The woman's real identity has been reported all over the place, as the author of this piece knows perfectly well. Her name is Jackie Coakley.
UPI, please stop pretending that you are protecting a rape victim here by not publishing her name. Jackie Coakley is not a victim. The people who were damaged by her lies are the victims.
I thought the court’s decision was more interesting.
“Monday, U.S. District Judge Glen E. Conrad rejected an attempt by defense attorneys to prevent the woman from being questioned in an affidavit. Her lawyers had argued that being forced to give a deposition would cause harm to the woman’s mental health.”
If I was the plaintiff, that motion would be the centerpiece of my case.
That is an excellent point.
>>UPI, please stop pretending that you are protecting a rape victim here by not publishing her name. Jackie Coakley is not a victim. The people who were damaged by her lies are the victims.
The NY Times version of this story is similar. They ID “Jackie” (with the quotes), but of course so did the Rolling Stone story.
‘Jackie’ in Rolling Stone Rape Article Must Testify in Defamation Suit
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/06/business/media/jackie-in-rolling-stone-rape-article-must-testify-in-defamation-suit.html
We should not be surprised that the NY Times also continues to protect one of the perps, as you pointed out.
What we have here is mass media malpractice. All are protecting a likely perp.
AP
Deposition set for woman in retracted gang-rape story
http://news.yahoo.com/deposition-set-woman-retracted-gang-rape-story-225001411.html
NBC News
‘Jackie’ of Rolling Stone UVA Article Ordered to be Deposed in Suit
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jackie-rolling-stone-uva-article-ordered-be-deposed-suit-n551311
Reuters
Deposition ordered for woman in debunked Rolling Stone rape article
https://news.yahoo.com/deposition-ordered-woman-debunked-rolling-stone-rape-article-083732535.html