I'm guessing the long-gone Playboy clubs didn't maintain much in the way of documentation. For just this sort of situation.

no "I will do everything that is in my power to provide the police all the documents that may be relevant to these allegations"? No "I am deeply concerned and deeply sorry for the experience that this woman went through"? Fuck him and everybody else.

Yes, this exactly. I don't want anyone's life ruined if they've done nothing wrong, but it's not like a lynch mob is out after these guys— everyone has their weapon of choice aimed at the woman.

It's really about ethics in physics journalism.

I thought it was weird that WaPo called up the lifeguard and he said, "Yes, I'm a lifeguard and am familiar with her. No, I have never taken her on a date and I'm not in that frat."

FUCK YES. I just did a fist pump. I'm even seeing from progressive, feminist people I follow on social media the idea that Jackie's story is somehow completely disproven, all because the date might be wrong, or the frat claims there was no party that night (even though I read that the governing body of the frat…

Exactly. The matter isn't suddenly closed.

If they'd checked it properly, not much would have changed. They would have included a mention of the frat claiming no sanctioned events occurred that night, then mentioned that frats have unsanctioned events all the damn time. They would have mentioned the frat's official response, and taken it apart, saying that it…

First of all, she hasn't necessarily misidentified the fraternity, just that the guy she met was a member. She might have misidentified the frat, and yes that would be a bad thing, but guess what victims misidentified assailants all the time, it doesn't necessarily mean that they're making up the story. Anyway, what…

It was irresponsible of them to throw her under the bus when the details of her account were criticized.

Those of us who know UVA know that "Jackie" was just the stone that broke the camel's back of rape culture at that school. The whole point of the outrage was that it had happened to so, so many others, and it had taken this long to come out. UVA is still a college rapist's playground, and releasing the fraternities to…

There is also the possibility that the party was being held at the frat she said it was at, it just wasn't an official one (official parties are required to meet certain requirements, like having third-parties carding people. MOST frat parties are unofficial). Also, there is no reason the person she said was leading…

I agree. Between Rolling Stone, The Washington Post and the letter from Phi Kappa Psi, I haven't seen anything definitive that discounts Jackie.

Minor discrepancies can be easily explained with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Most people who've had a traumatizing incident don't recall it with perfectly linear order. It's more like recalling a dream. And some details may never resurface. I don't recall the exact dates of times when I was traumatized. I know the…

Does it though? From what I've read, Phi Psi essentially said they didn't have an official function that weekend, that they don't use ritualized sexual assault as an initiation, and that none of their members worked as a life guard. But none of that disproves that they were the frat house at which Jackie's assault…

No that's absolutely a fair question. I said that I am inclined to believe her... I'm a creature of reason, of course the facts need to be vetted and investigations conducted. And the evidence will and should dictate the outcome. The point of my original post, is that many people, including Jezebel.com, mind you, have…

I find it amazing that people are expecting someone to get every detail right in this, never mind trauma. And IT COULD HAVE RUINED HIS LIFE. How? How is this ruining that guy's life? Notice we know her name but not his?

Yeah, I've read it, my point is the existence of conflicting details doesn't suddenly make her story false. As it stands, I'm still inclined to believe this girl.

Right. I can easily believe some of the details aren't true. Maybe it was five men, not seven. Still a horrific crime, still a serious trauma. Maybe the things she claims they said were embellished. Again, still a horrific crime, still a serious trauma. I really cannot express how furious the retraction/reactions to…

They don't. Rolling Stone basically just decided that the accused persons' stories hold enough validity to completely disprove hers, without substantiating anything on either side. Someone accused of a crime is claiming they didn't commit it, and Rolling Stone is acting like this is the big fault in Jackie's story?