Re:Jury finds Rolling Stone responsible for defamation with ...
by blfr on Saturday November 05, 2016 @04:09PM
(#12881630)
No, the story is false because it consists of fictional events. Nothing in it adds up: not the people (Haven Monahan, the frat), not the timeline. The events (sex on broken glass) are prima facie unbelievable.
It was torn to pieces by WaPo, CJR, and the Charlottesville police. There is no doubt that it was a hoax. If she has ever been raped, it was a completely different event from the one described by the Rolling Stone.
On the other hand, I don't think that Jackie is a pathological liar. She tried to catfish a guy[1] and get a little sympathy from college admins. She started off like a fairly reasonable liar (for a teenager) and got caught up in the whole thing. She's definitely at fault but much less than the Rolling Stone which went on a rampage defaming people left and right and instigating a mob[2].
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/01/0...
[2] http://www.nbc29.com/story/27439468/uva-fraternity-house-van...
Re:Jury finds Rolling Stone responsible for defamation with ...
by erikpukinskis on Wednesday November 09, 2016 @07:42PM
(#12916536)
Why does the presence of fictional events mean that there are zero factual events? Couldn't it be a mixture of both?
She could be (and probably is) a pathological liar. That doesn't mean she is incapable of being raped. It only means her accounts shouldn't be published and she's not a reliable criminal witness.