(12-22-2015 11:25 AM)Scoundrel Wrote:  I knew she and Haven Monahan would have a happy ending!

Except it never is an ending. We all know how well it works out when a rider marries a beta.

(12-22-2015 11:22 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  Two thoughts that men should never act on -- which this guy apparently acted on:

1). I can save her.

2). She won't be like that with me.

You can't save her and she'll be like that with you in some way you probably won't expect. I'd like to blame the influence of country music lyrics, romantic comedies, and religion for men behaving like this. But I think these instincts are inborn.

But there are a lot of inborn instincts we overcome: The instinct to instantly punch anyone we don't like, for example, and the instinct to wet ourselves. Just as we teach boys not to do either of those things, we need to teach them not to be Captain Save-A-Ho and that they're not going to be the exception to most rules.

Exactly.

Women often think this way. I can change him and he won't be like that with me. In other words, be a man, not a woman.

But also, she's fat, he's not. Coincidentally, a woman I know mentioned she has some single friends she'd like me to meet. They range from cute to fat. Not to belabor the point, but it just shows that many women view other women as desirable based on the fact that they exist.

And I think some men fall for this. They are conditioned to think that any physical preferences are misogynistic. He probably met her and was told how she's an "accomplished journalist". Yet she's a disgraced liar, and also happens to be a complete fatass.

Moral, as always, don't fall for feminist propaganda, particularly when it comes to choosing a mate.

Rolling Stone has asked that one of the lawsuits be dismissed:

Quote:Attorneys representing Rolling Stone magazine on Wednesday filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought over a since-retracted article that alleged a sexual assault at a University of Virginia frat house.

The motion seeks to dismiss a suit brought by three graduates of the university who claim the article resulted in them being identified in online posts as the attackers detailed in the story and damaged their reputations.

The magazine’s attorneys argued in court documents that the article, titled “A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA,” didn’t identify anyone portrayed in the alleged assault by name or describe them physically, and that they can’t claim to have been identified just by their affiliation with the frat.

But she ID'd the frat and the graduation dates of the men so she clearly pointed them out - enough so that everyone knew the men being ID'd - but, since she didn't name names, RS isn't responsible.

Makes perfect sense.

The lawyers for UVa Dean Nicole Eramo who is suing Rolling Stone are now openly admitting what everyone already knows, that Jackie Coakley's story was a wholesale lie and part of a series of fabrications, according to this WaPo story by the tireless T. Rees Shapiro:

Lawyers for U-Va. dean: Jackie lied to Rolling Stone about gang rape, ‘invented’ story

Quote:Lawyers representing a University of Virginia associate dean in a defamation suit against Rolling Stone magazine say a sensational account of a fraternity gang rape at the school was based on a series of lies told by the story’s main subject, according to new court documents.

The Alexandria-based law firm representing U-Va. administrator Nicole Eramo has filed motions seeking communications between Rolling Stone and “Jackie,” a U-Va. student whose haunting tale as the alleged victim of a vicious gang-rape at a fraternity house stunned the nation and invigorated a widespread discussion on college sexual assault. But in new filings submitted in federal court, Eramo’s lawyers claim that Jackie is “a serial liar who invented” her account of being raped by seven fraternity brothers participating in a hazing ritual that had left her bloodied and emotionally scarred.

“Jackie was the primary source for Rolling Stone’s false and defamatory article that included her story about being the victim of a violent sexual assault,” said Libby Locke, one of Eramo’s attorneys. “But there is no evidence whatsoever that the story that Jackie told her friends, or the very different story she told Rolling Stone, actually transpired. Instead, it appears that Jackie fabricated her perpetrator and the details of the alleged assault.”

...

Many sexual assault advocates have suggested the possibility that Jackie’s account — which she also shared with The Post shortly after Rolling Stone’s story published — was an embellishment of a real sexual assault Jackie experienced. But Eramo’s lawyers argue that there is no evidence of any sexual assault in the case whatsoever, the boldest claim against the account yet.

“The story was a lie when she first told it in 2012, and it was no more true when Rolling Stone recklessly published the tale in 2014,” Eramo’s lawyers wrote in court documents. They also wrote that there is “no factual basis whatsoever” in evidence submitted so far in the case “to conclude that Jackie is even an ‘alleged’ victim of sexual assault, let alone an actual victim.”

...

In the document, Eramo’s lawyers argue that Jackie’s “fabricated tale of sexual assault, her interactions with Dean Eramo, her statements to Rolling Stone, and her credibility (or lack thereof) as a primary source for Rolling Stone’s article and false claims about Dean Eramo are the key issues in the defamation case, and Jackie’s documents and testimony are highly relevant not only to Dean Eramo’s claims, but to Rolling Stone’s defenses to those claims.”

n court filings, Jackie’s lawyers wrote that she should not have to produce any of the requested documents because of certain legal protections for sexual assault victims. Jackie’s lawyers wrote that asking her to provide the information “constitutes exactly the abusive re-victimization that these protections were designed to prevent.”

Relying on text messages between Jackie and one of her closest friends at the time, Eramo’s lawyers argue that Jackie not only fabricated the account of her alleged sexual assault but also created the false persona of her perpetrator, whom she repeatedly identified to her friend as Haven Monahan. Charlottesville police said that no one by that name ever attended U-Va., and extensive efforts to find the person were not successful.

Also, photographs that were texted to one of Jackie’s friends showing the alleged attacker were actually pictures depicting one of Jackie’s high school classmates in Northern Virginia. That man, now a student at a university in another state, confirmed to The Post that the photographs were of him and said he barely knew Jackie and hadn’t been to Charlottesville for many years.

“All available evidence suggests that ‘Haven Monahan’ was a figment of Jackie’s imagination,” Eramo’s lawyers wrote in court documents.

Ryan Duffin, who was a U-Va. freshman in 2012 when he came to Jackie’s aid that September night, said in an interview Thursday that he no longer finds much credence in Jackie’s account. She wrote in texts to him that “Haven” had stopped by to apologize to her after the attack and that the attacker had dropped out of school days later; Duffin contemporaneously questioned the account, according to the texts, after students could find no evidence there was ever such a person at U-Va.

“It makes the most logical sense to say that it was fabricated,” said Duffin, who provided hundreds of text messages for the case under subpoena. Duffin said that he read through the messages he sent to Jackie and received from “Haven Monahan” before handing the documents over.

“It was strangely emotional, but I think for all of the wrong reasons,” Duffin said. “For realizing that we probably got duped, and it’s not a good feeling to have.”

All of this is obviously true. But here is a question for Nicole Eramo:

You knew as soon as the Rolling Stone story was published that large parts of the story were fabricated. Your own lawyers are claiming now that Jackie fabricated her interactions with Eramo, among other things. Why did you not come forward at that time, while an entire fraternity was being slandered and accused of a grotesque crime? Why did every single person in the UVa administration jump through every possible hoop to perpetuate the presumption of guilt, and to shield the false accuser?

Why are there no consequences for Teresa Sullivan and the rest of the UVa administration?

(01-08-2016 12:33 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

Quote:In court filings, Jackie’s lawyers wrote that she should not have to produce any of the requested documents because of certain legal protections for sexual assault victims. Jackie’s lawyers wrote that asking her to provide the information “constitutes exactly the abusive re-victimization that these protections were designed to prevent.”

So let me get this straight:

Evidence is the only way to prove that the accuser's claims are false. But you're not allowed to get the accuser to produce any evidence for her claims because doing so "re-victimizes" the accuser.

Does that seem Kafkaesque to anyone else?

(01-08-2016 02:00 PM)Renzy Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 12:33 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

Quote:In court filings, Jackie’s lawyers wrote that she should not have to produce any of the requested documents because of certain legal protections for sexual assault victims. Jackie’s lawyers wrote that asking her to provide the information “constitutes exactly the abusive re-victimization that these protections were designed to prevent.”

So let me get this straight:

Evidence is the only way to prove that the accuser's claims are false. But you're not allowed to get the accuser to produce any evidence for her claims because doing so "re-victimizes" the accuser.

Does that seem Kafkaesque to anyone else?

Yes, and any judge with half a brain will also think so.

Before i graduated, i remember having this conversation about UVA and other rape cases with my colleagues(white men/women; asians and african american male).

The white women were making all these standard feminist argumentations about how she doesn't need to proof this or that, etcetera. But the african american male was able to shut them all up by referencing history.

He said that white women in the past used to get black males lynched through false rape accusations; all the white women needs to do to get a black male lynched by an angry mob of white males is to claim "he raped me". There is no need for trial or evidence, etc.

Which is fundamentally unfair and horrendous.

My AA colleague then turn to the white women and asked, how is this any different?

If you think a women rape claim should not be challenged now, then are you saying that during jim crow all those white women that falsely claimed black male raped them is okay? There shouldn't be a trial and investigation to determine if those white women were lying?

None of the white women could answer back.

My AA colleague then finished it off with something along line of "what was happening to black men then by white women; is what is happening now to white men by white women."

It appears that the National Organization of Women (NOW) is weighing in on the whole debacle, basically attacking Eramo and defending Jackie.

