With the New York case against Rolling Stone up against a roadblock, the Virginia case against the rape hysterics at Rolling Stone and Wenner Media has hit a critical stage with lawyers for Rolling Stone moving for summary judgment (even if everything Eramo says is true, we still win because she has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted/insufficient facts). Eramo’s lawyers have also filed for summary judgment on several affirmative defenses Rolling Stone might raise later on (throwing parachutes off the plane so Rolling Stone can’t escape).
As part of the motions, some new information has become public. Sabrina Rubin Erdely, the architect of the thoroughly, completely, utterly discredited smear job entitled “A Rape On Campus,” published November 19, 2014 in Rolling Stone took copious notes during the five months she “researched” this bit of rape hysteria propaganda. She also sent emails during the “investigation” and after publication of the smear job. All of this was discoverable (Eramo’s lawyers had the right to request production and did so). One of those emails from December 5, 2014, from Erdely to Rolling Stone senior editors Will Dana and Sean Woods, breathlessly entitled “Our worst nightmare” detailed how Erdely no longer trusted Jackie Coakley and her 2012 rape fantasy of being drugged and raped on a broken glass table for three hours by the non-existent Haven Monahan and his evil cabal of frat-bros as part of an initiation rite.
But how did this loss of trust come to be? What did Erdely, in his tireless five months methodical of research miss? Well, she missed what the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity issued a statement on after Erdely published her hit piece: THERE WAS NO PARTY AT PHI KAPPA PSI HOUSE ON THE NIGHT JACKIE CLAIMED SHE WAS RAPED.
A plot hole so big you could drive an 18-wheeler through it.
But that’s not the fun part of these motions. The real fun is that, according to Erdely’s own notes and emails, Jackie Coakley’s story was inconsistent before she ever published the story.
But wait, it gets even better!
According to the motions, Jackie’s story shares significant elements with books about rape, specifically gang rape, and the plot of an episode of “Law & Order: SVU” that aired before Jackie Coakley spoke to Sabrina Erdely.
But wait, it gets even better!
According to Erdely’s own notes, Jackie mentioned these books, and the Law & Order episode to Erdely in their very first interview.
All of this came out of the 431 pages of notes that Erdely used to write the hatchet job she published in Rolling Stone. She interview Jackie Coakley six times. She even lied her way into the Phi Kappa Psi house to get a first-hand look at the place (interesting that she never bothered to ask whether “Haven Monahan” was a member of the fraternity, or if they had a party on the date in question, but feminists will never let a little thing like facts fuck up their narrative). The woman Jackie Coakley claimed had been her “friend” for years, did any interview that she had only known Coakley for a few months prior to the false rape. Jackie lacked any scarring consistent with being raped on a “broken glass table for three hours.” (A person would look like a country mile of bad road if they even laid bare-backed on broken glass, let alone rolled around in it for hours). Most damning of all is that notes indicate that Erdely was fully aware of the inconsistencies in Jackie Coakley’s store and decided to publish anyway.
A funny note in an entirely unfunny story, Erdely’s notes include a statement from Jackie’s boyfriend (Possibly “The Notorious Simp” Connor McGovern) that he hadn’t seen any marks on her back.
In an unpublished statement prepared by Erdely and Rolling Stone, they state the following:
“Obviously, we regret any factual errors in any story….But Rolling Stone believes the essential point of Jackie’s narrative is, in fact, true: a young woman suffered a horrific crime at a party, and a prestigious university reacted with indifference to her claim. This happens too often at college campuses all over America. Any mistakes we made were honest ones, trying hard to create a narrative and an investigation that would improve the prevention, investigation and prosecution of sexual violence. For that we would never apologize.”
Pay very close attention to what they just said. “We regret any factual errors in any story, but…” well, without the facts, what are we talking about? What are we discussing? Some shit you made up? Your delusions? Everyone is entitled to hold an opinion, how ever wrong it may be, but no one is entitled to their own facts, and certainly not to pass off their opinions as facts or worse, make up facts.
Then there’s that “but” which translates to “forget everything I just said” meaning that Rolling Stone does not, in fact, regret any factual errors in the story, only that other, more diligent writers caught their errors.
“Rolling Stone believes the essential point of Jackie’s narrative is, in fact, true…” Look at how much bullshit Erdely and Rolling Stone just packed into two sentences; “We regret factual errors, except we don’t, but the narrative, contrary to the facts, is true.”
The narrative trumps the facts. Or, as the equally disgraced Dan Rather pithily described the phenomenon that permeates journalism generally and rape hysteria entirely:
Fake, but accurate.