Posted on 02/21/2016 4:24:53 AM PST by detective
Virginia judge has ordered "Jackie" of Rolling Stone 's now-retracted expose about an alleged gang rape at the University of Virginia to appear in court to be deposed.
"The court believes that a one-day, seven-hour deposition will be sufficient," Judge Glen Conrad wrote in a court order this week calling for the woman identified only as Jackie to appear in court on April 5.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Her supposed story, as reported by Rolling Stone, has proved to be untrue. Now under oath she will be forced to tell the truth.
I suspect that "Jackie" has serious psychological problems and told a false story and that the Rolling Stone reporter then made up around 90% of what was in the article.
But we shall see.
Can she just sit there and plead the Fifth Amendment for seven hours?
I went ahead and read the premise to the story, if it is false which apparently it is, I could only wish that society permitted dueling or permitted medieval type punishments to be inflicted on all those who knowingly perpetuated the lie.
In earlier times, this would have justified a shoot on sight feud. There is merit in having consequences so severe that people would not even consider repeating this act.
Only if it's a criminal case or if she believes her answer may expose her to criminal charges. If it's just a matter of determining civil liability and assessing damages then no, she can't take the 5th, and she can be held in contempt if she does.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
IF there even IS a “Jackie”. This was written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely; my first thought to be this “Jackie” doesn’t even exist.
If that’s the case, it will be interesting to see how she reconciles a Judge’s order for this “Jackie” to be deposed against having to admit this “Jackie” may not even exist.
Just my opinion.
Jackie is a pauper, she has nothing to lose, not even her self respect or reputation. Erdely and the Rolling Stone have at least a financial stake in the outcome. Erdely and Wenner have “skillfully” maneuvered themselves into a corner where relying on the word of an unreliable and mentally disturbed person, they libeled people who fight back and are now forced to rely on the same unreliable individual to protect from the consequences of their recklessness. Nice going.
The attorneys for the plaintiffs need to draw Jackie out by making her feel like the victim (she’s good at doing so) and assist her in shifting blame to Erdely and Rolling Stone.
Its not a trial but she can effectively say nothing by having an attorney there who coaches her to refuse to answer the question on advice from her counsel. A 1 hour deposition is brutal enough but a 7 hour depo would be horrendous.
The same needs to happen to false accusers at other universities, such as Mizzou.
That's probably a good initial assessment.
That is true. But she is even worse than that. Among other things, she created a false identity “Haven Monahan” to try to entice her crush Ryan Duffin.
She is a liar and a lot worse.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/10/you-can-finally-read-uva-jackies-bizarre-catfishing-texts/
That's probably a good initial assessment.
“IF there even IS a “Jackieâ€.”
There is. Her friends - to whom she ran the night she was “raped” - all know her so she is real. Her father has even spoken to the media on at least one occasion to insist she was actually attacked in some way. I can only assume she lied to her parents as well.
Judge: Jackie Coakley not covered by patient-counselor privilege in 'Rolling Stone' defamation suit
Okay. Good. I stand corrected. I guess we’ll then find out whether Ms Erdely’s account of her recount of the story comports. Either way, it is going to be fun hearing about it. Thanks.
The woman will be deposed as part of an ongoing lawsuit filed by Nicole Eramo, an associate dean at the University of Virginia,
against Rolling Stone,
the magazine’s owner, Wenner Media,
and the writer of the expose, “A Rape on Campus,” Sabrina Rubin Erdely.
Wow! Bizarro world! Jackie should be in a mental institution or jail, one or the other, and nowhere else.
I love that she is no longer a first name only criminal.
If you are saying the Rolling Stone reporter is somehow less at fault for this libelous story than Ms. Coakley, I disagree.
Reporters are supposed to be trained professionals.
Fact checking, lie detecting, and politely declining to be mouthpieces for wingnuts were once considered an honest reporter’s most basic skills.
Journalism students were at one time required to take classes pertaining to libel and journalistic ethics. There were rules, procedures, to avoid libel lawsuits. A basic one: reporters can not publish a story accusing somebody of a crime, just because some other somebody says so. No arrest = no police report = no story.
Ms. Coakley—a kid in college— may have gotten so drunk she couldn’t remember with whom she did/ or did not/ have sex, and concocted a story to cover her shame. She was likely influenced by feminist agit-prop. That’s just pathetic and sad.
But by failing to ascertain the veracity of Ms Coakley’s story, while ignoring every standard of journalistic ethics, Ms. Erdeley—professional journalist —compounded Ms. Coakley’s wingnuttery by committing the slander to print, bringing it into the realm of libel.
She cannot simply claim, well, gee, I just report whatever i’m told, it’s not my job to question whether it might have been fabricated—because that is precisely her job.
Worse, Ms. Erdeley seems to have had a consciously preconceived “campus rape culture” narrative, and sought affirmations of this narrative from anti-rape activists, while USING Ms. Coakley as a centerpiece to promote it.
***Ms. Coakley — kid in college — may have gotten so drunk she couldn’t remember with whom she did/ or did not/ have sex, and concocted a story to cover her shame. She was likely influenced by feminist agit-prop. That’s just pathetic and sad.***
While Sabrina Erdely and Rolling Stone are to blame for the publication of the fake rape story, I hope you do realize that Jackie Coakley didn’t get drunk one night and concoct a story to cover her shame. There was never any date, because the young man in question was not real. Haven Monaghan was a purely fictitious person. He doesn’t exist, except in text messages. He was a made up person who she pretended to be (via her computer) in order to win affection from a guy that she was interested in and who rebuffed her advances. IMHO, this young lady needs to in an insane asylum or jail.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.