They don't seem bothered at all by the fact that it's now widely accepted she fabricated the entire story. I don't know if that means they believe Jackie's gang-rape on broken glass story really did happen or what...

An open letter to UVA President Teresa A. Sullivan via now.org

Quote:Dear President Sullivan,

We recently learned about deeply disturbing actions by one of your Deans against a sexual assault survivor and member of the UVA community. We are writing to request that you put a stop to what we regard as a re-victimization of this young woman.

A lawsuit has been filed naming as plaintiff Dean Nicole Eramo, an associate dean of students at the University of Virginia, and former chair of the Sexual Misconduct Board. The suit names as defendant the Rolling Stone Magazine and seeks damages for defamation relating to the November 2014 article about sexual assault at UVA. We have followed this case and reviewed the plaintiff’s filings. In our view, the filings display a very troubling pattern of abuse towards “Jackie”, a woman profiled in that article, which cannot be allowed to continue.

“Jackie” is not a party to the lawsuit and, as far as we know, has no wish to become embroiled in a struggle between UVA officials and members of the press. Notwithstanding, Dean Eramo has demanded that “Jackie” produce years of her most private, personal communications with her family, friends, even counselors. She also sought all communications between “Jackie” and One Less, a UVA campus survivor support group. This has not only threatened “Jackie’s” dignity and privacy, but also the dignity and privacy of numerous other student survivors on your campus.

Even more troubling, Dean Eramo’s court filings wrongly argue that “Jackie” cannot seek the legal protections afforded to alleged victims of sexual assault. She goes on to engage in numerous offensive attacks against “Jackie”, including repeatedly attacking her because she did not report her assault to the police or wish to cooperate with their investigation. Keep in mind that these actions are being taken by a University dean who specifically counseled “Jackie.”

More nonsense about "re-victimizing".

Quote:Your dean’s demands recite nearly every false argument made to undermine victims of sexual assault. It is exactly this kind of victim blaming and shaming that fosters rape culture, re-victimizes those brave enough to have come forward, and silences countless other victims. It is deeply disturbing to see what UVA students are now witnessing: A senior University official, whose job was to counsel and support rape survivors, publicly attacking one such survivor in court filings. We do not see how students who experience sexual assault at UVA will be able to trust University officials tasked with protecting them if this conduct is allowed to continue.

And they believe it's people like Eramo who do a disservice to rape victims. I would have thought that pushing policies that let people like "Jackie", who abuse the system and now make it harder for legitimate victims to be believed, are the problem.

Quote:We understand that UVA has made real efforts to change its policies and procedures, and more broadly its campus culture, in order to address the need to better protect victims in your community. This is a step forward and we are encouraged by these efforts. But Dean Eramo’s court filings against “Jackie” represent a massive step backward. Surely, if rape survivors at UVA see that they cannot report their trauma or seek help without risking this kind of attack by University officials, your efforts to provide equitable educational opportunities to women is rendered meaningless.

I would not have thought an organization like NOW would double-down on this kind of story, which so obviously undermines their narrative about "believing the victim" since it's clear (to everyone else) that the victim's accusations are outrageous lies. But, there it is...

Bravo, great story Dr. Kahn. Let each lie perish!

(01-08-2016 07:55 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Yes, and any judge with half a brain will also think so.

Nah, Law has long been infiltrated. It's just a matter of finding the right Judge with a haircut that will guarantee sympathy to Progressive Bullshit.





Remember, I watched a case where they gave unrestricted access to a child to a Lesbian Sexual Abuser despite overwhelming evidence because Protected Class.

Sharia Law can't be any worse.

New WaPo article by T. Rees Shapiro with the most extensive details to date of the notorious Jackie C.'s "Haven Monahan" catfishing texts to poor dear Ryan Duffin, the stolid freshman kid she developed a crush on. I'll skip the intro which is nothing new and get straight into the juicy details.

In her desperation to get with Ryan she (or rather "Haven" LOL) claimed at some point she was terminally ill!

The only conclusion that any reasonable person can draw from the whole episode is that WOMEN NEVER LIE!! LOL!!

‘Catfishing’ over love interest might have spurred U-Va. gang-rape debacle

Quote:Court documents indicate that a crush Jackie had on Duffin freshman year was the spark for all that has happened since, that the attention-seeking events on Sept. 28, 2012 spiraled into a sensational tale that evolved, made its way into a national magazine’s pages, and then took on a life of its own.

Duffin said that his friendship with Jackie began to take a turn quickly as she pursued a deeper relationship with him. Though she had only known Duffin for a few weeks, Jackie spent $350 on a birthday trip to Washington D.C. and tickets for the two of them to see the Silversun Pickups at the 9:30 Club.

