October 18, 2016

"A total of eight women and two men have been selected to serve as the jury."

In the Rolling Stone defamation trial.

45 comments:

Chuck said...

About the gender make up of the impaneled jury...

Remember; all who don't click on the link or who know the story; this is NOT the trial where the defamed UVa fraternity, or its vaguely-identified members are plaintiffs.

This is the one where the female UVa administrator who was clearly identified in the story is suing, for her portrayal in the Rolling Stone story as uncaring about the purported rape.

I am so glad (and truly surprised) that Rolling Stone didn't settle. I am looking forward to lots of trials on this journalistic malpractice.

James Graham said...

I'm looking forward to "Jackie" receiving what everyone else in this case has: her complete real name -- first and family -- reported in the press.

Why should an obvious liar be accorded protection granted to real victims?

Gusty Winds said...

So then we should assume Rolling Stove has a good chance of winning?

MadisonMan said...

Thanks for the explanation Chuck. I didn't realize this was just the trial for the Deanlet.

Mostly women judging whether a woman was defamed by a story involving/concocted by a woman.

Nigel Tufnel said...

Interesting stuff comes out in jury selection. 30 potential jurors said they did not trust the media at all.

RS will try to take advantage of that. Ironic since it helped create the mistrust.

Owen said...

MadisonMan: "Mostly women judging whether a woman was defamed by a story involving/concocted by a woman."

Actually: "a story written by a woman, who had gone from school to school looking for a sufficiently outrageous example of sexual predation until at UVA she was directed, by a woman in administration, to "Jackie," a woman, whose fantasy had been unquestioningly accepted by a support group comprised of women."

James Pawlak said...

Will the defendant's witnesses be subjected to a "Drug Test"?

cubanbob said...

While I doubt that the award will be that large this case could potentially lead to others making Rolling Stone the next Gawker.

Michael K said...

I'm a little surprised this has been allowed to go to trial before the election. There will be testimony that women lie about sexual abuse.

Rick said...

The most egregious conduct in this case was by Teresa Sullivan, the left wing activist employed as the President of UVA. She used this obvious hoax as a pretext to violate the rights of many UVA students and continued their punishment even after the hoax became impossible to deny.

A disgusting person who should have been fired.

Chuck said...

James Graham said...
I'm looking forward to "Jackie" receiving what everyone else in this case has: her complete real name -- first and family -- reported in the press.

Why should an obvious liar be accorded protection granted to real victims?


It's Jackie Coakley. That's her name. And she has even more credibility problems than Rolling Stone and/or reporter Sabrina Erdley:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/19/uva-jackie-email-liar-new-evidence-lawsuit/

Chuck said...

Rick said...
The most egregious conduct in this case was by Teresa Sullivan, the left wing activist employed as the President of UVA. She used this obvious hoax as a pretext to violate the rights of many UVA students and continued their punishment even after the hoax became impossible to deny.

A disgusting person who should have been fired.


I am not going to argue too much with you. But Sullivan got rolled. She was 100% steamrolled into the immediate institutional freakout over the RS story. I give her some credit for three things; she did a great job as provost at the University of Michigan before getting the UVa job. And she has done a good job (not great, but good) in walking back the whole thing when the hoax was revealed. And her husband is a really great lawprof and legal mind; the nation's leading authority on church/state relations and religious freedom. Doug Laycock (formerly Michigan Law School). She also faced down a major attempt to oust her by the UVa Board of Visitors (a kind of a Republican putsch, that I personally viewed neutrally). Republican Gov. McConnell pressured that attempt to come to a quick end, and Sullivan kept her job.

EDH said...

Just for old time sake they should have put the surviving members of Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show on the jury.

William said...

Anyone notice how rarely you see articles about Peter Thiel that portray him in a negative light. Usually when a rich guy starts throwing his money around in conservative causes, you get all sorts of negative background information about them. I haven't seen such articles about Peter. Peter Thiel must lead a blameless life. That's the only possible explanation I can think of.

James Graham said...

Chuck said...
I'm looking forward to "Jackie" receiving what everyone else in this case has: her complete real name -- first and family -- reported in the press.

Why should an obvious liar be accorded protection granted to real victims?

It's Jackie Coakley. That's her name.




I know that's her name and I know the "Daily Caller" is not "the press."

Rick said...

And she has done a good job (not great, but good) in walking back the whole thing when the hoax was revealed.

This is 100% false. Even after the story was known to be a hoax she forced fraternities and sororities to sign new agreements (or be expelled) effectively pre-admitting guilt for everything far left activists blame them for. It was a textbook effort by a left wing apparatchik looking to punish the outgroup.

