Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
UVA Rape Story Collapses; Duke Lacrosse Redux
Topic Started: Dec 5 2014, 01:45 PM (60,416 Views)
abb
Member Avatar

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/03/25/jackie-from-debunked-rolling-stone-story-in-tussle-over-deposition-demands/

‘Jackie’ from Debunked Rolling Stone Rape Story in Tussle Over Deposition Demands
Jacob Gershman
3/25/16

The young woman who was the central figure in Rolling Stone’s discredited story about a fraternity party gang rape is locked in a heated standoff with a University of Virginia dean seeking to depose her for a defamation suit against the magazine.

The litigation comes in the aftermath of the controversy surrounding the November 2014 article, which described a brutal alleged sexual assault of a female college student at a fraternity house and depicted school officials as indifferent to her plight.

The article made national headlines first as a shocking example of campus sexual violence and then as a journalism scandal when its central claims unraveled and Rolling Stone retracted it with an apology to readers.

Lawyers for “Jackie”, the anonymous protagonist of the article, are battling efforts by UVA associate dean of students Nicole Eramo to question her about what she told the magazine.

Ms. Eramo is suing the magazine over how it portrayed her in the story. The story, according to her defamation suit, cast her as “the chief villain” and falsely asserted that she discouraged Jackie from reporting her alleged gang rape to protect the reputation of UVA. Rolling Stone strongly disputes that the story was defamatory.

Attorneys for Ms. Eramo, in a court filing Tuesday stated they have every right to want to question her:

The bottom line is that, as the Court has already held, Jackie is a highly relevant witness in this action. Rolling Stone published a completely false story alleging that Jackie was gang raped as part of a fraternity hazing ritual, and claiming that Dean Eramo sought to cover up and suppress Jackie’s supposed assault. The apparent source for virtually all of these falsehoods was Jackie, and therefore Jackie’s credibility — and whether Rolling Stone acted negligently or recklessly in printing what Jackie told them — are key issues in the case.

The filing says Jackie and her attorneys have “never offered any affirmative evidence or facts whatsoever to substantiate the claim that Jackie was a victim of a sexual assault,” noting that police in Charlottesville, Va. said last year that they found no evidence to support the rape claims made in the magazine.

Jackie and her lawyers say she would be “re-victimized” if she were “forced to answer questions about the trauma she suffered and the aftermath,” according to court papers filed this month in federal court in Virginia.

“As part of Plaintiff Nicole Eramo’s committed strategy to attack Respondent, a third-party sexual assault victim, she now insists that Respondent should sit for a deposition unlimited in scope,” the filing stated.

If “Jackie” is required to be deposed, her lawyers want it done with written questions and to limit the deposition time. In a filing this week, they said the scope should be restricted to what she told the magazine about the dean, objecting to answering anything about the sexual assault she alleges.

Rolling Stone says the 6.5 hours of questioning sought by Ms. Eramo is too much, but say whatever time is ultimately allotted should be split equally between the two parties.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/03/30/lawyers-for-jackie-in-rolling-stone-lawsuit-protest-under-oath-deposition-say-it-could-re-traumatize-her/?tid=pm_local_pop_b

Attorneys for ‘Jackie’ in Rolling Stone lawsuit protest under-oath deposition, say it could ‘re-traumatize’ her
By T. Rees Shapiro March 30 at 7:00 AM

Lawyers representing a former University of Virginia student who claimed she was the victim of a gang rape in a discredited Rolling Stone story have asked a judge to cancel her scheduled deposition in a lawsuit against the magazine, arguing that she would be “re-traumatized” if she is compelled to recount her ordeal in proceedings under oath.

The former student — who in court papers is referred to only by her nickname, Jackie — became the central figure in a 2014 Rolling Stone article that described her account of a vicious sexual assault during her freshman year, an attack she said was carried out over several hours by seven men in a fraternity house bedroom. The 9,000-word exposé highlighted Jackie’s case as a devastating example of rape on a college campus and the struggles she faced while seeking help from members of the U-Va. administration, including the associate dean responsible for handling sexual assault allegations.

But reporting by The Washington Post, later confirmed by the Charlottesville Police Department and an investigation by the Columbia University journalism school, showed that the Rolling Stone article was factually inaccurate. The magazine eventually retracted the story and apologized to readers; the fraternity was cleared of all wrongdoing. In May, U-Va. associate dean Nicole Eramo filed a defamation lawsuit against Rolling Stone, assailing the magazine’s “false” portrayal of her counsel to Jackie as callous and indifferent and arguing that Jackie’s story was a fabrication.

[‘Catfishing’ over love interest might have spurred U-Va. gang-rape debacle]

In newly filed court documents, attorneys for Jackie wrote that a deposition could cause “significant and undeniable psychological harm” and have “shattering and potentially irreparable consequences” to their client.

“Forcing her to revisit her sexual assault, and then the re-victimization that took place after the Rolling Stone article came out, will inevitably lead to a worsening of her symptoms and current mental health,” Jackie’s attorneys wrote, citing “extensive support in the medical literature” that shows “sexual assault victims will experience trauma if they are forced to revisit the details of their assault.”