Once he began exchanging text messages with “Haven Monahan,” Duffin said he was struck by how the supposed U-Va. junior was infatuated with their mutual friend.

“He immediately started talking about Jackie,” Duffin told The Post in 2014.

But then Duffin noticed that Haven Monahan began talking about a freshman who Jackie had a crush on.

“Get this she said she likes some other 1st year guy who dosnt like her and turned her down but she wont date me cause she likes him,” Haven Monahan wrote in a text to Duffin. “She cant turn my down fro some nerd 1st yr. she said this kid is smart and funny and worth it.”

Duffin’s conversations with Haven Monahan continued, and according to transcripts submitted in Eramo’s case, the text messages extensively detailed Jackie’s unrequited feelings for Duffin.

At one point, Haven Monahan confronted Duffin about his lack of interest in dating Jackie, urging Duffin to have more sympathy for her, claiming that she had a terminal illness. Surprised by the revelation, Duffin texted Jackie, who confirmed the diagnosis.

“Ryan, it means I’m dying,” she texted.

Duffin replied: “I had no idea. Do you want to talk?”

In late September 2012, Jackie announced that she had a date at the Boar’s Head Inn with Haven Monahan. In an interview with The Post in 2014, Jackie said that the red dress she wore on the date — which Rolling Stone reported was later covered in her blood after the gang rape — had actually been purchased especially for the trip with Duffin to see the band in D.C.

At 10:23 p.m. on the night of the alleged rape, Jackie texted Duffin: “Just wondering. What are you doing now?”

Duffin said he was busy, but when Jackie alluded to something being amiss, he texted: “I want to know what’s going on.”

“Nothing is going on I promise I feel really stupid cause I ran to you and I always run to you,” Jackie replied. He and two other friends then went to meet Jackie near the dorms and found her hysterically upset, making the claims about being forced to perform oral sex.

The next morning, Sept. 29, Jackie texted Ryan about the alleged assault, according to the transcript:

“Ryan you know you are my favorite person of all time and I trust you more than anything in the world. I just need time to clear my head and I will go and report it. I need to do it when I’m ready though. And right now I’m not. Right now I just need someone to hug me and give me chocolate or something and in a few hours or a few days I’ll be ready”

According to archived text messages between Duffin and Jackie, the episode involving Haven Monahan appeared to pass quickly. Jackie told Duffin two days after the alleged attack that Haven Monahan had met her in person to apologize.

“I told him I forgave him for what happened friday night and then he thanked me for not reporting him which made me feel weird but the bottom line is I’m bad at being angry at other people so all I can do is forgive them,” Jackie wrote to Duffin. “And in spite of everything, I still think people are really good at heart and just make bad choices but that doesn’t make them bad people, right?”

But Duffin quickly grew suspicious of Haven Monahan. In a text message to Jackie, Duffin wrote: “I refuse to believe that somebody like this could actually exist.”

Jackie replied: “Haha oh believe it. He’s a frat boy. There are about 3000 more like him. It’s guy like haven monahan who give other guys a bad reputation.”

That October, Duffin finally confronted Jackie about Haven Monahan’s true identity. But Jackie stood her ground and accused Duffin of calling her a liar.

“You know what Ryan, I’ve always trusted you and put you first and believed you over everyone,” Jackie texted to Duffin. “Why would I lie about something like that?”

Jackie continued: “All I want is for you to be happy. I appreciate you and adore you more than you’ll probably ever know and I’d do pretty much anything on the off-chance it’d make your life a little bit better.”

But Duffin said their relationship soured and he did not talk with her again until after the Rolling Stone article was published. Once the Rolling Stone account was revealed to be erroneous in late 2014, Duffin exchanged a last series of messages with Jackie.

Duffin wrote: “So if I can just ask a question, then … Why did you tell us before the date ever happened that his name was Haven? Haven Monahan? A name that belongs to no UVA student ever? Why has the name changed since then?”

Jackie wrote back: “His last name was Monahan and he called himself Haven. His first name was John or jake or something. And he was there that night but he was a bystander. He wasn’t involved. Not really.”

In an interview Friday, Duffin lamented that the unfortunate episode that was an integral part of his freshman year at U-Va. became the central focus of police investigations, newspaper accounts and now lawsuits in state and federal court.

“Had any of us been contacted it never would have blown up like this,” Duffin said of the Rolling Stone account. noting that he and two others who met with Jackie the night of the attack were not interviewed prior to the story running. “It’s weird to think that an entire portion of my life was consumed by these events that looking back looks so dumb. Given the way everything’s turned out, I don’t think that’s the way I want to describe it, but I had a lot of naivete three years ago. It’s just weird all around.”

