Shocking proposal: Maybe it’s time “Jackie” from the U-Va rape hoax was exposed

posted at 6:41 pm on January 12, 2016 by Jazz Shaw

Even though it’s fallen almost entirely off the front page, what with all the other crises dominating the news, the tale of “Jackie” and the fictional gang rape at the University of Virginia is still grinding along. There was another interesting tidbit which came out in recent weeks when journalists investigating the story (along with the police) began to suspect one key figure in the original tale – “Haven Monahan,” who Jackie supposedly knew from her chemistry class – was most likely an entirely fictional character. How does “Haven” fit into the drama? She was probably part of an elaborate “catfishing” scheme cooked up by Jackie herself. (Washington Post)

Just days after he met her, Duffin said, he was goaded into a text message conversation with a U-Va. junior named “Haven Monahan,” whom Jackie said she knew from a chemistry class.

What followed was what lawyers representing U-Va. associate dean Nicole Eramo described in new court documents as an elaborate scheme to win him over — a practice known as “catfishing” — that morphed into a sensational claim of gang rape at a U-Va. fraternity and a Rolling Stone story that rocked the U-Va. campus and shocked the nation.

A Charlottesville Police investigation later determined that no one named Haven Monahan had ever attended U-Va., and extensive efforts to find the person were not successful. Photographs that were texted to Duffin that were purported to be of Monahan were actually pictures depicting one of Jackie’s high school classmates in Northern Virginia. That man, now a student at a university in another state, confirmed to The Post that the photographs were of him.

The catfishing story is interesting, but it doesn’t really change the substance of the original hoax or the culpability of “Jackie” in all of this. It’s just one element in what increasingly seemed to be the fantasies of a disturbed person and the web of lies she wove, only to see them fall apart later. Given the number of lives and organizations affected by this scandal, Paul Farhi asks something this week which would probably have been an unthinkable question at any time in the past. Why are we still calling her “Jackie” and why don’t we know her real name? (Washington Post)

News organizations have declined to reveal Jackie’s full identity since her now-discredited story appeared in Rolling Stone magazine in November 2014. Her single-name identity — just Jackie — is in keeping with a long-standing journalistic convention against identifying alleged victims of sexual crimes to protect the accuser’s privacy.

As a result, news accounts of rape or sex-related crimes almost never name an accuser without their explicit permission, making it the only class of crime involving adults in which this practice is observed.

But that standard arguably doesn’t apply in Jackie’s case. Her story has been shown repeatedly to be false, both through news reporting and an extensive police investigation. Rolling Stone has withdrawn the article, “A Rape on Campus,” and apologized to its readers for publishing an account that a Columbia Journalism School report called “a story of journalistic failure.”

I understand the existing rule about not naming victims of sexual assault in the media, though there are different reasons cited for this depending who you ask. Rape and other sexual assaults are particularly heinous crimes which can traumatize a person on a level even worse than a robbery or a beating, and if the victims do not want to be hounded by the press or forced to relive the experience that’s something I agree we should all respect. It’s a basic matter of decency and privacy.

But here’s the thing… “Jackie” isn’t a rape victim. She’s a rape accuser, and one whose story has completely fallen apart. If anything, she’s more of a criminal in this case (and may turn out to be criminally or at least civilly liable before this is all over) and doesn’t seem to be the sort of figure who merits such shielding. Now, if there were even a vestige of doubt left… if the police had an ongoing investigation and felt there was the slimmest chance that an actual perpetrator might be brought to justice, I’d be all on board with keeping her identity under wraps. But the books are closed on this one. There are no perpetrators to be found. The girl lied and wound up almost taking down an institution in the wreckage she left behind.

The problem we seem to be wrestling with here, however, is how you treat someone who is not the accused, but the accuser. When somebody is accused of a crime we are careful to say “alleged” when discussing them until there is a conviction or a confession. But in this case it’s the reverse. There is no ongoing trial or arrest of the false accuser so she somehow maintains the generic mantle of “potential rape victim” and the protection that brings with it. How does that get resolved? Does she need to be convicted of something in a court of law before such anonymity is no longer appropriate? If so, we’re on the horns of a dilemma because there may well never be any such trial.

