Why haven't alleged UVA rapists been identified?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How hard could this be, given specific identifying information?

What "SPECIFIC IDENTIFYING INFORMATION?

From what I’ve been reading, there has been none.

[Anonymous]

NY Times is asking this question as well:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/03/us/magazines-account-of-gang-rape-on-virginia-campus-comes-under-scrutiny.html?ref=us&_r=0

[Anonymous]

Teresa Sullivan really needs to be fired - really whatever the outcome at this point.

When I first read the Rolling Stone story, I had some doubts - there were several aspects of the gang rape story that sounded extremely likely to happen in that setting. What made the story believable to me was Teresa Sullivan's and UVA's response. It seemed like they were acknowledging that this or something very much like it happened.

If the story is in fact untrue then Teresa Sullivan helped feed the story's credibility - a story really damaging to UVA. But if the story is untrue, Teresa Sullivan holds some responsibility for it not having been acted on by UVA. Basically she just seems over her head in her role.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NY Times is asking this question as well:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/03/us/magazines-account-of-gang-rape-on-virginia-campus-comes-under-scrutiny.html?ref=us&_r=0

It seems like the author just reads from the same set of "talking points" when challenged about the veracity of her article or her lack of journalistic diligence. I bet she's lawyered up as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Teresa Sullivan really needs to be fired - really whatever the outcome at this point.

When I first read the Rolling Stone story, I had some doubts - there were several aspects of the gang rape story that sounded extremely likely to happen in that setting. What made the story believable to me was Teresa Sullivan's and UVA's response. It seemed like they were acknowledging that this or something very much like it happened.

If the story is in fact untrue then Teresa Sullivan helped feed the story's credibility - a story really damaging to UVA. But if the story is untrue, Teresa Sullivan holds some responsibility for it not having been acted on by UVA. Basically she just seems over her head in her role.

I agree. Either way she's not competent to lead the university.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How hard could this be, given specific identifying information?

who gave "specific identifying information”? What is your source for this?

guy was a junior Phi Psi, or psi pi or whatever the frat is, he worked with Jackie as a lifeguard at campus pool. not that hard for anyone to figure out if they do some checking. their are pledge lists for that year in circulation, which would presumably include the names of the other participants.

not to mention if authorities are looking into it, the first thing they're going to do is ask the victim to name names.

No Phi Psis were employed by the aquatics center at that time.

Source for this info?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Teresa Sullivan really needs to be fired - really whatever the outcome at this point.

When I first read the Rolling Stone story, I had some doubts - there were several aspects of the gang rape story that sounded extremely likely to happen in that setting. What made the story believable to me was Teresa Sullivan's and UVA's response. It seemed like they were acknowledging that this or something very much like it happened.

If the story is in fact untrue then Teresa Sullivan helped feed the story's credibility - a story really damaging to UVA. But if the story is untrue, Teresa Sullivan holds some responsibility for it not having been acted on by UVA. Basically she just seems over her head in her role.

I believe the story is true. But even if it isn't, the fact that roughly 30 sexual assaults are reported each year at UVA and no one has ever been suspended or expelled suggests that the leadership at UVa is absolutely horrible.

[Anonymous]

How can they possibly identify the alleged rapists when there is no possible way to prosecute them? Or prove their guilt or innocence? The story was more about the cover up aspects of UVAs handling of rape in general than about this specific incident. Have you never heard of libel laws?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How can they possibly identify the alleged rapists when there is no possible way to prosecute them? Or prove their guilt or innocence? The story was more about the cover up aspects of UVAs handling of rape in general than about this specific incident. Have you never heard of libel laws?

That's a revisionist take on what the story was about.

Why couldn't there be a prosecution if there were an investigation and prosecutors obtained testimony from Jackie and cooperating witnesses (some of whom might receive immunity or a reduced sentence in exchange for cooperating)? There are murder trials years after the crime where a body is never recovered.

In addition, truth is a defense to a defamation claim, so there should be no liability attached to identifying the alleged attackers and leaving it up to criminal authorities to decide whether to press rape charges. Surely Rolling Stone and any number of support groups would gladly pay any legal fees that Jackie, the author of the RS piece and RS might incur if charged with libel or slander.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can they possibly identify the alleged rapists when there is no possible way to prosecute them? Or prove their guilt or innocence? The story was more about the cover up aspects of UVAs handling of rape in general than about this specific incident. Have you never heard of libel laws?

That's a revisionist take on what the story was about.