But attorneys for Eramo contend in court documents that Jackie is a “serial liar” who concocted her tale of sexual assault in an unusual ploy to win the affection of a male U-Va. student she wanted to date.

“There is no evidence whatsoever that the story that Jackie told her friends, or the very different story she told Rolling Stone, actually transpired,” Eramo’s attorneys wrote. “Instead, it appears that Jackie fabricated her perpetrator and the details of the alleged assault.”

Eramo’s team wants Jackie to detail her interactions with Rolling Stone. In recent court filings, Jackie’s attorneys characterized any attempt by Eramo’s legal team to depose Jackie as a third party in the lawsuit as “persecution.”

“Instead, Dean Eramo continues her scorched earth attacks … in the misguided hope that her unwarranted attacks can distract from the fact that Dean Eramo has no valid claims,” wrote Jackie’s attorneys, who described Jackie as “a sexual assault victim who has suffered repeated revictimizations, including by Dean Eramo in this very lawsuit.”

Jackie’s attorneys argued in court filings that questions posed to their client could inappropriately veer into “deeply personal matters,” such as the intimate details of her sexual assault. They declined to comment on the court filings when reached by The Post.

The deposition is scheduled for April 5, and Jackie’s attorneys have requested that the location of the meeting remain secret and have asked the judge to ban anyone involved with the case to discuss or comment on whatever Jackie might say in the sworn statements. Jackie has never reported her allegations to police; authorities have said that U-Va. officials encouraged her to do so, at one point driving her to a police station.

“Jackie’s lawyers argue that questioning her supposed sexual assault would be invasive and violate her privacy rights. That contention is ridiculous,” said Libby Locke, a lawyer representing Eramo, noting that Jackie openly discussed her rape account with Rolling Stone and The Post. “The only thing different now is that Jackie’s deposition answers will be under oath and Jackie will be compelled to tell the truth. Unfortunately, that is something that Jackie and her lawyers have been trying to avoid all along.”

Attorneys for Rolling Stone and the journalist who wrote the article, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, wrote in court filings that they support deposing Jackie in the case, highlighting that her answers could reveal context necessary for both sides’ legal strategy at trial.

In a March 29 filing, Eramo’s attorneys wrote that 11 months ago they approached Jackie’s attorney with a proposal that would have eliminated the need for the student to participate in a deposition, but Eramo’s legal team wrote that the attorney declined.

Eramo’s attorneys also wrote that they offered Jackie the option “to streamline the questioning and allow for fair discovery, while also showing sensitivity to Jackie’s counsels’ claim that subjecting Jackie to questioning about the specific details of her supposed sexual assault would be traumatizing.” Eramo’s attorneys proposed that if Jackie admitted that she “was not in fact sexually assaulted at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity on September 28, 2012,” then the questioning on that matter could be shortened in the deposition. According to court documents, Jackie’s lawyers “flatly rejected” the offer.

In several interviews with The Post in late 2014, Jackie said that she stood by the account in Rolling Stone and offered a similar version. Jackie also acknowledged that she knew her allegations had little proof beyond her word.

“I didn’t want a trial,” Jackie said in 2014. “I can’t imagine getting up on a defense stand having them tear me apart.”
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.newsplex.com/home/headlines/Trial-date-set-for-Phi-Kappa-Psi-lawsuit-against-Rolling-Stone-374010951.html

Trial date set for Phi Kappa Psi lawsuit against Rolling Stone
Updated: Wed 6:55 PM, Mar 30, 2016
By: Tomas Harmon - Email

A jury trial date has been set for the lawsuit filed against Rolling Stone by the Virginia chapter of Phi Kappa Psi. The suit filed by the frat concerns the depiction of the frat in the now defunct article, "A Rape on Campus."

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. (NEWSPLEX) -- The lawsuit filed by the Virginia Chapter of Phi Kappa Psi against Rolling Stone Magazine, author Sabrina Erdely and publishing company Wenner Media will go to trial in the fall of 2017.

A ten-day jury trial will begin on Oct. 23, 2017.

Phi Psi is suing Rolling Stone, Erdely and Wenner Media for $25 million over a depiction in the now defunct article, "A Rape on Campus."

In that article, Rolling Stone alleged several fraternity members gang-raped a University of Virginia student named "Jackie."

A Charlottesville Police Department investigation revealed that no such incident ever occurred at the frat and Rolling Stone retracted the article.

Three Phi Psi frat brothers filed a defamation lawsuit in New York federal court over the article. And UVA Dean Nicole Eramo also filed a defamation lawsuit in Charlottesville federal court over her depiction in the article.

"Jackie" has not been named in any of the suits, although she has been deposed in the Eramo case.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Walt-in-Durham

From the story quoted by ABB: "Lawyers representing a former University of Virginia student who claimed she was the victim of a gang rape in a discredited Rolling Stone story have asked a judge to cancel her scheduled deposition in a lawsuit against the magazine, arguing that she would be “re-traumatized” if she is compelled to recount her ordeal in proceedings under oath."

