I'd probably avoid most classical literature and history if you can't separate out modern contexts from period contexts.

and there is the point that keeps getting missed by others.

I don't think the actual meaning of the song changes because we now interpret the words differently from how they were intended. That is not how it works.

Given that Jackie apparently was carrying on texts with her friends as "Drew," it doesn't seem farfetched at all. If that weren't the case I would have said "yeah, right, fake contact"

The evidence appears to be that the person/image of "drew" sent to friends prior to the event occurring was false and that is the anchor to everything. Maybe something did happen to her during her fake date, maybe she met up with some bad people and something terrible happened. However, since the whole evening was…

In general, if it were just them trying to refurbish their reputations (thought they weren't named), I'd agree with you. People often don't want to look like heartless jerks even if they are. However, there seems to be a lot more details that could be checked out (texts, photos, names) that give their story more…

based on the details in the newest Post story, I'd be inclined to go with the first option. I think Erdely just had her blinders on rather than actively fabricating

or there is evidence that she completely made up the individuals involved in the encounter and for that reason we shouldn't believe her specifically rather than generalize by gender?

so, the fact that the person she said she went on a date with and who subsequently let her to the gang rape was not a student nor even in the state isn't relevant?

I did mention the source being a tabloid, however, I haven't seen anything here contested or this thorough. They have written several other articles from the parents point of view. I also noted that they focus on salacious details that have nothing to do with the issues, e.g., her sex work, other than that it is a…

While I agree with you that rapes are woefully under-reported, trying people for false accusations, much like perjury in trial, go to the integrity of the judicial system as a whole. I think that granting immunity to one particular crime sets a dangerous precedent.

In the store I posted to you in another thread, he claims that "The police, he says, refused to look at video and text messages which would have exonerated him – evidence so overwhelmingly in his favour that the Crown Prosecution Service was later forced to agree with him, at which point it took over the case against…

Here is a source with lots of details. Granted, I think the Mail focuses too much on tabloid journalism (and focuses a bit on lurid details like her secret life as a sex worker), but I haven't seen anything saying any statements are not true. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2…

Looking at the DeFreitas case it does appear to have been made out of whole cloth.

what is the social cost of prosecuting false reporters vs. the social costs of not?

In the DeFreitas case, the accused argued that the police ignored his evidence and only when he brought it to the CPS did they decide to prosecute, so I don't know that the police had all the facts. There are piles of texts and video that support his case that should have been considered from the start.

I don't know any details about the first case, but just came back from London where there were long articles about the de Freitas case. Sounds like the man there had pretty solid evidence and only forced the Crown Prosecution Service to charge here to try to restore his reputation.

"So it doesn't make any damn sense to try to talk about violent crimes without emotions. " That is exactly what the law is supposed to do, look at the issues rationally and analytically without influence of emotion. That is why criminals have rights. It is offensive to me that you are deliberately ignoring the point…

You are using insults to dismiss the argument, that makes it an ad hominem. Really, stop using terms you don't understand.

Look, here is the bottom line, unless you are going to again look for some way to be outraged: