The doubts had to be voiced at first by a person you would describe as a “rape apologist asshole.”

Plenty of people questioned the account prior to the details of its being false came out because that is what thinking people do: they question. Her story, on its face, demanded questions due to the severe nature of the claims and the context presented by Jackie herself (e.g., she liked a boy who didn’t like her…

Just because you didn’t mean to do something doesn’t mean it wasn’t made up. I can sympathize with people who have delusions due to mental issues, but it doesn’t make their delusion any more true.

But you are doing nothing but speculating. What information do you have to support the idea that an assault took place?

The same way five fictional people gang rape someone.

Something may have happened, it may have been a gang-rape. It just so happens that none of the information she provided matches anything. That is the definition of making something up. She may have black-out the memory of something traumatic, but do people then go in an fill in that black out memory with hyper…

What you’re advancing here is a pretty plain “guilty until proven innocent” standard for cases of rape. If that’s what you believe, fine, but don’t be surprised when other people disagree. And it doesn’t make them “rape apologist assholes.” It just puts them in line with one of the key tenets of our justice system.

I agree, but the build-up to the date and the weeks of working with the guy was also made up. How does that reconcile with the story? No such person existed.

You are being far too kind to this crazy person. The issue is that almost none of the evidence matched the story beyond she was at UVA. That isn’t to say something traumatic didn’t happen to her, it just didn’t happen at that house, with those guys, in the manner described, and with the reactions of all her friends…

I am 41 years old and I got a defibrillator put into my chest about 5 years ago. And I remembered the day and year of the most traumatic event in my life. I had heart surgery at 17. And when I got my defibrillator I recognized that my anesthesiologist from when I was 17 was also my anesthesiologist for my when I got…

The clerk at the grocery store has brown eyes. Also, she didn't gang rape me. Trivial events don't stand out to most, but significant events, good or bad stand out quite clearly.

So, why would Sabrina Rubin Erdely choose to sensationalize such a lurid story when there are so many actual campus rapes?

Yeah, in terms of punishing people, what happened and who did it are the main things needed to determine guilt.

If she’s still employed, Rolling Stone hasn’t offered sufficient apology.

She’s on record for saying this is *exactly* the type of story she wanted to publish.

No. The horrifying truth seems to be that Jackie fabricated her attack in order to garner sympathy from a guy she had a crush on. And then Sabrina Rubin Erdely was so thrilled to have such a perfect story that she agreed not to do any serious research as a journalist.

With all the factual rape stories out there, why did they choose this rarity to sensationalize? What the hell is wrong with the media?

“bro (of both sexes) entitled”

Yeah, but she wanted it to be shocking and feed into every preconceived notion that people believe.

Sexual assault is horrific and happens far to often on collage campuses (everywhere). There is no need to make one up.