“Key to the verdict against Rolling Stone itself was its delayed decision to retract the story, according to the jury’s verdict form. In December 2014, Rolling Stone appended an editor’s note acknowledging discrepancies in Jackie’s account and that the magazine never contacted her alleged fraternity attackers before…

I was surprised by the decision too, but having read some of the analysis I definitely see how they came to their decision. It’s a mystery to me that RS didn’t take the article down once they knew Jackie’s story was a fabrication. Also, Erdely and the RS witnesses must have not done themselves any favors in court.

You can’t just overturn a jury decision because you think it’s wrong and they didn’t follow the judge’s instructions. You need a legal reason. The fact that the judge declared Eramo a limited purpose public figure worked against her and made it harder for her to make her case so I’m not seeing grounds for appeal…

I would not name her because she’s unstable and there’s no benefit. Saying, “But Mom, Joey did it,” is not really a compelling argument.

Her name is already out there for anyone who really wants to know.

How about deeply troubled young woman who doesn’t think through the consequences of her actions?

“In a practical sense, people are looked at as guilty in a court of law, for any crime. Criminal defense attorneys will tell you at length how fictitious the presumption of innocence is in America. It sucks.”

It’s all explained in the Columbia Journalism Prof’s report. Essentially they waived their fact checking rules, which is a big part of the reason they’re being sued — reckless disregard.

That article should have set everyone’s Spidey senses tingling. It was way OTT and full of the most cartoonish villains imaginable. And yet, look at the reaction here when skepticism was expressed.

It also echoes “believe the children” from the satanic daycare scandals, and we all know where that led.

Actually, if you’ve ever been burgled, the cops pretty much tell you, you’re unlikely to ever see your property returned or anyone prosecuted.

Well, then, how do you explain all the accusations of being a rape apologist levelled at Nicole Eramo? The evidence was shown in court this week — and outside the courtroom where she was also accused two years later of being a rape apologist.

What’s to gain by outing someone who’s clearly unstable?

Compulsive liars are not exactly unknown to mankind. If you’ve ever had a fantasist in your life, you come to recognize them.

So how does “believe, then investigate” work when the second you start posing questions you’re accused of being a rape apologist — or worse?