How could something that did not happen "re-traumatize" Jackie? I know her lawyers have to follow her instructions, so I hope they are getting well paid for that foolishness.

Walt-in-Durham
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. (NEWSPLEX) -- The lawsuit filed by the Virginia Chapter of Phi Kappa Psi against Rolling Stone Magazine, author Sabrina Erdely and publishing company Wenner Media will go to trial in the fall of 2017.

A ten-day jury trial will begin on Oct. 23, 2017.



How in the world did they get a trial date?

I can think of another case of false accusations of rape, that couldn't get into court
at all.

And the plaintiffs in that case had some of the best, if not the best, attorneys in the country.


Posted Image
The Madame Defarge knitting club at work.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cks
Member Avatar

abb
Mar 31 2016, 04:36 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/03/30/lawyers-for-jackie-in-rolling-stone-lawsuit-protest-under-oath-deposition-say-it-could-re-traumatize-her/?tid=pm_local_pop_b

Attorneys for ‘Jackie’ in Rolling Stone lawsuit protest under-oath deposition, say it could ‘re-traumatize’ her
By T. Rees Shapiro March 30 at 7:00 AM

Lawyers representing a former University of Virginia student who claimed she was the victim of a gang rape in a discredited Rolling Stone story have asked a judge to cancel her scheduled deposition in a lawsuit against the magazine, arguing that she would be “re-traumatized” if she is compelled to recount her ordeal in proceedings under oath.

The former student — who in court papers is referred to only by her nickname, Jackie — became the central figure in a 2014 Rolling Stone article that described her account of a vicious sexual assault during her freshman year, an attack she said was carried out over several hours by seven men in a fraternity house bedroom. The 9,000-word exposé highlighted Jackie’s case as a devastating example of rape on a college campus and the struggles she faced while seeking help from members of the U-Va. administration, including the associate dean responsible for handling sexual assault allegations.

But reporting by The Washington Post, later confirmed by the Charlottesville Police Department and an investigation by the Columbia University journalism school, showed that the Rolling Stone article was factually inaccurate. The magazine eventually retracted the story and apologized to readers; the fraternity was cleared of all wrongdoing. In May, U-Va. associate dean Nicole Eramo filed a defamation lawsuit against Rolling Stone, assailing the magazine’s “false” portrayal of her counsel to Jackie as callous and indifferent and arguing that Jackie’s story was a fabrication.

[‘Catfishing’ over love interest might have spurred U-Va. gang-rape debacle]

In newly filed court documents, attorneys for Jackie wrote that a deposition could cause “significant and undeniable psychological harm” and have “shattering and potentially irreparable consequences” to their client.

“Forcing her to revisit her sexual assault, and then the re-victimization that took place after the Rolling Stone article came out, will inevitably lead to a worsening of her symptoms and current mental health,” Jackie’s attorneys wrote, citing “extensive support in the medical literature” that shows “sexual assault victims will experience trauma if they are forced to revisit the details of their assault.”

But attorneys for Eramo contend in court documents that Jackie is a “serial liar” who concocted her tale of sexual assault in an unusual ploy to win the affection of a male U-Va. student she wanted to date.

“There is no evidence whatsoever that the story that Jackie told her friends, or the very different story she told Rolling Stone, actually transpired,” Eramo’s attorneys wrote. “Instead, it appears that Jackie fabricated her perpetrator and the details of the alleged assault.”

Eramo’s team wants Jackie to detail her interactions with Rolling Stone. In recent court filings, Jackie’s attorneys characterized any attempt by Eramo’s legal team to depose Jackie as a third party in the lawsuit as “persecution.”

“Instead, Dean Eramo continues her scorched earth attacks … in the misguided hope that her unwarranted attacks can distract from the fact that Dean Eramo has no valid claims,” wrote Jackie’s attorneys, who described Jackie as “a sexual assault victim who has suffered repeated revictimizations, including by Dean Eramo in this very lawsuit.”

Jackie’s attorneys argued in court filings that questions posed to their client could inappropriately veer into “deeply personal matters,” such as the intimate details of her sexual assault. They declined to comment on the court filings when reached by The Post.

The deposition is scheduled for April 5, and Jackie’s attorneys have requested that the location of the meeting remain secret and have asked the judge to ban anyone involved with the case to discuss or comment on whatever Jackie might say in the sworn statements. Jackie has never reported her allegations to police; authorities have said that U-Va. officials encouraged her to do so, at one point driving her to a police station.

“Jackie’s lawyers argue that questioning her supposed sexual assault would be invasive and violate her privacy rights. That contention is ridiculous,” said Libby Locke, a lawyer representing Eramo, noting that Jackie openly discussed her rape account with Rolling Stone and The Post. “The only thing different now is that Jackie’s deposition answers will be under oath and Jackie will be compelled to tell the truth. Unfortunately, that is something that Jackie and her lawyers have been trying to avoid all along.”

Attorneys for Rolling Stone and the journalist who wrote the article, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, wrote in court filings that they support deposing Jackie in the case, highlighting that her answers could reveal context necessary for both sides’ legal strategy at trial.