Never let a crisis go to waste.

Nigel Tufnel said...

"Just for old time sake they should have put the surviving members of Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show on the jury."

Or Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman. Because the trial needs more women.

David said...

A jury of peers might involve a greater percentage of standing peers.

Chuck said...

Rick: I get it, and again I am not going to argue with you. If you are angry about the case, I don't blame you; I agree with you. For her part, Sullivan ultimately came down on the side that the story was false, and she said so: "Irresponsible journalism unjustly damaged the reputations of many innocent individuals and the University of Virginia. Rolling Stone falsely accused some University of Virginia students of heinous, criminal acts, and falsely depicted others as indifferent to the suffering of their classmate. The story portrayed University staff members as manipulative and callous toward victims of sexual assault. Such false depictions reinforce the reluctance sexual assault victims already feel about reporting their experience, lest they be doubted or ignored."

Too little, too late? I won't argue the point.

The Drill SGT said...

Rick said...
This is 100% false


I was going to say the same thing. Even after it was obvious that the whole thing was a farce, e.g. The party was in the Fall, during "rush" when Rush occurs 6 months later, Sullivan maintained the new draconian order, because "Crisis".

Note, that the dean is a feminist leftist (I repeat myself), but other than the UVA police, there were no other men to take the fall in the RS story, and Jackie had refused to make a statement to the police about her gang rape, which is why she isn't on trial today.

Chuck said...

James Graham: I took you too literally. Sorry. We agree; rape victims should have the option to remain nameless in the mainstream media. And phony, lying false-accusers should not get that option. Whether or not "The Daily Caller" (or two dozen other online news outlets) count as "the press" is up to you. I suspect that you and I would agree on a lot otherwise.

Chuck said...

...but other than the UVA police, there were no other men to take the fall in the RS story, and Jackie had refused to make a statement to the police about her gang rape, which is why she isn't on trial today.


100% valid observation. The more you guys want to argue the UVa case, the more I am going to agree with you.

Rick said...

"Irresponsible journalism unjustly damaged the reputations of many innocent individuals and the University of Virginia.

Too little, too late?


Blame shifting. UVA people including herself and others like Emily Renda pushed this story because they supported the legislation and campus rules they expected to pass during the resulting panic. The legislation failed because the hoax was discovered so quickly but Sullivan got her campus rules through.

Owen said...

What Teresa Sullivan might have done, when she finally got the story straight, was issue a public apology to the Greek houses whose reputations and operations she had so hastily ruined. And an apology also to anyone under her jurisdiction who had knowingly or negligently allowed the Jackie fable to come about and to go unchecked. Starting with Jackie herself. The girl appears to have been a head case and yet her story was accepted (or not investigated and then quashed) by school employees and school-funded organizations. Perhaps Sullivan's apology could have gone even further, to Jackie and her family, for failing to identify her mental health issues and get her appropriate care, probably starting with a year off.

This was mismanaged from beginning to end by almost everyone involved, possibly excepting Dean Eramo and certainly excepting the kids at the libeled fraternity.

Owen said...

Correction: "And an apology also [for the actions of] anyone under her jurisdiction..."

Rick said...

Owen said...
What Teresa Sullivan might have done, when she finally got the story straight, was issue a public apology to the Greek houses whose reputations and operations she had so hastily ruined.


UVA activists vandalized the defamed fraternity house, they should have been disciplined.

The university closed the fraternity giving members only a few hours to move their stuff out with nowhere to go. They should be recompensed. The members of this fraternity were called rapists and harassed in other ways by activists and students, the very people who claim to feel "unsafe" because of a Trump sign or because a conservative gives a speech.

Sullivan should have given a speech calling out this hatred and then resigned for having participated in it.

Kirk Parker said...


"Sullivan should have given a speech calling out this hatred and then resigned for having participated in it."

And then committed seppuku on live national TV.


Really, having glibly ruined other peoples' lives, she should ruin her own in recompense.

But I'm generous... I'd settle for her living homeless under a bridge somewhere.

Michael K said...

"Peter Thiel must lead a blameless life. That's the only possible explanation I can think of."

He's gay.

Which is the same thing,.

Virgil Hilts said...

The most evil and destructive person in all this has been Jackie Coakley and I am not sure why she gets a pass. If a guy in a fraternity did this much malicious damage to a University and harmed a number of innocent people through fabricated lies and manufactured crimes, he would be dealt with appropriately (and I bet we would see bloggers like Ann actually type the guy's name).
Isn't it sexist to not hold women in college to the same standard as we hold men. As to her mental state, she did hours and hours of planning, including creating a make-believe person and accounts - she carefully and meticulously schemed without a second thought to the damage she was doing to those all around her. She is and should be infamous.

