On Rolling Stone’s Jackie: it gets worse
Here’s an update for those who are still interested in the continuing subsequent unraveling of the UVA rape story.
It has now been revealed that the emails supposedly sent from Jackie’s attacker to Jackie’s buddy Randall/Ryan after the rape were not only sent from fake accounts she had set up, but their content was taken from various internet websites and was based heavily on scripts from the TV show “Dawson’s Creek.”
The ruse was very elaborate, it seems.
One lie begets another. I am sure Jackie thought her lies wouldn’t hurt anyone and that she would get the sympathy she craved. Events have proven her wrong. She should be outed. She should be thrown out of school.
Not the first time for that though…
http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=4731
Women never lie… which is why hearsay is allowed in family court and so on…
poor cosby… cause women never lie…
anyway… wasnt it 5 or so women that lied that ended up causing more than 25 people to be hanged as witches in salem?
Jackie needs to be sedated and kept away from sharp objects.
Good lord. As one of those who previously expressed some sympathy for Jackie, I now officially withdraw it. However: she’s obviously a deeply disturbed person and now — because of the way she was used by Erdely and Rolling Stone, and now nationally exposed — must be even more profoundly, and permanently, damaged. They are still the true culprits here, and yet we’re several weeks out from the start of this, and I don’t see any real consequences befalling either of them.
It is too much naivety to hope that anyone associated with the Left is pure… there is always something the darkness will corrupt in the souls of humanity.
If a person is associated with the Left and not corrupted, you just have to DIG deeper to see it.
Wonder just how dangerous this wounded animal will become as she is cornered by the exposure of her epic fabrications and clearly damaged mind? I think law enforcement should move fast on charges simply to get her off the street and in a nice room with super comfy walls, before someone gets hurt.
Extraordinarily creepy.
Maquis:
I don’t think there’s any criminal act Jackie can be charged with.
She never named a real person as a rapist, just the fake ones. The most specific accusation she made against a real group was naming a specific fraternity. Perhaps the fraternity could sue for libel, but that’s about it, as far as I can see.
Neo:
You’re right. A lawsuit wouldn’t do her much good I imagine. I’ve some experience with unwell women, I worry for her, cruel fabulist or no.
The biggest enemy of the Frat is the school, in my eyes.
I hope “Jackie”‘s friends and family are very watchful these days. Between her story falling apart, threats of being outed, and the sad spectacle having gone first national and then viral online, she must be going through so much stress as would greatly destabilize a real adult, let alone a 20 yo.
Remember that nursery rhyme about an old woman who swallowed a fly, and then a spider to catch the fly, and then a bird to catch the spider and so on? It seems to be the mechanism within which “Jackie” operated, entangling herself further every step of the way. What started out, perhaps, as a relatively innocuous (albeit very irresponsible and incredibly cruel) fabrication soon got out of control, and “Jackie” lacked the wisdom and the backbone needed to come clean and disentangle the mess at a stage when much damage could have been prevented. Because of that fatal omission, what should have ended with a slap and a rebuke in private has instead turned into a public scandal, worldwide online mockery, and if she gets outed, she will be humiliated to the point of having her name associated with it forever. As much as she is at fault for the present circus, it is all a very harsh punishment.
Count me among those who are now concerned for this girl.
My college age daughter is a resident assistant in a campus dorm and she told me that another student RA has concocted an elaborate personal story that involves a complicated love life, regular international travel, sad deaths, etc. it’s all propped up in her social media presence online. My daughter says the student is very convincing at first, but eventually it becomes clear that the whole thing is a lie and one by one, friends distance themselves and the student moves on to new acquaintances who will listen to the stories. This kid seems to be a fabulist of some sort, albeit not as damaging as Jackie (so far anyway).
Oh yeah we should all be concerned for Jackie. Just like we should have been for Tawana Brawley. And what is the appropriate punishment for someone who willingly poisons the climate for others so that she may gain a little sympathy for herself? Maybe public humiliation?
Steve:
The difference is that for a long time Jackie’s lies were meant mainly for one person only: Ryan. Also, she did not accuse an actual person. Also, she went public slowly, and in terms of the Rolling Stone article she tried to withdraw before publication, asking Erdely to remove her, but Erdely dug in.
That does not absolve Jackie of a heavy responsibility for her lies. But it does (at least for many people) make her a more sympathetic figure than Brawley.
By the way, Brawley is a somewhat sympathetic figure as well, because at least initially she didn’t name names either, she was only 15 years old, her case was taken up and exploited by the usual suspects, and she was in a dire family situation. Again, this does not excuse her at all. But this was the situation:
So as far as appropriate punishment goes, I think for Brawley the people who needed the most punishing were her parents, Sharpton, etc.. For Jackie, I hold Erdely and the Rolling Stone editors most responsible, and I hope the fraternity sues the pants off them, and that Erdely’s career as a journalist is finished. That won’t happen. But I’m really not sure what I think the punishment for Brawley or Jackie ought to be. There have been money judgments against Brawley; here is a fairly recent article about her.
CV,
I have come to believe that many (most?) young people do something analogous at some point during the very intense and turbulent period encompassing high school, college, and the very first post-college years that are transitory into real adulthood. Not necessarily fully developed fantasies, online or offline, but *some* sort of trouble on the fertile territory of lies, half-lies, and ambiguities is all too common. Additionally, consider that young people overestimate their ability to deal with consequences of their imprudence and indiscretions, of any sort, all the time (I am 24, I would know – I can still evoke that particular “invincible” frame of mind, although it has been dissipating over the years as I was naturally growing up and gaining some maturity and perspective).
It is my impression that few young people are truly disturbed in ways that would necessitate professional help – rather, nearly always it is juvenile excess gone out of control. I disapprove of the friends’ reaction in the example you cite (provided those were friends indeed, rather than mere acquaintances). Withdrawing in silence is an easy and an apparently elegant way out of the situation, but it also cowardice and betrayal; privately cornering your friend with the mess of his own creation, insisting that he cut it immediately and that he mend the torts where possible is difficult, but it is the right thing to do. Much trouble can be prevented from growing and escalating if caught and addressed early.
Anna:
I think your post at 5:39 AM is spot on.
Jackie wove a tangled web of deceit that got way out of hand from the way she initially conceived it.
Steve,
Public exposure has acquired a whole new dimension in the internet era. Google, for example, Jackie + étudiante + viol. You will get pages upon pages of foreign media, comments, and analyses. Remember that the content you are consulting is only in French and very recent. By inference, the actual worldwide content relative to this story, generated up to this point, must be exponentially greater and that is without addressing the *potential* content that will accrue over the years as somebody digs up the issue, debates it anew or uses it as a reference point in discussions of some other issues.
In a situation in which the whole WORLD is discussing (and web-archiving for future reference) the events that took place at a fairly obscure American campus it is unrealistic to imagine a “Scarlet Letter” variety of public humiliation, confined to a community. There really are only two varieties of humiliation left today: an entirely private (unregistered) one and one that is at least *potentially* GLOBAL (because once it is online, it is not predictable – only a matter of luck and circumstance – whether it will fall into obscurity or become an international sensation). The latter variety is not only not proportional to how far “Jackie” went with her fabrications (she never named a real person, never went national of her own initiative, much less international; not structurally analogous to the Brawley case), but it is also highly psychologically destabilizing and potentially dangerous. Lives have been lost over lesser unwanted exposure. Especially young lives.
None of this is aimed at disculpating “Jackie”, mind you, it is just some disconnected thoughts on why I think that the public humiliation you advocate may be more cruel than just.
I think that Erdely has a great career as a journalist ahead of her, probably at the NYT as a replacement for Jayson Blair.
You know, the ‘women are weak’ defense does not really cut it these days. Unless you are willing to say that women are not deserving of the same rights as men.
Anna,
Turbulent as those years are, not sure I would agree that many or “most” young people do something analogous. And in the case I cited, some friends and acquaintances have indeed stepped in and politely challenged the “storyteller.” She apparently takes it personally and blocks them from social media. At least one supervisor has also tried to intervene out of concern for the student, while being mindful of respecting her privacy. The storyteller greatly imposes on others’ time and can drone on for hours (literally), which doesn’t exactly encourage healthy friendships. So these situations are not easy, to say the least.
Steve, my argument is based on “Jackie”‘s age, not sex. It is not the fragility of a young *woman*, but the fragility of a *young* woman, that concerns me here. I would offer the same reasoning, ceteris paribus, if the protagonist were a young man (incidentally, while mentioning young lives lost to unwanted exposure, I had in mind one male suicide of which I know, subsequent to some social network drama). Also, remember the question of proportionality, which applies in general, regardless of sex and age.
CV, perhaps I have a skewed sample and it may not be as close to universal as it seems to me. The situations are structurally very diverse, too. The example you cite is really sad, if the girl has no close friends than all we can hope for is that she grow out of it on her own, preferably soon.
As much as she is at fault for the present circus, it is all a very harsh punishment.
If she had joined a saner and more healthy cult than a university indoctrination or Leftist camp, things might have been different. If the Authority is evil, then everyone that follows the orders of said Authority becomes guilty of evil, whether they like it or not. But alternatively that means if the Authority they follow is good and wise, then they themselves can participate in good works.
Unfortunately for the people who like to follow authority in America, there are fewer and fewer sources of good and legitimate authority. Only evil authorizes can continue to survive in the war. Everybody else is getting conveniently wiped out, because they refuse to fight, they even refuse to recognize that a war is going on.