In a March 29 filing, Eramo’s attorneys wrote that 11 months ago they approached Jackie’s attorney with a proposal that would have eliminated the need for the student to participate in a deposition, but Eramo’s legal team wrote that the attorney declined.

Eramo’s attorneys also wrote that they offered Jackie the option “to streamline the questioning and allow for fair discovery, while also showing sensitivity to Jackie’s counsels’ claim that subjecting Jackie to questioning about the specific details of her supposed sexual assault would be traumatizing.” Eramo’s attorneys proposed that if Jackie admitted that she “was not in fact sexually assaulted at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity on September 28, 2012,” then the questioning on that matter could be shortened in the deposition. According to court documents, Jackie’s lawyers “flatly rejected” the offer.

In several interviews with The Post in late 2014, Jackie said that she stood by the account in Rolling Stone and offered a similar version. Jackie also acknowledged that she knew her allegations had little proof beyond her word.

“I didn’t want a trial,” Jackie said in 2014. “I can’t imagine getting up on a defense stand having them tear me apart.”
I guess that I must be stupid. I am trying to figure how one can be re-traumatized over an event that never occurred.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.nbc29.com/story/31625129/hearing-for-uva-assoc-dean-eramo-rolling-stone-scheduled


Hearing for UVA Assoc. Dean Eramo, Rolling Stone Scheduled
Posted: Apr 01, 2016 7:55 PM CST

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va (WVIR) -

A hearing is set for what could be a very contentious battle in federal court over a now-retracted Rolling Stone Magazine article. Lawyers involved in the case will be in Charlottesville on Monday for a motion hearing.

Lawyers for the woman who claimed several men at a University of Virginia fraternity raped her are demanding a judge deny UVA Associate Dean of Students Nicole Eramo's subpoena to depose the student's psychologist.

The magazine published "A Rape on Campus" by Sabrina Rubin Erdely in its issue for November 2014. In the article, a student known as "Jackie" described being gang raped at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house at UVA in September of 2012.

The claims made in the article quickly fell apart, and in December 2014, Rolling Stone issued an apology and retracted the story, saying Jackie lied.

Jackie’s lawyers maintain Eramo's legal tactics prove she created a hostile environment for sexual assault survivors.

The hearing is set for 1:15 p.m. Monday.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DukieInKansas

cks
Mar 31 2016, 09:22 AM
abb
Mar 31 2016, 04:36 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/03/30/lawyers-for-jackie-in-rolling-stone-lawsuit-protest-under-oath-deposition-say-it-could-re-traumatize-her/?tid=pm_local_pop_b

Attorneys for ‘Jackie’ in Rolling Stone lawsuit protest under-oath deposition, say it could ‘re-traumatize’ her
By T. Rees Shapiro March 30 at 7:00 AM

Lawyers representing a former University of Virginia student who claimed she was the victim of a gang rape in a discredited Rolling Stone story have asked a judge to cancel her scheduled deposition in a lawsuit against the magazine, arguing that she would be “re-traumatized” if she is compelled to recount her ordeal in proceedings under oath.

The former student — who in court papers is referred to only by her nickname, Jackie — became the central figure in a 2014 Rolling Stone article that described her account of a vicious sexual assault during her freshman year, an attack she said was carried out over several hours by seven men in a fraternity house bedroom. The 9,000-word exposé highlighted Jackie’s case as a devastating example of rape on a college campus and the struggles she faced while seeking help from members of the U-Va. administration, including the associate dean responsible for handling sexual assault allegations.

But reporting by The Washington Post, later confirmed by the Charlottesville Police Department and an investigation by the Columbia University journalism school, showed that the Rolling Stone article was factually inaccurate. The magazine eventually retracted the story and apologized to readers; the fraternity was cleared of all wrongdoing. In May, U-Va. associate dean Nicole Eramo filed a defamation lawsuit against Rolling Stone, assailing the magazine’s “false” portrayal of her counsel to Jackie as callous and indifferent and arguing that Jackie’s story was a fabrication.

[‘Catfishing’ over love interest might have spurred U-Va. gang-rape debacle]

In newly filed court documents, attorneys for Jackie wrote that a deposition could cause “significant and undeniable psychological harm” and have “shattering and potentially irreparable consequences” to their client.

“Forcing her to revisit her sexual assault, and then the re-victimization that took place after the Rolling Stone article came out, will inevitably lead to a worsening of her symptoms and current mental health,” Jackie’s attorneys wrote, citing “extensive support in the medical literature” that shows “sexual assault victims will experience trauma if they are forced to revisit the details of their assault.”

But attorneys for Eramo contend in court documents that Jackie is a “serial liar” who concocted her tale of sexual assault in an unusual ploy to win the affection of a male U-Va. student she wanted to date.

“There is no evidence whatsoever that the story that Jackie told her friends, or the very different story she told Rolling Stone, actually transpired,” Eramo’s attorneys wrote. “Instead, it appears that Jackie fabricated her perpetrator and the details of the alleged assault.”

