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