Rolling Stone Article - Sexual Assault at UVA

[Anonymous]

I wish i didn't read that article. I hate that our culture still undervalues women and that our daughters are in danger while perusing higher ed. I don't blame UVA or frats totally. I think it is partly our culture.

It does seem odd that the frat seems to have a gang-rape haze thing going on for years and yet it is not stopped.

I think it's also fair to say that UVA is not only sexist but racist as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The victims MUST come forward. Isn't that the irony? "Jackie" in the story isn't sure she wants to come forward and yet SHE holds the key to their conviction. She was brutally attacked and yet she is unwilling to scream that out until she is heard and they pay. I understand there are costs for her to go forward, but it's kind of a conundrum that the article is saying "they all get away with it" and at the same time, reporting that the victims haven't wanted to make it a criminal case. Seems one is necessary for the other.

I can't imagine being so fully assaulted and NOT making someone pay. Hell to the no.

It would be useless for Jackie to come forward at this point because there is no evidence. She may inspire some future rape victim to report it to the POLICE (not UVA) and go straight to the police instead of showering away the evidence.

The sad fact is that those boys will never pay, they will never admit it and her lame friends will still not testify to much (not that even really matters).

there IS evidence. there were witnesses who saw her right afterward. And SHE is evidence -- she can testify. There may be members of the fraternity who would testify. To say there is NO evidence is just patently wrong.

Her "friends" didn't even think she was raped. They can only testify that she said she was raped and that she was upset. She could have gotten drunk and fallen down the steps and gotten the same injuries they saw. The bro's are not going to testify. Real evidence is something other than what you think it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you all instantly believe a story told in Rolling Stone Magazine? There's holes all through piece. We all know how reporters have gotten into trouble for completely making up fake stories.

I knew of one of the incidents in the article several years ago.

So call the Charlottesville police and do something about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The victims MUST come forward. Isn't that the irony? "Jackie" in the story isn't sure she wants to come forward and yet SHE holds the key to their conviction. She was brutally attacked and yet she is unwilling to scream that out until she is heard and they pay. I understand there are costs for her to go forward, but it's kind of a conundrum that the article is saying "they all get away with it" and at the same time, reporting that the victims haven't wanted to make it a criminal case. Seems one is necessary for the other.

I can't imagine being so fully assaulted and NOT making someone pay. Hell to the no.

What if you were made to doubt your own recollection of the event? What if your friends didn't support you? What if the school's actions made you feel that its reputation and honor code were more important than your physical and mental health?

One of the worst parts of the story is her friends' reactions when they saw her immediately after the gang rape. Only one of them (a guy) wanted to take her to the hospital while the others were only concerned about THEIR reputations. Jackie had NO support and she was a freshman who'd been in college less than month. Not only is there a huge problem with the dude bro culture, but there's a huge problem with everyone else who lets them get away with it.

+1

The actions of essentially all the parties in the article, except Jackie's were horrible. The boys who participated in the rape were the worse, but the pathetic "friends" who enabled their actions in a cowardly fashion are also horrific human beings. I can see why Jackie acted how she did. I just hope that the national discussion of sexual assault will finally change things so that this whole process stops happening in the future.

[Anonymous]

Now I'm beginning to understand why all the producers and achievers are at UMD. The faculty is in control of the frats and the sports teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you all instantly believe a story told in Rolling Stone Magazine? There's holes all through piece. We all know how reporters have gotten into trouble for completely making up fake stories.

I knew of one of the incidents in the article several years ago.

So call the Charlottesville police and do something about it.

I was told about it by someone who was not directly involved. Not evidence. I only posted to say that I believe everything because of this.

[Anonymous]

Why isn't the WaPo covering this????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why isn't the WaPo covering this????

Give it a day.

[Anonymous]

And Sullivan's say nothing response. What a loser.

[Anonymous]

I was assaulted in 1999 at Virginia Tech at a frat party. I was able to get away before it turned it to anything as awful as that article. It is far more common than anyone wants to believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The victims MUST come forward. Isn't that the irony? "Jackie" in the story isn't sure she wants to come forward and yet SHE holds the key to their conviction. She was brutally attacked and yet she is unwilling to scream that out until she is heard and they pay. I understand there are costs for her to go forward, but it's kind of a conundrum that the article is saying "they all get away with it" and at the same time, reporting that the victims haven't wanted to make it a criminal case. Seems one is necessary for the other.

I can't imagine being so fully assaulted and NOT making someone pay. Hell to the no.

It would be useless for Jackie to come forward at this point because there is no evidence. She may inspire some future rape victim to report it to the POLICE (not UVA) and go straight to the police instead of showering away the evidence.

The sad fact is that those boys will never pay, they will never admit it and her lame friends will still not testify to much (not that even really matters).

there IS evidence. there were witnesses who saw her right afterward. And SHE is evidence -- she can testify. There may be members of the fraternity who would testify. To say there is NO evidence is just patently wrong.

Her "friends" didn't even think she was raped. They can only testify that she said she was raped and that she was upset. She could have gotten drunk and fallen down the steps and gotten the same injuries they saw. The bro's are not going to testify. Real evidence is something other than what you think it is.

Idiot. Real evidence includes testimonial evidence... at least that's what I learned in my evidence and criminal procedure and civil procedure classes at a top 10 law school... oh, did I mention that I also worked in the Sex Offense Unit at the USAO in DC? Don't lecture me on what constitutes "evidence." Whether it gets a conviction -- who knows... but there IS evidence.

[Anonymous]

It falls in line with the Lacrosse murder of Courtney Love.

[Anonymous]

Yeardley Love^^^ oops

[Anonymous]

Crime against women is on the rise around the world. The reason is that people can get away with this stuff. The only deterrent in vigilante justice so horrific that it chills every wannabe rapist to the core.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The victims MUST come forward. Isn't that the irony? "Jackie" in the story isn't sure she wants to come forward and yet SHE holds the key to their conviction. She was brutally attacked and yet she is unwilling to scream that out until she is heard and they pay. I understand there are costs for her to go forward, but it's kind of a conundrum that the article is saying "they all get away with it" and at the same time, reporting that the victims haven't wanted to make it a criminal case. Seems one is necessary for the other.

I can't imagine being so fully assaulted and NOT making someone pay. Hell to the no.

It would be useless for Jackie to come forward at this point because there is no evidence. She may inspire some future rape victim to report it to the POLICE (not UVA) and go straight to the police instead of showering away the evidence.

The sad fact is that those boys will never pay, they will never admit it and her lame friends will still not testify to much (not that even really matters).

there IS evidence. there were witnesses who saw her right afterward. And SHE is evidence -- she can testify. There may be members of the fraternity who would testify. To say there is NO evidence is just patently wrong.

Her "friends" didn't even think she was raped. They can only testify that she said she was raped and that she was upset. She could have gotten drunk and fallen down the steps and gotten the same injuries they saw. The bro's are not going to testify. Real evidence is something other than what you think it is.

That is evidence. They testify that they saw her with her clothing ripped or disheveled, a black eye, crying, whatever they saw. They also have the victim's testimony. There may be other evidence -- people who were at the party, even pictures. Trust me, one of these guys is going to break ranks and snitch, maybe more than one. Trust me, there will be a race to get that reduced sentence. If they want to claim she fell down the steps they'll have to offer up evidence of their own.

One witness doesn't tell the whole story. Its a brick in the total wall.