Eramo’s team wants Jackie to detail her interactions with Rolling Stone. In recent court filings, Jackie’s attorneys characterized any attempt by Eramo’s legal team to depose Jackie as a third party in the lawsuit as “persecution.”

“Instead, Dean Eramo continues her scorched earth attacks … in the misguided hope that her unwarranted attacks can distract from the fact that Dean Eramo has no valid claims,” wrote Jackie’s attorneys, who described Jackie as “a sexual assault victim who has suffered repeated revictimizations, including by Dean Eramo in this very lawsuit.”

Jackie’s attorneys argued in court filings that questions posed to their client could inappropriately veer into “deeply personal matters,” such as the intimate details of her sexual assault. They declined to comment on the court filings when reached by The Post.

The deposition is scheduled for April 5, and Jackie’s attorneys have requested that the location of the meeting remain secret and have asked the judge to ban anyone involved with the case to discuss or comment on whatever Jackie might say in the sworn statements. Jackie has never reported her allegations to police; authorities have said that U-Va. officials encouraged her to do so, at one point driving her to a police station.

“Jackie’s lawyers argue that questioning her supposed sexual assault would be invasive and violate her privacy rights. That contention is ridiculous,” said Libby Locke, a lawyer representing Eramo, noting that Jackie openly discussed her rape account with Rolling Stone and The Post. “The only thing different now is that Jackie’s deposition answers will be under oath and Jackie will be compelled to tell the truth. Unfortunately, that is something that Jackie and her lawyers have been trying to avoid all along.”

Attorneys for Rolling Stone and the journalist who wrote the article, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, wrote in court filings that they support deposing Jackie in the case, highlighting that her answers could reveal context necessary for both sides’ legal strategy at trial.

In a March 29 filing, Eramo’s attorneys wrote that 11 months ago they approached Jackie’s attorney with a proposal that would have eliminated the need for the student to participate in a deposition, but Eramo’s legal team wrote that the attorney declined.

Eramo’s attorneys also wrote that they offered Jackie the option “to streamline the questioning and allow for fair discovery, while also showing sensitivity to Jackie’s counsels’ claim that subjecting Jackie to questioning about the specific details of her supposed sexual assault would be traumatizing.” Eramo’s attorneys proposed that if Jackie admitted that she “was not in fact sexually assaulted at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity on September 28, 2012,” then the questioning on that matter could be shortened in the deposition. According to court documents, Jackie’s lawyers “flatly rejected” the offer.

In several interviews with The Post in late 2014, Jackie said that she stood by the account in Rolling Stone and offered a similar version. Jackie also acknowledged that she knew her allegations had little proof beyond her word.

“I didn’t want a trial,” Jackie said in 2014. “I can’t imagine getting up on a defense stand having them tear me apart.”
I guess that I must be stupid. I am trying to figure how one can be re-traumatized over an event that never occurred.
First, you must take logic out of the equation. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.bostonherald.com/opinion/editorials/2016/04/editorial_a_nonvictim_as_victim

Editorial: A nonvictim as ‘victim’
Herald Staff for Boston Herald @bostonherald
4/3/16

“Jackie,” the University of Virginia student whose account of being raped in a fraternity house two years ago turned out to be a complete fabrication, wants not to tell her story again in court. She claims that it could traumatize her.

After she told it to Rolling Stone and The Washington Post in 2014? The court shouldn’t allow Jackie to get away with such a dodge.

In May of this year, Associate Dean Nicole Eramo sued Rolling Stone (which retracted its article), alleging that the magazine’s account of her counsel to Jackie (a nickname serving as her public moniker) was false.

Eramo’s lawyers sought Jackie’s testimony in a deposition scheduled for next week. Jackie’s lawyers asserted that: “Forcing her to revisit her sexual assault, and then the revictimization that took place after the Rolling Stone article came out, will inevitably lead to a worsening of her symptoms and current mental health.” They said medical research confirmed that.

The dean’s attorneys countered that Jackie was a “serial liar” who had rejected overtures to skip the deposition or “streamline” her testimony. The defendant, Rolling Stone, says it also needs Jackie’s testimony.

The Virginia judge can require Jackie’s attorneys to produce experts to testify on the chances of “revictimization.”

The judge also could rule on the admissibility of any questions to be put to Jackie, hold her deposition testimony under seal and require approval before use of any of it — or repetition of it — at trial.

Experience shows that allegations of campus sexual offenses need the most careful scrutiny. Reputations can be trashed in an instant. The dean in this case is entitled to her day in court and Jackie should not be permitted to deny it to her.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/05/media/jackie-rolling-stone-rape-story/index.html

'Jackie' must testify in lawsuit over Rolling Stone rape story
by Tom Kludt @tomkludt April 5, 2016: 1:05 PM ET

A Virginia judge has ruled that the woman at the center of Rolling Stone's discredited story about an alleged frat house gang rape must testify as part of a lawsuit against the magazine.

The woman identified only as "Jackie" will be deposed on Thursday by attorneys representing Rolling Stone and Nicole Eramo, the University of Virginia administrator who is suing the magazine and the author of the now-retracted article, Sabrina Rubin Erdely.