Kirk Parker said...

Virgil,

You think women actually have agency? How quaint...

Virgil Hilts said...

I meant to add - every false and manufactured charge of rape also does great harm to every real victim of rape. People who really care about actual victims of sexual violence should be the ones attacking rather than defending Jackie.

damikesc said...

Why should an obvious liar be accorded protection granted to real victims?

It promotes the narrative. The press didn't want to release Crystal Mangum's name. Jackie's name is out there (Coakley). She's shockingly cute for a fucking lunatic.

I'm also proud I called bullshit on this from day one (she walked around campus after multiple hours of rape on broken glass? You'd think SOMEBODY would've noticed a horribly cut up woman staggering around). Did the same with the Duke lacrosse rape case. At this point, I assume all major "rape cases" are utter bullshit.

A disgusting person who should have been fired.

That she wasn't should've led to total withholding of funds from the state until she was. We want equal treatment, right? Well, equal means men aren't fucked over for no reason.

I am not going to argue too much with you. But Sullivan got rolled.

Except she DIDN'T STOP THE PENALTY AFTER IT TURNED OUT TO BE A HOAX.

She's a demagogue. Worse than Trump since he didn't personally harm anybody. She's up there with the Duke Group of 88 in the lacrosse scandal --- and, mind you, I don't believe any of them have apologized for their attacks on students.

Too little, too late? I won't argue the point.

Her actions show that her entire statement was a lie. From start to finish. And this is her actions AFTER her statement, when she STILL made the frats basically sign absurd documents requiring absurd rules on them.

UVA activists vandalized the defamed fraternity house, they should have been disciplined.

And they never are. I'd suggest frats keep guns in their home at all times. Because when shit goes down badly, the college won't protect them.

This isn't too little, too late. It's bullshit.

Brando said...

One journalistic rule we should change is this whole "protecting the accuser by not releasing their name" standard that still allows the accused's name to get dragged through the mud. Either release both, or release neither until after the court has ruled.

Besides, doesn't "hide the accuser's name" sort of advance this idea that a rape victim should feel shame? If the only person who should be ashamed is the perpetrator, it makes more sense to hide the accused's name, particularly as there's a strong likelihood the accused did not do it.

buwaya said...

"I am so glad (and truly surprised) that Rolling Stone didn't settle"

I suspect that the fix may be in. I am not sure, and of course I am paranoid, as one must be. Rolling Stone isn't a particularly influential magazine anymore and isn't a core asset. So who knows.

"I'm a little surprised this has been allowed to go to trial before the election."

Wont make the news. You'll hear trial reporting only from the right wing media.

"And she has done a good job (not great, but good) in walking back the whole thing when the hoax was revealed. "

She did? As far as I know she did nothing to get the fraternities reputation back. Damage is done, universal, in every institution across the country, and permanent, for all time amen.

"Peter Thiel must lead a blameless life."

Of course. He's gay. He gets a lot of insulation.

"a story written by a woman, who had gone from school to school looking for a sufficiently outrageous example "

Prompted by an Obama executive initiative that spawned NGO initiatives at which Erdely got her marching orders to look for such examples for the political purpose of drumming up female turnout in upcoming elections. Erdely was not acting alone or on her own initiative.
This whole system is so transparent.

Michael said...

I knew this was a hoax before I finished the article in Rolling Stone. No fraternity ever has had a glass topped table in their fraternity house. No fraternity ever has had rape as a requisite for pledging. The story was so preposterous, the willingness to be gulled by the story so jaw dropping.

donald said...

Peter Thiel is savaged in the media. He's a self hating gay who wants to be in the closet and now he cant because Bush sucks.

I used to read me some Gawker when I really wanted to hate what we have become as a republic (Hint, millennials are truly the stupidest generation).

Char Char Binks said...

Kirk Parker said...
Virgil,

You think women actually have agency? How quaint...


Women, Blacks, and children under 7 should never be blamed for anything.

Owen said...

Damikesc: what you said.

Buwaya: "Prompted by an Obama executive initiative that spawned NGO initiatives at which Erdely got her marching orders to look for such examples for the political purpose of drumming up female turnout in upcoming elections. Erdely was not acting alone or on her own initiative. This whole system is so transparent."

Indeed. That is the most parsimonious explanation for what has been going on with Title IX for years. I keep forgetting that the Progressives are *not* stupid, have deep strategic craft and enormous patience, thanks to their Long March Through the Institutions. They are always planning ahead. After Obama, it would be Hillary's turn, and thus while War on Blacks was running on one turntable they were already spinning up War on Women on the next. Almost certainly, part of that plan was to generate and sustain a moral panic about campus rape, and lean on schools to establish massive compliance infrastructure that, strangely, had every incentive to find false positives so they could stay busy. Thus the issuance in 2011 of the (completely illegal) Administration "Dear Colleague" "guidance" which has eviscerated the notion of due process.

