be able to dictate the direction of the investigation (as far as whether they want to proceed or not). In finding U.Va. in violation of Title IX, OCR cited the school for not proceeding with investigations in cases where the accusers didn't want them to.

Eramo was also knocked (though not by name in OCR's report) for saying on a radio program that campus hearing panels are not really comfortable with expelling someone if they are only 51 percent sure (known as a preponderance of evidence) sure the accused is guilty. OCR claimed this honest statement created a "hostile environment" for U.Va. students.

This is not the same as Eramo allegedly callously dismissing Jackie's claims when she reported them years ago by saying no one wanted to go to a "rape school."

Jackie's claim in her motion, that her claims in Rolling Stone were accurate because Eramo did create a hostile environment, are undermined by a letter she posted in the Cavalier Daily defending Eramo. Jackie said Eramo "truly saved my life," yet now is maintaining her description of Eramo's callousness in the article was accurate.

Jackie's attorney makes multiple demands for the deposition, such as written questions in advance, "a safe and controlled environment" with as many breaks as she wants. Jackie also demands the deposition be sealed so the media cannot quote from it.

The same Jackie who told an untrue story to the media now wants the media to leave her alone.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
duke09parent

Quasimodo
Mar 19 2016, 08:12 AM
Quote:
 

Eramo's lawyers request additional time to depose Jackie



Do plaintiffs normally get to depose witnesses without having to wait three years
or so for the presiding judge to make up his mind about a motion to dismiss?

Will wonders never cease?
:hun: Yeah, Virginia courts move a little more expeditiously than North Carolina's. I was always amazed at the slow pace there.
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