Erdely's 2014 piece, "A Rape On Campus," featured Jackie's graphic claim to have been raped by a group of fraternity members during her freshman year at UVA.

Eramo, an associate dean of students at UVA, is suing Rolling Stone and Erdely for defamation over what she says was an unfair portrayal of her as an insensitive campus bureaucrat in the story. She is seeking $7.85 million in damages.

The story unraveled after doubts about Jackie's allegation surfaced. Police eventually said they found no evidence that the rape occurred, and an independent review conducted by Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism found sweeping editorial failures on the part of Rolling Stone.

Attorneys for Jackie had resisted the deposition, arguing that she would be re-victimized if forced to recount the incident under oath and it could bring her "extreme psychological" and "irreparable harm."

At a hearing held Monday in a Charlottesville, Virginia, Judge Glen E. Conrad denied a motion filed by Jackie's attorneys to quash the deposition subpoena.

Conrad ruled that all records and transcripts of the deposition will be sealed, and that it will be held at a "mutually convenient location, with priority given to the convenience of and comfort" of Jackie.

The judge said that the plaintiff's attorneys may depose Jackie for five hours over a two-day period, or may petition for additional time.

Libby Locke, an attorney for Eramo, said Rolling Stone's negligence led to her client's unflattering portrayal.

"Jackie was Rolling Stone's sole source for the false tale of rape that it recklessly published. There were numerous red flags in Jackie's account, which should have put Rolling Stone on notice that she was not a credible source for information," Locke said. "Nevertheless, Rolling Stone was dead set on portraying Dean Eramo as a callous administrator who discouraged Jackie from reporting an assault to police — when in fact, it appears that Jackie knew that her tale of rape would not have stood up under real scrutiny and investigation. Had Rolling Stone done the fact-checking and digging that they were legally and ethically required to do as journalists, Dean Eramo would not have been so wrongfully targeted."

Attorneys for Rolling Stone and Jackie did not respond to a request for comment.

Rolling Stone also faces a $25 million suit from the UVA fraternity Phi Kappa Psi that was named in the article.

Three former frat members have also filed a suit against Rolling Stone, but have not specified an amount
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.newsplex.com/home/headlines/Jackie-will-be-deposed-on-Thursday-despite-protests-374621631.html

“Jackie” will be deposed on Thursday, despite protests
Updated: Tue 12:44 PM, Apr 05, 2016
By: Tomas Harmon - Email


Despite protests from her attorneys, “Jackie” will have to answer questions from UVA Dean Eramo and Rolling Stone over the role she played in a now discredited article published by the magazine.

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. (NEWSPLEX) -- Despite protests from attorneys, “Jackie’s” deposition will move forward on Thursday with questions coming from both UVA Dean Nicole Eramo and Rolling Stone Magazine.

The deposition is part of a February ruling made in federal court that requires “Jackie” to provide information for the defamation suit Eramo filed against Rolling Stone.

Since the order, attorneys for “Jackie” fired back calling the deposition part of a series of “scorched earth attacks” by Dean Eramo.

Attorneys also argued that “Jackie” is a sexual assault survivor in fragile condition. They say a deposition could do her serious harm.

Attorneys for Eramo argued it is necessary she answer questions about the now defunct article “A Rape on Campus” in order to build their case against Rolling Stone.

Behind a closed door hearing in Roanoke Federal Court Monday, attorneys finalized the deposition details.

A judge ruled that “Jackie” will be deposed on Thursday in an undisclosed location that is convenient for “Jackie.”

The judge also ruled that “Jackie” will have to sit for two 3.5 hour questioning periods. One for questions from Eramo and one for questions from Rolling Stone.

Eramo and her attorneys have the option to pick a 5 hour questioning period—but they would have to split the questions up over two days.

Finally, the judge ruled that the questions will be limited in scope to what was agreed upon during the closed door hearing.

Dean Eramo filed a $25 mil. defamation lawsuit against Rolling Stone, author Sabrina Erdely and Wenner Media over the depiction in an article published by Rolling Stone.

The article alleges “Jackie” was brutally gang-raped at a UVA Frat and Eramo did little to help her.

An investigation by the Charlottesville Police Department found that the rape depicted in the article never happened.

“Jackie” has not been named in the lawsuit.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://reason.com/blog/2016/04/05/judge-forces-uvas-jackie-to-testify-in-l


Judge Forces UVA's Jackie to Testify in Lawsuit Over False Gang Rape Story
Rolling Stone didn't report the truth, but will we ever hear it from Jackie?

Robby Soave|Apr. 5, 2016 2:20 pm

The lies of "Jackie"—the University of Virginia student at the center of Rolling Stone's erroneous rape story—have finally caught up with her: Jackie will be compelled to testify as part of UVA Dean Nicole Eramo's lawsuit against the magazine, a judge has ruled.

Eramo, who was portrayed as indifferent and unhelpful toward victims of sexual assault in the Rolling Stone story, is suing the magazine for defamation. She has asked for $7.85 million in damages. [Related: Is the UVA Rape Story a Gigantic Hoax?]

