Questions emerge over plausibility of horrific UVA gang rape claim

Submitted by Mastodon on Tue, 2014-12-02 08:49

Article here. Excerpt:

'By now, many have heard of the powerful Rolling Stone article published in late November that told the tale of a bright-eyed, bushy-tailed University of Virginia freshman who was allegedly gang raped at a frat party in 2012 in such a brutal and disgusting fashion that administrators have, in the wake of the article’s publication, suspended all fraternity functions, pledged a zero-tolerance on sexual assault, profusely apologized, and promised a more thorough police investigation. Meanwhile, the school’s reputation may have been irreparably harmed.
...
Do I believe something horrible happened to Jackie that fateful night? Yes. I have experienced the frat culture and I know it can be a gritty place where alcohol and drug-induced peer pressure and feelings of entitlement sometimes trump compassion and reason, where a pack mentality can take over and prompt young men to disavow their morality.

But it’s the finer details of Jackie’s claim that bother me – most notably that she could be gang raped over shards of broken glass for three consecutive hours and not bleed to the point of needing hospitalization. That just seems medically implausible from a subjective standpoint.

Also, when Jackie awoke at 3 a.m. after the assault and stumbled unnoticed out of the frat house as the party raged on even though she was horribly disheveled and bleeding, then called her friends to come get her and explained what happened – only to be told by them just go home and sleep it off so she wouldn’t ruin their school’s reputation or their chances at getting into more frat parties: Seriously?

I remember thinking – how is that even possible for “friends” to say such a thing if she was bleeding after getting gang raped by seven guys? You almost have to suspend reality to buy that.
...
I agree with Bradley. There’s a joke in journalism: Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story. Is this what happened here? Quite possibly.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

The whole glass table thing bugs me. Supposedly, she was knocked down over a glass table and then raped on top of the glass shards.

First, why did the alleged rapists leave the table there if they were planning to rape her? Wouldn't it make sense to move it out of the way?

Second, glass tables don't break all that easily. They're designed that way. They typically use tempered glass that is hard to break even if hit with a hammer. Of course, they can and do break--but knocking one over usually doesn't do the trick.

Third, glass tables usually consist of a glass top supported by a metal frame. What happened to the frame?

Fourth, the glass shards would have endangered the alleged rapists as well as her. Surely they would have moved her to another location to make sure Mr. Willie didn't end up penetrated by a glass shard.

Fifth, I agree that three hours of being raped on glass shards would do serious damage to her back, possibly life-threatening damage. She would have required immediate medical attention. Going home would not have been a realistic option. Glass shards are extremely sharp, as sharp as razor blades but more likely to cause damage because of their shape. Would anyone really believe a woman could be raped over a bed of razor blades and not require serious medical attention? Yet apparently she didn't.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by el cid on Thu, 2014-12-04 14:51

RS is no longer standing by all of its story. I suspect the whole thing will come apart and it will be shown to be a hoax. The fraternity says there was no event held that night.

Of course, true believers in the "rape culture" won't back down, saying false accusations are rare and believers in the need for evidence and due process are rape apologists.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by el cid on Sat, 2014-12-06 16:32