Haven Monahan kinda sounds like Craven Morehead.

In all seriousness, this mentally ill liar seems to have been mostly forgotten. It's a shame on a society that continues to allow women like this and jizz mattress girl to continue to get away with it.

These false rape accusations really are the modern day equivalent of the Salem witch hysteria.

So how much jail time is she getting?

(01-09-2016 10:02 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  In her desperation to get with Ryan she (or rather "Haven" LOL) claimed at some point she was terminally ill!

Ah, now I really recognise the truth of her obsession.

I've got one of those in my collection from my late teens. Was crashing with friends after a big party, and woke up to find the girl rubbing my leg under the cover, who then made a play for me. I let her down very gently, then the tears and confessions of having 'terminal cancer' started, but I had to 'swear to secrecy' because she 'hadn't told any of her friends or her parents yet'.

Unsurprisingly, she received no medical attention, but got better.

I've had years of repeatedly-observing that there is no moral and social line women won't cross to get what they believe they deserve, but, of course, paying attention to observable reality is, apparently, Sexist.

Despite the protests of her lawyers that it could "re-victimize" her, Jackie Coakley will be deposed Thursday.

Quote:A Virginia judge has ruled that the woman at the center of Rolling Stone's discredited story about an alleged frat house gang rape must testify as part of a lawsuit against the magazine.

The woman identified only as "Jackie" will be deposed on Thursday by attorneys representing Rolling Stone and Nicole Eramo, the University of Virginia administrator who is suing the magazine and the author of the now-retracted article, Sabrina Rubin Erdely.

Erdely's 2014 piece, "A Rape On Campus," featured Jackie's graphic claim to have been raped by a group of fraternity members during her freshman year at UVA.

Eramo, an associate dean of students at UVA, is suing Rolling Stone and Erdely for defamation over what she says was an unfair portrayal of her as an insensitive campus bureaucrat in the story. She is seeking $7.85 million in damages.

The story unraveled after doubts about Jackie's allegation surfaced. Police eventually said they found no evidence that the rape occurred, and an independent review conducted by Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism found sweeping editorial failures on the part of Rolling Stone.

Attorneys for Jackie had resisted the deposition, arguing that she would be re-victimized if forced to recount the incident under oath and it could bring her "extreme psychological" and "irreparable harm."

At a hearing held Monday in a Charlottesville, Virginia, Judge Glen E. Conrad denied a motion filed by Jackie's attorneys to quash the deposition subpoena.

Conrad ruled that all records and transcripts of the deposition will be sealed, and that it will be held at a "mutually convenient location, with priority given to the convenience of and comfort" of Jackie.

The judge said that the plaintiff's attorneys may depose Jackie for five hours over a two-day period, or may petition for additional time.

Libby Locke, an attorney for Eramo, said Rolling Stone's negligence led to her client's unflattering portrayal.

"Jackie was Rolling Stone's sole source for the false tale of rape that it recklessly published. There were numerous red flags in Jackie's account, which should have put Rolling Stone on notice that she was not a credible source for information," Locke said. "Nevertheless, Rolling Stone was dead set on portraying Dean Eramo as a callous administrator who discouraged Jackie from reporting an assault to police — when in fact, it appears that Jackie knew that her tale of rape would not have stood up under real scrutiny and investigation. Had Rolling Stone done the fact-checking and digging that they were legally and ethically required to do as journalists, Dean Eramo would not have been so wrongfully targeted."

Attorneys for Rolling Stone and Jackie did not respond to a request for comment.

Rolling Stone also faces a $25 million suit from the UVA fraternity, Phi Kappa Psi, that was named in the article.

Three former frat members have also filed a suit against Rolling Stone, but have not specified an amount.

So either she admits she was lying, or she continues to lie under oath and is finally prosecuted with a crime.

Either thought puts a wicked smile on my face.

Quote:Conrad ruled that all records and transcripts of the deposition will be sealed, and that it will be held at a "mutually convenient location, with priority given to the convenience of and comfort" of Jackie.

Unfortunately this means that whatever she says, it will likely never be released to the public. Gotta look out for Jackie's "convenience and comfort."

(04-05-2016 05:11 PM)Canopus Wrote:  Despite the protests of her lawyers that it could "re-victimize" her, Jackie Coakley will be deposed Thursday.

Quote:A Virginia judge has ruled that the woman at the center of Rolling Stone's discredited story about an alleged frat house gang rape must testify as part of a lawsuit against the magazine.

The woman identified only as "Jackie" will be deposed on Thursday by attorneys representing Rolling Stone and Nicole Eramo, the University of Virginia administrator who is suing the magazine and the author of the now-retracted article, Sabrina Rubin Erdely.

Erdely's 2014 piece, "A Rape On Campus," featured Jackie's graphic claim to have been raped by a group of fraternity members during her freshman year at UVA.

Eramo, an associate dean of students at UVA, is suing Rolling Stone and Erdely for defamation over what she says was an unfair portrayal of her as an insensitive campus bureaucrat in the story. She is seeking $7.85 million in damages.

The story unraveled after doubts about Jackie's allegation surfaced. Police eventually said they found no evidence that the rape occurred, and an independent review conducted by Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism found sweeping editorial failures on the part of Rolling Stone.

Attorneys for Jackie had resisted the deposition, arguing that she would be re-victimized if forced to recount the incident under oath and it could bring her "extreme psychological" and "irreparable harm."

At a hearing held Monday in a Charlottesville, Virginia, Judge Glen E. Conrad denied a motion filed by Jackie's attorneys to quash the deposition subpoena.

Conrad ruled that all records and transcripts of the deposition will be sealed, and that it will be held at a "mutually convenient location, with priority given to the convenience of and comfort" of Jackie.

The judge said that the plaintiff's attorneys may depose Jackie for five hours over a two-day period, or may petition for additional time.

Libby Locke, an attorney for Eramo, said Rolling Stone's negligence led to her client's unflattering portrayal.

"Jackie was Rolling Stone's sole source for the false tale of rape that it recklessly published. There were numerous red flags in Jackie's account, which should have put Rolling Stone on notice that she was not a credible source for information," Locke said. "Nevertheless, Rolling Stone was dead set on portraying Dean Eramo as a callous administrator who discouraged Jackie from reporting an assault to police — when in fact, it appears that Jackie knew that her tale of rape would not have stood up under real scrutiny and investigation. Had Rolling Stone done the fact-checking and digging that they were legally and ethically required to do as journalists, Dean Eramo would not have been so wrongfully targeted."

Attorneys for Rolling Stone and Jackie did not respond to a request for comment.

Rolling Stone also faces a $25 million suit from the UVA fraternity, Phi Kappa Psi, that was named in the article.

Three former frat members have also filed a suit against Rolling Stone, but have not specified an amount.

So either she admits she was lying, or she continues to lie under oath and is finally prosecuted with a crime.

Either thought puts a wicked smile on my face.

Not necessarily. Note in the same article that all records and the transcript of the occasion are to be sealed, so even if she does admit lying out of her arse odds are very small that she'll ever be prosecuted for it. And the deposition is to be done with priority given to the comfort and convenience of the lying slut, so odds are on she'll be taking breaks on every question to get told how to answer questions.

Quote:Despite the protests of her lawyers that it could "re-victimize" her, Jackie Coakley will be deposed Thursday.

(04-05-2016 06:53 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  So either she admits she was lying, or she continues to lie under oath and is finally prosecuted with a crime.

Either thought puts a wicked smile on my face.

Quote:Not necessarily. Note in the same article that all records and the transcript of the occasion are to be sealed, so even if she does admit lying out of her arse odds are very small that she'll ever be prosecuted for it. And the deposition is to be done with priority given to the comfort and convenience of the lying slut, so odds are on she'll be taking breaks on every question to get told how to answer questions.

Still, I doubt the plaintiff's lawyers are going to be giving her softball questions. They are going to expose all the inconsistencies and contradictions in her account if she chooses to try to hold to it. She knows that if she lies in the deposition she could be charged with perjury at a later date.

Is it possible for the deposition to be unsealed if the plaintiffs in one of the other lawsuits successfully petitions for it to be used as evidence in their cases?

Update on one of the lawsuits:

Quote:New evidence shows that a University of Virginia student who alleged that she was gang raped at a campus fraternity created the fake persona of the alleged ringleader of the attack, according to lawyers representing a U-Va. official who is suing Rolling Stone magazine for defamation.

The legal team representing U-Va. assistant dean Nicole Eramo filed the new evidence Monday in federal court in a case involving the magazine’s retracted portrayal of the incident and the university’s handling of sexual assaults on the Charlottesville campus. The magazine published the 9,000 word account in 2014, and it centered on claims by a U-Va. student, named Jackie, that she’d been gang-raped as a freshman in a fraternity house in September 2012.

In the filing, Eramo’s lawyers submitted new data from Yahoo concerning an e-mail account linked to “Haven Monahan,” the man Jackie identified to friends as the perpetrator of her assault. An investigation by the Charlottesville Police revealed that no person by that name has ever been a student at U-Va., and Eramo’s lawyers have presented evidence in court documents indicating that he is a figment of Jackie’s imagination.