Jackie's testimony could prove key to Eramo's case. Jackie told Rolling Stone that she was gang-raped by nine men—including her date, a lifeguard named Haven Monahan—during a party at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity. But numerous investigations into the allegation have found it to be baseless. There was no party at Phi Psi on the night in question, Jackie's friends dispute aspects of her account, and most damningly, Haven Monahan does not exist.

Many media experts, including the Columbia University School of Journalism, believe that Rolling Stone's reporter, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, would have easily uncovered Jackie's lies if she had bothered to follow basic journalistic protocol. But neither the author, nor the magazine's editors, pressed Jackie for key details that would have exposed the story as false.

Jackie, of course, bears just as much responsibility for her lies as Rolling Stone does. She is not, however, named in the lawsuit.

Her deposition, then, is in some sense a rare opportunity for the law to hold her at least partially accountable. It would be interesting to see whether she confesses, at long last, to exaggerating her story, or fabricating it entirely.

It would be interesting, except that her deposition will take place behind closed doors and the transcripts will be sealed, according to CNN. Unless these records are released, we may never know what Jackie revealed once sworn under oath to tell the truth.

In any case, it's gratifying that the judge rejected claims made by Jackie's lawyers that she should be exempt from testifying because the process would "re-traumatize" her. We would all like to hear the truth, but Eramo, at least, is entitled to it.

Columbia's report on the Rolling Stone debacle was published exactly one year ago today. Read my analysis of it here.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/judge-orders-rolling-stone-rape-hoaxer-to-testify/article/2587736

Judge orders Rolling Stone rape hoaxer to testify
By Ashe Schow (@AsheSchow) • 4/5/16 4:46 PM

The University of Virginia student whose fantastical tale of fraternity gang-rape captivated the country until it was exposed as fraudulent will have to testify as part of a lawsuit against the magazine that printed the story.

U.Va.'s "Jackie"* will be deposed for at least three-and-a-half hours by lawyers for Nicole Eramo, the assistant dean of students at the university. Rolling Stone, which printed Jackie's claims, will also be allowed to depose the former student for three-and-a-half hours.

Judge Glen Conrad, Chief U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Virginia, dismissed Jackie's lawyer's claims that their client was still a "victim" of a sexual assault and ordered the young woman to testify. Jackie's lawyers had previously tried to quash the deposition, claiming it would cause her "significant and undeniable psychological harm."

Eramo's lawyers had requested additional time to depose Jackie, since they would be sharing their allotted seven hours with Rolling Stone. Conrad has granted some additional time — Eramo's lawyers can depose Jackie for five hours divided over a 2-day period. If Team Eramo doesn't believe that is enough time, it can petition the court for additional time ahead of the deposition.

Jackie will testify at a "mutually convenient location," but will be granted priority in the decision on where the deposition will take place. The deposition's format will be designated by Eramo and her attorneys, but the questions will be limited to those outlined during a hearing on the matter.

Sadly, we likely won't know what is said during this deposition, as Conrad ordered "all recordings and transcripts of the deposition [to] be marked as confidential." In addition, a declaration from Jackie's psychologist will be filed under seal, and the psychologist will not be deposed or subjected to discovery, although Conrad has allowed for reconsideration of this ruling "if changed circumstances so warrant."

"Jackie was Rolling Stone's sole source for the false tale of rape that it recklessly published. There were numerous red flags in Jackie's account, which should have put Rolling Stone on notice that she was not a credible source for information," Eramo's attorney, Libby Locke, told CNN. "Nevertheless, Rolling Stone was dead set on portraying Dean Eramo as a callous administrator who discouraged Jackie from reporting an assault to police — when in fact, it appears that Jackie knew that her tale of rape would not have stood up under real scrutiny and investigation."

She added: "Had Rolling Stone done the fact-checking and digging that they were legally and ethically required to do as journalists, Dean Eramo would not have been so wrongfully targeted."

Eramo sued Jackie after Rolling Stone portrayed the U.Va. administrator as callous toward students who claimed they were sexually assaulted. Jackie claimed she had been gang-raped as part of a fraternity initiation during her freshman year, but her story unraveled when it was discovered the man she accused of taking her to the party didn't even exist. Police also determined there was no evidence to suggest the assault took place.

Members of the fraternity and the fraternity chapter itself are also suing Rolling Stone. None of the plaintiffs are suing Jackie directly.

*I will not provide Jackie's last name because it does not appear in the court documents relating to this case.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/04/05/rolling_stone_university_of_virginia_rape_story_victim_jackie_will_testify.html

Rolling Stone’s “Jackie” Needs to Testify, but She Shouldn't Be the One on Trial
By Nora Caplan-Bricker
4/5/16

The woman who fabricated what became Rolling Stone’s infamous feature about a gang rape at the University of Virginia, known to readers only as “Jackie,” will finally be forced to explain herself later this week—but, at least for the immediate future, only a few people will get to hear it.

