Monday, December 1, 2014

The UVA rape hoax

People are beginning to question the narrative:
Journalists who contemplate such matters are now wondering whether the incredible Rolling Stone story about the gang rape of a University of Virginia student is just that: not credible.

Last week, I wrote that the breathtaking story was an indictment of the university's feeble attempts to address the so-called campus sexual assault crisis. For me, the lesson is clear: Rape is a serious crime, not an academic infraction. The police—and only the police—are equipped to deal with it. "The best way to confront campus rape is to treat the issue with the seriousness it deserves and make violent crime the business of the normal criminal justice system," I wrote.

I didn't question the incident itself, because my point stands regardless. Making universities investigate and adjudicate rape—something that both federal and state governments are pushing—is the wrong approach, and what happened at UVA is just one example of why that's the case.

Unless, of course, it didn't happen. Then it would be an example of something else, entirely.
I can tell you right now that it is a hoax, it never happened, and no one is going to end up being charged with a crime over this unless it is the woman who falsely cried rape. One of the advantages of being an fiction editor is that you see a wide range of fiction, from the very good to the very bad. And most people write very bad fiction, the chief hallmark of which is that it is heavily reliant upon things they have seen on television or in the movies.

It's something you can usually recognize too, when they write people saying things in precisely the same way you see the dialogue on a TV show. It rings false, because no one actually talks like that. Even in the brief description provided in the excerpt from the Rolling Stone article, it is readily apparent that the dialogue being reported is fake, and not only fake, but incompetently faked.


Anonymous said...

The absurd claim that someone smashed a bottle on the alleged victim's face and that she attended classes the next day was beyond credibility. It only happens in Hollywood. I'll bet the author has used broken glass as a plot device in her other writings.

Anonymous said...

Even in the brief description provided in the excerpt from the Rolling Stone article, it is readily apparent that the dialogue being reported is fake, and not only fake, but incompetently faked.

And yet 90+% (Number pulled out of a hat) of people completely fell for it. The odds of a major story published to advance a left wing agenda being a hoax has to be greater than 50% .

Anchorman said...

She claimed someone smashed her in the face with a bottle? I didn't read the article(s).

I did watch "Mythbusters" when they tested empty vs full bottle to see damage. Regardless, the damage was substantial and I imagine even moreso to areas not accustomed to blunt force trauma.

deti said...

I read as much of the article as I could. But I couldn’t find “Jackie” claiming someone smashed a bottle into her face.

"Jackie" did claim to have been:

1. Pushed down onto a glass table, smashing it with a man on top of her
2. Gang raped for three hours by several different men
3. Lacerated with sharp shards from the broken glass table
4. Punched in the face with a fist

Taken together, these would have caused bruising to the face, possible concussion; possible facial bone fracturing; severe pelvic area bruising and trauma; lacerations and puncture wounds to the back and buttocks; and at least moderate blood loss. If true, these injuries would have required immediate medical attention. Anyone, male or female, displaying the kinds of injuries these acts would have produced, should have been immediately hospitalized. It’s simply fanciful to think that three of “Jackie’s” friends saw her in the immediate aftermath and provided NO medical attention whatsoever, or even told her to get medical attention. If she had gone to class in the one to two days after being attacked like this, she would be showing signs of having had the shit beat out of her -- if that's what had happened.

“Jackie” described at least four criminal acts: assault, battery, false imprisonment, criminal sexual assault. A case could be made for kidnapping. This should be treated as a criminal investigation. Names should be named, and if these guys did what she claims they did, they should be in prison. Why isn’t she telling everyone exactly who they are and what they did – if this really happened?

Anonymous said...

Even better? The room was pitch black dark, and yet the men knew exactly where she was, exactly where to tackle her. And yet, she could recognize one of their faces.

I think what we misogynistic men here have failed to grasp, that feminism is trying to educate us about, is that WOMEN HAVE INNATE NIGHT VISION.

What next shall we learn? That women also have a natural resistance to sharp glass? Shall the distaff sex never cease to astonish?


Dark Herald said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anchorman said...

A case could be made for kidnapping.

If memory serves, Megan's Law (registering sex offenders) applies to kidnappers, as well. So, I think you're right. It's likely a crime commonly charged with sexual assault.

Unknown said...

OT but another false rape case in the UK in which the girl was caught and then committed suicide. The guy tells his side of the story.

It seems a lot of damaged women have sex with people they barely know...then regret their fornication. But instead of taking responsibility for their action...they call it rape and make the man's life hell. It's stuff like this which is why guys should really be more discrete in who they choose to be with and why I still think marriage is the best place to keep sex.

Anonymous said...

Quoting from the essay : "But payback for being so public on a campus accustomed to silence was swift. This past spring, in separate incidents, both Emily Renda and Jackie were harassed outside bars on the Corner by men who recognized them from presentations and called them "cunt" and "feminazi bitch." One flung a bottle at Jackie that broke on the side of her face, leaving a blood-red bruise around her eye."

Just guessing here but what are the chances that maybe "Jackie" is a cutter?

Anonymous said...

Right, the assault to her face with a bottle was a allegedly done outside a bar on the Corner. Don't think she reported that either. BUT, she claims she was raped with a bottle by her last assaulter the night of the alleged gang rape, by a kid who was also in one of her classes and "couldn't get it up" (a trope from an episode of A&E's Longmire, based on one of writer's Craig Johnson’s first Longmire mysteries, btw.

Anonymous said...

Emahray Trolle . . .

I wouldn't say the red bruise to her face is consistent with cutting, but maybe I'm behind on trends. Cutting is usually done in places that can be concealed, or so I thought. She might be a cutter, but don't think a bruise on her face suggests that. A bruise on one's face could be self-inflicted, however, if that's your point. A friend's son was bruising himself (on his back and chest). Very intelligent kid and very frustrated for a time.

Anonymous said...

lowahine my point was in regard to the several instances of bottles and broken glass in her story.

Mr.MantraMan said...

Yep, especially politically active libtards, they basically have their scripts written by a few fairly clever people. Rightists are downright anarchists when it comes to scripts with a much larger library to choose from. My WAG is that I could interrogate the victim and within 5 questions she would sound like Tad.

Ghost said...

I'm beginning to see why Muslims require like 4 male witnesses to prove a rape. This shit (lying about it) is getting out of hand.

Tommy Hass said...

I immediately called bullshit when I saw it on HuffPo. IMMEDIATELY.

Seriously, white fratbros GANGRAPING a woman? Really?

Much more likely that she got frisky and got gangbanged and felt shame, like a normal human, but chose to use the get out of jail card.

tz said...

The atheists - quoting Carl Sagan - will say "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Unless the one making the claim is a woman.
And I remember the Duke U Lacrosse rape scandal

Harambe said...

Sounds like an episode of Law&Order:SUV.

Bob Loblaw said...

Yeah, except that the bad guy isn't the powerful middle aged white guy. I had a Korean gf for awhile, and she must have watched all of about three episodes. When the next one came on she said "that guy did it".

"How do you know?"

"He's the white guy."

Dark Herald said...

Apparently the author of this piece tried to talk the men she accused of this absolutely horrific crime. Honestly she did.

No really, she did guys!

What are you saying here?

“I reached out to [the accused] in multiple ways,” Erdely said in the Slate interview. “They were kind of hard to get in touch with because [the fraternity’s] contact page was pretty outdated. But I wound up speaking . . . I wound up getting in touch with their local president, who sent me an e-mail, and then I talked with their sort of, their national guy, who’s kind of their national crisis manager. They were both helpful in their own way, I guess.”

Sean Woods, who edited the Rolling Stone story, said in an interview that Erdely did not talk to the alleged assailants. “We did not talk to them. We could not reach them,” he said in an interview.

However, he said, “we verified their existence,” in part by talking to Jackie’s friends. “I’m satisfied that these guys exist and are real. We knew who they were.”

Well there! What more proof do you need! Unnamed sources have corroborated the story of an anonymous victim. Really, what more proof do you need!?

Bottom line if you have a seventeen year old son.

Do Not. Let. Him. Go. To. College.

The benefit, does not out weigh the risk.

Bob Loblaw said...

Bottom line if you have a seventeen year old son.

Do Not. Let. Him. Go. To. College.

The benefit, does not out weigh the risk.

Just have him major in engineering. Nobody will believe a girl went up to his room.

deti said...

According to some folks, asking questions about, and casting doubt on, the UVA rape story now means you’re a “rape apologist”.

deti said...

Once again:

Jackie's account of the incident, if true, would have produced moderate to severe physical injuries necessitating immediate medical treatment.

Now there is some claim in the article that someone threw a bottle at Jackie, which broke on her face. That would have produced, at the very least, facial lacerations. If those lacerations weren't treated medically, she should have a noticeable scar.

If Jackie's account were true, she should have had facial bruising, possible concussion and facial fractures, severe pelvic area bruising and trauma, lacerations and puncture wounds to the back and buttocks, and at least moderate blood loss.

If it's not stated, it's strongly implied, that Jackie had NO medical treatment whatsoever. She didn't even seek any medical treatment. She saw three friends shortly after the alleged incident. None of them told her to get treatment or, apparently, even so much as render first aid. None of them reported the incident to anyone. None of them photographed or documented the incident or her injuries. If there were photographs of her injuries, no one apparently has ever seen them.

No one confronted "Drew". No one talked to him or even apparently tried to reach him to corroborate his account of what happened.

Sorry. This story isn't credible to me. It's not believable that this incident happened; yet no one has come forward even with so much as an emergency room record of medical treatment for this woman. If that ER record existed, you can bet we'd have seen it or there would have been reference to it.

jova said...

nothing about "Jackie's" story is credible

this is why nobody believed her story , which is why they did not encourage her to report this incident to the police.

YIH said...
To Our Readers:

Last month, Rolling Stone published a story titled "A Rape on Campus" by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, which described a brutal gang rape of a woman named Jackie at a University of Virginia fraternity house; the university's failure to respond to this alleged assault – and the school's troubling history of indifference to many other instances of alleged sexual assaults. The story generated worldwide headlines and much soul-searching at UVA. University president Teresa Sullivan promised a full investigation and also to examine the way the school responds to sexual assault allegations.

Because of the sensitive nature of Jackie's story, we decided to honor her request not to contact the man she claimed orchestrated the attack on her nor any of the men she claimed participated in the attack for fear of retaliation against her. In the months Erdely spent reporting the story, Jackie neither said nor did anything that made Erdely, or Rolling Stone's editors and fact-checkers, question Jackie's credibility. Her friends and rape activists on campus strongly supported Jackie's account. She had spoken of the assault in campus forums. We reached out to both the local branch and the national leadership of the fraternity where Jackie said she was attacked. They responded that they couldn't confirm or deny her story but had concerns about the evidence.

In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie's account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced. We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. We are taking this seriously and apologize to anyone who was affected by the story.

Will Dana
Managing Editor

Top kek. Eat it SJWs

deti said...

well well well. Looks like Ms. Walsh and co. have some cleanup to do yet again.

"Rape apologists"? I don't think so, not in this case.

Post a Comment