Ryan Duffin, a student who knew Jackie at U-Va., told The Washington Post that he believed that the character was created by Jackie in an effort to attract Duffin’s romantic interest, a tactic known as “catfishing.”

Duffin said that Jackie told him and other friends that Monahan was a junior she met through a chemistry class. Duffin said that he exchanged messages with “Haven,” who spent much of his time talking about how Jackie had a crush on a fellow freshman named Ryan. In late September of their freshman year, Jackie claimed that “Haven” assaulted her after a dinner date.

Also, photographs that were texted to one of Jackie’s friends showing the alleged attacker were actually pictures depicting one of Jackie’s high school classmates in Northern Virginia. That man, now a student at a university in another state, confirmed to The Post that the photographs were of him and said he barely knew Jackie and hadn’t been to Charlottesville for many years.

The data from Yahoo that Eramo’s lawyers acquired via subpoena shows that the e-mail account [email protected] was created on Oct. 2, 2012 while connected to U-Va.’s computer network. The next day, Duffin received an e-mail from “Haven” passing on a letter Jackie had written to “Haven” about Duffin. In the letter, Jackie confesses her love for Duffin.

After filing the lawsuit, Eramo’s lawyers asked Jackie and her legal team to hand over all documents in their possession related to “Haven.” In multiple responses, Jackie’s lawyers wrote that they had already given Eramo’s legal team everything they had.

“We have taken the necessary and appropriate steps to collect, maintain and produce documents consistent with our discovery obligations,” wrote Rebecca Anzidei, one of Jackie’s lawyers from the Stein Mitchell Muse Cipollone & Beato law firm. “To be clear, Respondent is not withholding any responsive documents relating to the category identified in your letter.”

In the most recent court filing, Eramo’s lawyers note, however, that the data from Yahoo shows that someone on the Stein Mitchell law firm’s network accessed the [email protected] e-mail address on March 18, 2016. Four days later, Eramo’s lawyers assert in court filings, Jackie’s lawyers sent another letter indicating “that Jackie was not in possession of these emails.”

Jackie’s lawyers did not respond to a request for comment.

In the new court filing, Eramo’s lawyers write that the data from Yahoo leads to “only one logical conclusion: Jackie is ‘Haven Monahan.'”

Data also shows that Jackie has not complied fully with a court order to hand over everything in her possession for evidence that could be used in the trial for the lawsuit, Eramo’s lawyer wrote. They have deposed her, under court order, regarding the Rolling Stone story, but parties to the lawsuit have been barred from discussing that deposition.

Eramo’s lawyers claim that Jackie is “a serial liar who invented” her account of being raped by seven fraternity brothers participating in a hazing ritual that had left her bloodied and emotionally scarred.

“Jackie was the primary source for Rolling Stone’s false and defamatory article that included her story about being the victim of a violent sexual assault,” Libby Locke, one of Eramo’s attorneys, told The Post earlier this year. “But there is no evidence whatsoever that the story that Jackie told her friends, or the very different story she told Rolling Stone, actually transpired. Instead, it appears that Jackie fabricated her perpetrator and the details of the alleged assault.”

Eramo filed her lawsuit a year ago, seeking more than $7.5 million in damages for what her lawyers describe as the magazine’s false portrayal of the associate dean as callous and indifferent to Jackie’s sexual assault allegations. Eramo’s lawyers have requested communications between Jackie and Rolling Stone, as well as the student’s correspondence with U-Va. staff.

After apologizing for inconsistencies in the account, Rolling Stone officially retracted the article in April 2015. Rolling Stone has declined to comment on the case.

The comments at the bottom of the article are very entertaining.

^^^






Pro tip

Use incognito mode (chrome) to bypass these sort of restrictions

(05-19-2016 09:39 AM)C-Note Wrote:  Update on one of the lawsuits:
The comments at the bottom of the article are very entertaining.

This is a good one:

MeriJ Wrote:Interesting tidbit for those of you obsessed with her name being published:

Not only did she agree to let RS use her real first name, she almost allowed them to use her full name.

If you're really interested in the back story of how the RS story came to be and how it was then exposed, read this Vanity Fair piece from last summer. I am certain that some of what was revealed there will blow your mind:

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/09/u...rible-year

1. Jackie's goal when talking to “fellow” rape victims on campus was sympathy over the fact that none of her friends had believed her story. Until Erdely came along, she had never shared the details of what allegedly happened with the activists, just the pain of being doubted.

So until RS published that article, there was no damage to the reputation of the fraternity. The handful of friends who heard her full story didn’t believe it and the activists who did believe her had only been told she was raped horrifically by unidentified parties.