According to CNN, a Virginia judge ruled Monday that Jackie must testify as part of the lawsuit in which UVA administrator Nicole Eramo is suing Rolling Stone and the journalist who wrote the story, Sabrina Rubin Erdely. Jackie’s attorneys had argued that she would be “re-victimized” by the deposition process and subjected to potentially “irreparable harm.” Judge Glen Conrad denied their motion and allotted the plaintiff’s attorneys five hours over a two-day period to question Jackie, with the possibility of additional time. The deposition will begin Thursday, and Conrad ruled that it would be held at a “mutually convenient location, with priority given to the convenience of and comfort” of Jackie. All the same, Jackie's identity—and rationale—will remain as mysterious as they have since her account began to unravel in late 2014: Conrad added that the records and transcripts of the deposition will be sealed.

Rolling Stone’s story, originally published in November 2014, presented the horrifying tale of a freshman, “Jackie,” who claimed she was brutally gang-raped at a fraternity party and then met with chilly indifference from her university—especially Associate Dean of Students Eramo—when she sought to report it. But within weeks of the publication date, the story fell apart under the pressure of questioning from other journalists, among them Slate’s Allison Benedikt and Hanna Rosin. Rolling Stone was forced to admit that it had relied more or less exclusively on Jackie’s account, failing to check it with the alleged perpetrators. The magazine ultimately retracted the story when a scathing analysis by the Columbia Journalism Review—which Rolling Stone requested and co-published—dubbed the incident “a story of journalistic failure that was avoidable.” An investigation by the Charlottesville police department found no evidence that the rape had occurred.

The story's impact on the campus rape debate is still visible: Conservatives cite Jackie as evidence that women lie, and women’s advocates decry the damage Rolling Stone did to the credibility of real victims. And Eramo's suit—for $7.85 million in damages over what she claims was a defamatory portrayal of her approach to sexual assault and her work as an administrator—isn't the only legal battle. Phi Kappa Psi, the frat named in the article, is also suing Rolling Stone for $25 million, and three of its former members are suing separately for an undisclosed amount.

Through it all, Jackie has remained anonymous, at least partially shielded from the anger and anguish that her story incited. Steve Coll, the dean of the Columbia Journalism School, told The Washington Post this January that he thinks that’s for the best: “It’s an unusual situation, and I understand the argument on the other side, but I would not name her … She never solicited Rolling Stone to be written about. She’s not responsible for the journalism mistakes. To name her now just feels gratuitous, lacking sufficient public purpose. That could change depending on how the legal cases unfold, but that’s my sense now.”

Coll is right, of course, that the attention should stay on Rolling Stone and Erdely, who, unlike Jackie, had a clear responsibility to their readers—and it seems that Judge Conrad agrees. Jackie is not on trial this week, but if her full name and deposition were to be released, there’s no doubt that, in the public eye, she would be.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/04/05/former-u-va-student-jackie-to-sit-for-deposition-in-rolling-stone-lawsuit/

Former U-Va. student ‘Jackie’ to sit for deposition in Rolling Stone lawsuit
By T. Rees Shapiro April 5 at 4:21 PM

The central figure in a discredited Rolling Stone account of a gang-rape at the University of Virginia has been ordered to take part in a deposition for a federal libel lawsuit filed against the magazine by an associate dean at the school, the first time she’ll give a sworn statement about her allegations.

U.S. District Court Judge Glen E. Conrad has ordered the former U-Va. student known as “Jackie” to participate in interviews related to the $10 million lawsuit U-Va. associate dean Nicole Eramo has filed against the magazine. Eramo alleges that Rolling Stone published a false and libelous account that smeared the dean as being callous and indifferent to Jackie’s sexual assault allegations.

The magazine retracted the 2014 article, called “A Rape on Campus,” after an investigation by The Washington Post, later confirmed by the Charlottesville Police Department and the Columbia Journalism School, found that the account of Jackie’s alleged rape was deeply flawed. In interviews with The Post, Jackie said she stood by her story.

Lawyers representing Jackie filed motions seeking to cancel the scheduled deposition, stating that the proceeding could “re-traumatize” her if she were forced to describe elements of her alleged assault. Eramo’s lawyers have said in court papers that Jackie fabricated her account and was never a victim of the attack she detailed.

Conrad ruled that the deposition will take place Thursday with another federal judge, Joel Hoppe, presiding over the proceedings. The judge also granted requests by Jackie’s lawyers to keep the location of the deposition secret and to place under seal her comments during the under-oath proceedings. CNN Money first reported the new order.

During a court appearance on Monday, Conrad ruled that lawyers representing Eramo may ask Jackie to confirm under oath if she continues to stand by the account she gave to Rolling Stone in an effort to identify inconsistencies in her story, according to a transcript of the hearing. But the judge ruled that Eramo’s lawyers cannot ask Jackie to recount specifics of the alleged assault, stating that the details are not necessarily relevant to the case.

Jackie has never testified under oath about the alleged attack and never reported it to police, declining to speak to investigators both before and after the Rolling Stone story published. She gave similar accounts of a gang rape at a U-Va. fraternity to Rolling Stone and to The Post and has not publicly backed off her claims.

T. Rees Shapiro is an education reporter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply