Sexual Politics

b

Erica Ambler wrote:

I agree that legal action looks likely. Any lawyer will be looking for patterns:

1. Whether Jacqueline Coakley made rape allegations in the past. I've no idea if this stuff is true:

http://www.inquisitr.com/1665379/jackie-coakley-made-up-many-fake-rape-stories-about-herself-pinterest-account-suggests-shes-obsessed-with-rape/

2. Whether all of Sabrina Erdely's other journalism withstands third-party fact-checking. I've been looking at some of her other published articles on her website.

http://www.sabrinaerdely.com/archives.html

I may be wrong, but I believe that the photograph in the above piece has been wrongly identified as being Jacky.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Brendan O'Neill, editor of Spiked:

Quote :

When you say "I believe this woman was raped," you are saying something else, too: "I believe the suspect in question is a rapist." This turns every principle of justice on its head. The presumption of innocence has existed in some form or other for centuries, going as far back as the sixth century Byzantine Emperor Justinian the Great, who said: "Proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies." In short, it is the accuser we should be skeptical of, and who we should doubt, and not the responsibility of the accused to disprove the claims made against them. The cult of credulity is laying to waste this civilizing ideal, through effectively saying: "She who asserts is telling the truth; he who denies is guilty."

Yes, Jackie and Erdely and Rolling Stone have some soul-searching to do. But let's not ignore the underpinnings to this journalistic debacle—the emergence of an illiberal, intolerant, unjust climate in which all "victims" are instantly believed, even by journalists, and in which, terrifyingly, a suspect can be condemned through accusation alone.

http://reason.com/archives/2014/12/08/rolling-stone-rape-culture

Unless there are specific accusations made, then "I believe this woman was raped" does not automatically mean that any suspected rapist has even been identified.
In fact, the existence of serial rapists rather depends upon that very fact.

Also, the accused was not "condemned". In fact, in this case, the system clearly worked. As far as I can tell, his name was never widely publicized and the people responsible for the actual criminal investigation found that there was no proof to support her claims. The tone of that paragraph makes it sound as if the young man was locked up immediately upon the publication of the RS article.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Didn't Jacqueline Coakley also allege that in April of 2012 or 2014 a couple of guys threw beer/Coke bottles at her? Police investigated but could find no evidence? Or did I get her mixed up with someone else? Because I think she alleged two separate incidents, and in both incidents she was assaulted with bottles, but only in the rape allegation was she sexually assaulted with a bottle.

Unless I am misremembering, the beer bottle incident happened when she was campaigning against rape.
At least, those are her claims. There might be a tad bit more truth to that story (though perhaps not the exact circumstances) in that at least some of her friends and acquaintances remember her having a bruise on her face. At least that is what I remember reading.

Salomé wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Didn't Jacqueline Coakley also allege that in April of 2012 or 2014 a couple of guys threw beer/Coke bottles at her? Police investigated but could find no evidence? Or did I get her mixed up with someone else? Because I think she alleged two separate incidents, and in both incidents she was assaulted with bottles, but only in the rape allegation was she sexually assaulted with a bottle.

Unless I am misremembering, the beer bottle incident happened when she was campaigning against rape.
At least, those are her claims. There might be a tad bit more truth to that story (though perhaps not the exact circumstances) in that at least some of her friends and acquaintances remember her having a bruise on her face. At least that is what I remember reading.

Correct. The two male friends (now ex-friends) that she slandered in the article have come on Megyn Kelly tonight and stated that she has made similar accusations in the past (alluding to the bottle throwing incident among others; I believe I've read she also alleged someone raped her back around 15 years of age).

In the rape allegations she never actually ever contacts the police; she just tells other people, as if somehow that will be enough??? It's not enough if you don't go to the police, because now these guys are free to victimize other women. And everytime a guy gets away with raping a woman who is too shamed to stand up for herself, the more empowered he feels to keep on treating future women in a similar way. Which is why I have a huge problem with people like Jacqueline Coakley and Lena Dunham refusing to cooperate with police investigations after claiming to have been raped. What are you going to do? Just sit there and let the guy rape other women? You've stated publicly you've been raped, but have refused to lift a finger to help police arrest your rapist. Which begs the question: what are you really after? Justice or sympathy/attention?

And as much as it pains me to say something positive about Jameis Winston (because I find him gross and a despicable human being), I must conclude he did not rape this girl, even after two investigations have cleared him.

Was Jackie raped ever in her life? Perhaps. Wouldn't doubt it and would probably explain a lot of her behavior and obsession with rape. Could she be a screwed up sorority chick so desperate for male attention that she'll even claim to be raped in order to get a guy to sympathize with her? Can't rule that out either.

Meantime, I hope the frat brothers sue Rolling Stone for every penny they've got. I hope they drain RS' bank account....bleed it dry. This sort of reckless "journalism" has got to stop.

b

I can't find the original source, but that picture was supposedly dug up online and belonged to another Jacky. Which was obviously not a lot of fun for the woman involved.

Does this kind of thing - wrong pics taken from the net - happen every other week now or am I mistaken?

Quote :

Nothing in this story is impossible;

This is true to a certain extent. However, some aspects of it were always weird.
The weirdest aspect to me was always that the victim of a violent rape would not need to go to the E.R., even if she opts not to report the crime.
Or that her friends would pick her up right after said violent crime, and not one of them would insist to involve the authorities.

Salomé wrote:

I can't find the original source, but that picture was supposedly dug up online and belonged to another Jacky. Which was obviously not a lot of fun for the woman involved.

I'm not so sure that's not the real deal. If she lied about being raped...if she lied about her friends being callous and indifferent to her....if she lied about the people involved in raping her....lying about her picture would be no big deal. No other picture of Jacqueline Coakley has surfaced and plenty of people know her and have/would have leaked an alternate picture if the one we have of her is not real. I think the rumor that it's not her is just an attempt to deflect. She deserves no special treatment. Her name and face should be public to any and all who want to see it. The public has the right to see the source of these bogus allegations; from the owner of Rolling Stone, to the editor, to the writer, to Jacqueline herself; all of their pictures should be proudly displayed on the front page of every media source in the country. Websites...print mags...the walls of the local post office.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Salomé wrote:

I can't find the original source, but that picture was supposedly dug up online and belonged to another Jacky. Which was obviously not a lot of fun for the woman involved.

I'm not so sure that's not the real deal. If she lied about being raped...if she lied about her friends being callous and indifferent to her....if she lied about the people involved in raping her....lying about her picture would be no big deal. No other picture of Jacqueline Coakley has surfaced and plenty of people know her and have/would have leaked an alternate picture if the one we have of her is not real. I think the rumor that it's not her is just an attempt to deflect. She deserves no special treatment. Her name and face should be public to any and all who want to see it. The public has the right to see the source of these bogus allegations; from the owner of Rolling Stone, to the editor, to the writer, to Jacqueline herself; all of their pictures should be proudly displayed on the front page of every media source in the country. Websites...print mags...the walls of the local post office.

I believe the other woman was identified, so it seems unlikely that it is a deflection tactic.