Ugh, you’re right of course. I was drunkposting from the mindset that for a jury to be so wrong they must have been instructed badly, but obviously that’s not true.

Because it’s bad for public officials to ignite public witch hunts?

Well, she has VERY publicly destroyed her reputation, credibility and career, so at least she’s seeing the repercussions of being a bad journalist.

I remember my reaction when I initially read this story. At first, I was heartbroken, because I have ties to UVA, and was saddened that this could happen there. I was angry that UVA ignored this woman’s suffering.

I guess I wouldn’t object to her being outed, but given that Jackie herself did not falsely accuse a specific person of rape, although she did malign a particular frat and administrator, I also don’t thirst for her blood. She is obviously an extremely troubled person, that apparently tried to back out of the story at…

“seriously, which is not the same as being believed.”

Was listening to the Obama Bros podcast (Keeping it 1600, it’s awesome) and the Daily Beast’s Olivia Nuzzi made what I think is a pretty good distinction: every rape claim should be taken seriously, which is not the same as being believed.

No, if we’re talking about criminal law the burden of proof is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a rape has been committed.

Presumption of innocence is a pillar of our criminal justice system and I hardly think moving to a presumption of guilt will help things.

NOW can we have a real conversation about the substantive differences between an accuser’s right to have sexual assault allegations taken seriously, properly investigated, and prosecuted when warranted, and an absolute “right to be believed”?