I can't believe this was staring me in the face for years, and I just didn't see it. Nice pattern recognition there!

Owen said...

Damikesc: what you said.

Buwaya: "Prompted by an Obama executive initiative that spawned NGO initiatives at which Erdely got her marching orders to look for such examples for the political purpose of drumming up female turnout in upcoming elections. Erdely was not acting alone or on her own initiative. This whole system is so transparent."

Indeed. That is the most parsimonious explanation for what has been going on with Title IX for years. I keep forgetting that the Progressives are *not* stupid, have deep strategic craft and enormous patience, thanks to their Long March Through the Institutions. They are always planning ahead. After Obama, it would be Hillary's turn, and thus while War on Blacks was running on one turntable they were already spinning up War on Women on the next. Almost certainly, part of that plan was to generate and sustain a moral panic about campus rape, and lean on schools to establish massive compliance infrastructure that, strangely, had every incentive to find false positives so they could stay busy. Thus the issuance in 2011 of the (completely illegal) Administration "Dear Colleague" "guidance" which has eviscerated the notion of due process.

I can't believe this was staring me in the face for years, and I just didn't see it. Nice pattern recognition there!

Owen said...

Damikesc: what you said.

Buwaya: "Prompted by an Obama executive initiative that spawned NGO initiatives at which Erdely got her marching orders to look for such examples for the political purpose of drumming up female turnout in upcoming elections. Erdely was not acting alone or on her own initiative. This whole system is so transparent."

Indeed. That is the most parsimonious explanation for what has been going on with Title IX for years. I keep forgetting that the Progressives are *not* stupid, have deep strategic craft and enormous patience, thanks to their Long March Through the Institutions. They are always planning ahead. After Obama, it would be Hillary's turn, and thus while War on Blacks was running on one turntable they were already spinning up War on Women on the next. Almost certainly, part of that plan was to generate and sustain a moral panic about campus rape, and lean on schools to establish massive compliance infrastructure that, strangely, had every incentive to find false positives so they could stay busy. Thus the issuance in 2011 of the (completely illegal) Administration "Dear Colleague" "guidance" which has eviscerated the notion of due process.

I can't believe this was staring me in the face for years, and I just didn't see it. Nice pattern recognition there!

Owen said...

Apologies for multiple redundant posts. How do I delete?

Michael K said...

an Obama executive initiative that spawned NGO initiatives at which Erdely got her marching orders to look for such examples for the political purpose

This is not her first rodeo, either. She fabricated other stories of rape.

That one was an attack on the military, another male bastion.

RedState has now spoken with multiple members of Navy command who were either personally involved in the investigation of Ms. Blumer’s allegations or who had firsthand knowledge of the facts of this case. For obvious reasons, their names have been withheld to protect their identities. However, it seems clear that, if Ms. Erdely’s story concerning Petty Officer Blumer were subjected to the same scrutiny as the UVA story, it might well come unraveled just as quickly.

The key fact from these conversations is this: Everyone I spoke to in connection with this investigation was crystal clear that at no point did Sabrina Erdely or Rolling Stone ever contact them whatsoever, even to ask for background information. This is exactly the same lapse in journalistic standards that doomed the UVA story and ultimately led to its retraction.


The military is even more pussywhipped than college administrators.

Bob Loblaw said...

Anyone notice how rarely you see articles about Peter Thiel that portray him in a negative light.

I don't know what articles you've been reading. Since Thiel came out in support of Trump I've seen one hit job after another.

Bob Loblaw said...

The military is even more pussywhipped than college administrators.

They know they won't be supported by upper brass.

Owen said...

Michael K: "The military is even more pussywhipped than college administrators."

But isn't that logical? A peacetime military is a bunch of people with no real work to do. They can (and should) practice, and worry, and plan. But Hallelujah they are not being asked to do the very task we assigned them: kill bad people and break stuff.

So a peacetime military is deeply concerned with battle --over a fixed or shrinking pie, because without war there will be few new units needing leaders, and no rivals or superiors lost in battle.

So they fight --to advance if they can, but otherwise not to be RIF'd, and always to preserve their paycheck and perquisites. They find measures of merit not by charging the enemy's machine gun but by championing the next trendy meme that fascinates their paymasters.

In this context, what will the careerists do? Exactly what they have done.

Q.E.D.