2. Emily Renda referred five women to Erdely, each representing a different path taken following their rape – successful conviction of their rapist via the criminal justice system, a simple protective order from UVA, pursuit of punishment via the broader administrative process at UVA, etc. She included Jackie to illustrate the “invalidating responses women often get from their friends and family.”

3. When she learned that Erdely decided to focus almost exclusively on Jackie, she argued it would be highly misleading, since Jackie’s case was an extreme outlier, not “representative of campus rape as a whole.” She “worried that it could make the experience of other victims, whose stories weren’t nearly as dramatic and yet were personally devastating, seem almost trivial by comparison.”

4. Erdely arrived in Charlottsville for follow-on interviews the same week Hannah Graham disappeared. A few days later she complained to Renda that administration officials weren’t talking to her and that President Sullivan had postponed her phone interview. Erdely’s insensitivity blew Renda’s mind. Because, hello, they are a little preoccupied with “a student missing and an all-out manhunt for her.”

5. Students that Erdely did speak with quickly spread the word that she seemed to have an agenda and was full of disdain for UVA. So others decided not to talk to her lest she distort what they said. As a result, Erdely ended up relying even more on Jackie’s statements alone. (Jackie’s activist supporters couldn’t help out since they had never heard the details of her rape.)

6. The activists began to realize Erdely was manipulating Jackie to get her to share more details on the record. But one of the activists, Alex Pinkerton, also came to the conclusion that Jackie was manipulating them.

So the core dynamic ended up being two manipulators manipulating each other, each blind to the disastrous personal consequences they would face as a result.

7. When the article came out, they all got together to read it aloud for support, Jackie included. Having never heard the details of Jackie’s allegations, the others were shocked. They were also shocked and angry at how Dean Eramo and the campus had been falsely portrayed.

8. Within a few days they realized Jackie’s story made no sense and that the guy she had ID’d could not have been a member of Phi Kappa Psi, if he existed at all. So they decided to alert Wash Post reporter T. Reese Shapiro (author of the article we are commenting on) to these discrepancies when he arrived on campus, hoping to interview Jackie.

9. First they confronted Jackie, but she refused to answer their questions about the discrepancies. Later they gave her advance warning that they had shared their research with Shapiro and that the Wash Post would soon be exposing her to the world. At that point they were still trying to be supportive, encouraging Jackie to come clean with Shapiro before the damage spread. But Jackie got ugly instead.

10. Erdley called Pinkerton twice to verify that she no longer believed Jackie’s story was true. Erdley said she was writing her retraction and started crying, expecting to lose her job.

(05-19-2016 09:39 AM)C-Note Wrote:  Update on one of the lawsuits:

There's a pretty interesting revelation near the bottom of the article:

Quote:After filing the lawsuit, Eramo’s lawyers asked Jackie and her legal team to hand over all documents in their possession related to “Haven.” In multiple responses, Jackie’s lawyers wrote that they had already given Eramo’s legal team everything they had.

“We have taken the necessary and appropriate steps to collect, maintain and produce documents consistent with our discovery obligations,” wrote Rebecca Anzidei, one of Jackie’s lawyers from the Stein Mitchell Muse Cipollone & Beato law firm. “To be clear, Respondent is not withholding any responsive documents relating to the category identified in your letter.”

In the most recent court filing, Eramo’s lawyers note, however, that the data from Yahoo shows that someone on the Stein Mitchell law firm’s network accessed the [email protected] e-mail address on March 18, 2016. Four days later, Eramo’s lawyers assert in court filings, Jackie’s lawyers sent another letter indicating “that Jackie was not in possession of these emails.”

(12-26-2015 11:24 AM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  Rolling Stone has asked that one of the lawsuits be dismissed:

Quote:Attorneys representing Rolling Stone magazine on Wednesday filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought over a since-retracted article that alleged a sexual assault at a University of Virginia frat house.

The motion seeks to dismiss a suit brought by three graduates of the university who claim the article resulted in them being identified in online posts as the attackers detailed in the story and damaged their reputations.

The magazine’s attorneys argued in court documents that the article, titled “A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA,” didn’t identify anyone portrayed in the alleged assault by name or describe them physically, and that they can’t claim to have been identified just by their affiliation with the frat.

But she ID'd the frat and the graduation dates of the men so she clearly pointed them out - enough so that everyone knew the men being ID'd - but, since she didn't name names, RS isn't responsible.

Makes perfect sense.

As expected, the judge upheld the motion and dismissed the claims on Tuesday. The fake rape trial is officially over.

Men falsely identified as rapists can't sue the girl who lied, the school who punished them or the magazine who reported the obvious lie as a fact.

Now that women know there are no repercussions, expect a swarm of fake rapes next fall.