Why couldn't there be a prosecution if there were an investigation and prosecutors obtained testimony from Jackie and cooperating witnesses (some of whom might receive immunity or a reduced sentence in exchange for cooperating)? There are murder trials years after the crime where a body is never recovered.

In addition, truth is a defense to a defamation claim, so there should be no liability attached to identifying the alleged attackers and leaving it up to criminal authorities to decide whether to press rape charges. Surely Rolling Stone and any number of support groups would gladly pay any legal fees that Jackie, the author of the RS piece and RS might incur if charged with libel or slander.

Rape cases are noriously hard to win, particularly when there is no physical evidence preserved from the rape. I'm all for an investigation, but I think even the most optimistic would say a trial and conviction two plus years after the fact is unlikely absent a confession.

[Anonymous]

I know one person who had direct knowledge of one of the rapes in the story several years ago when it happened and several others at UVA who say the article is on target. THe gang rape has been knowledge on campus before -- read the article, she reported it to the school. She told others about it. It was common knowledge in certain circles and thats how the reporter found her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can they possibly identify the alleged rapists when there is no possible way to prosecute them? Or prove their guilt or innocence? The story was more about the cover up aspects of UVAs handling of rape in general than about this specific incident. Have you never heard of libel laws?

That's a revisionist take on what the story was about.

Why couldn't there be a prosecution if there were an investigation and prosecutors obtained testimony from Jackie and cooperating witnesses (some of whom might receive immunity or a reduced sentence in exchange for cooperating)? There are murder trials years after the crime where a body is never recovered.

In addition, truth is a defense to a defamation claim, so there should be no liability attached to identifying the alleged attackers and leaving it up to criminal authorities to decide whether to press rape charges. Surely Rolling Stone and any number of support groups would gladly pay any legal fees that Jackie, the author of the RS piece and RS might incur if charged with libel or slander.

Rape cases are noriously hard to win, particularly when there is no physical evidence preserved from the rape. I'm all for an investigation, but I think even the most optimistic would say a trial and conviction two plus years after the fact is unlikely absent a confession.

There is no statute of limitations for rape in Virginia. That ought to tell you something right there.

[Anonymous]

I went to UVA and never cared for the school culture much. Didn't like the pretentious, Mr Jefferson's University, Honor Code parts of it. Didn't like the fraternity/sorority, Laura Ashley dress/bow tie part either.

But I have a really hard time believing the lead story in the Rolling Stone article. Yeah many of the frat guys seemed like smug a--holes but I just can't see them doing something like this. And the implication that this was a local initiation ritual of that fraternity chapter - really can't believe that.

Really want to see this story thoroughly investigated and either validated or debunked. For better or worse this is our state flagship university and it should not be tarred like this unless it really deserves to be. There is a big difference between this story and a problem with acquaintance rape which I do believe exists at UVA and many universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to UVA and never cared for the school culture much. Didn't like the pretentious, Mr Jefferson's University, Honor Code parts of it. Didn't like the fraternity/sorority, Laura Ashley dress/bow tie part either.

But I have a really hard time believing the lead story in the Rolling Stone article. Yeah many of the frat guys seemed like smug a--holes but I just can't see them doing something like this. And the implication that this was a local initiation ritual of that fraternity chapter - really can't believe that.

Really want to see this story thoroughly investigated and either validated or debunked. For better or worse this is our state flagship university and it should not be tarred like this unless it really deserves to be. There is a big difference between this story and a problem with acquaintance rape which I do believe exists at UVA and many universities.

It would help a lot if she would name the person she could ID, but she won’t.
I think it is reasonable to have a complaining party in order to launch an investigation.
Who is in the best position to identify the alleged perp - she is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to UVA and never cared for the school culture much. Didn't like the pretentious, Mr Jefferson's University, Honor Code parts of it. Didn't like the fraternity/sorority, Laura Ashley dress/bow tie part either.

But I have a really hard time believing the lead story in the Rolling Stone article. Yeah many of the frat guys seemed like smug a--holes but I just can't see them doing something like this. And the implication that this was a local initiation ritual of that fraternity chapter - really can't believe that.

Really want to see this story thoroughly investigated and either validated or debunked. For better or worse this is our state flagship university and it should not be tarred like this unless it really deserves to be. There is a big difference between this story and a problem with acquaintance rape which I do believe exists at UVA and many universities.

How about the dozens of other allegations of sexual assault and the university's failure to investigate/refer to the police? This is about way one more than one allegation, no matter how horrible.