There are people who know her real name. (And yes, I’m nearly positive I know what it is.) But who makes the call as to when we can say it?

UVaPhiKappaPsi


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Rhymes with “Oakley”.

Rusty Nail on January 12, 2016 at 6:43 PM

There are people who know her real name. (And yes, I’m nearly positive I know what it is.) But who makes the call as to when we can say it?

You make the call whenever you want to make the damn call. Shout her damn name right now. You want me to do it for you?

NotCoach on January 12, 2016 at 6:47 PM

Name her and publicly shame her. She deserves one whole heck of a lot of attention for what she tried to do and she needs to be called out on it.

Johnnyreb on January 12, 2016 at 6:50 PM

We do know her real name.

Her first name is actually Jackie.

“haven monahan” was a “he” also. A fake guy Jackie made up who texted the guy Jackie had a crush on trying to get him to date Jackie.

Then she went on a “date” with Haven, got “raped,” called the guy she liked, and got him to hang out with her (because he was scared she got raped.)

The lie just grew from there.

But she has been exposed all over the internet. You can google her real name. It’s not a secret.

Timin203 on January 12, 2016 at 6:50 PM

Look, just wait until the left brings us the millions of “refugees” into America. Then the rape epidemic will be legit.

Oh, wait. Then the left won’t report on it . . .

Oh well.

HugoDrax on January 12, 2016 at 6:53 PM

Jackie Coakley

Magicjava on January 12, 2016 at 6:55 PM

FYI, sorry if this post seems frivolous right now. I wrote and scheduled it before Iran took our sailors and our alleged POTUS sent out his lackeys to say that it wasn’t worth mentioning tonight. Yes, that’s off topic. My bad.

Jazz Shaw on January 12, 2016 at 6:56 PM

Jackie Soontobebrokely

rik on January 12, 2016 at 6:57 PM

“soontobebrokely” Lol

Free_Radical on January 12, 2016 at 7:03 PM

But who makes the call as to when we can say it?

You do. You have the power, you have the voice. Do it.

As a former newspaper publisher, someone once asked me, “How do you decide what’s news?” My answer came out almost involuntarily:

“The news is whatever I say it is.”

It’s still true.

If you aren’t going to print it, then why do you keep the presses?

Whitewolf7070 on January 12, 2016 at 7:10 PM

Come out ! Be proud!

artist on January 12, 2016 at 7:10 PM

There was another interesting tidbit which came out in recent weeks….

Where the heck have you been during this whole thing, Jazz?!? This came out in the first couple of weeks immediately after the story started getting ripped apart. One of the very first thing noted was her use of a pseudonym from some teenie romcom or some such. This isn’t news, it’s a rehash.

And there’s no “probably” about it. Everyone involved in that fiasco (who isn’t a kool-aid swilling ‘rape culture’ warrior, that is) has said she was ABSOLUTELY “catfishing”.

If so, we’re on the horns of a dilemma because there may well never be any such trial.

No, Jazz, quit being squishy. We’re not on the horns of a dilemma AT ALL. This woman is a slanderer and should be named and shamed without qualm because of that. She LIED about being a victim. NAME HER.

GWB on January 12, 2016 at 7:16 PM

If you aren’t going to print it, then why do you keep the presses?

Whitewolf7070 on January 12, 2016 at 7:10 PM

Somebody with deeper pockets, or nothing to lose needs to do it.

Not a right of center news aggregating blog.

cozmo on January 12, 2016 at 7:23 PM

FYI, sorry if this post seems frivolous right now. I wrote and scheduled it before Iran took our sailors and our alleged POTUS sent out his lackeys to say that it wasn’t worth mentioning tonight. Yes, that’s off topic. My bad.

Jazz Shaw on January 12, 2016 at 6:56 PM

No problem. Hard to fill the hours, I’m sure.

Timin203 on January 12, 2016 at 7:23 PM

Somebody with deeper pockets, or nothing to lose needs to do it.

Not a right of center news aggregating blog.

cozmo on January 12, 2016 at 7:23 PM

Her name is literally all over the internet and has been printed in a lot of publications.

Timin203 on January 12, 2016 at 7:24 PM

But here’s the thing… “Jackie” isn’t a rape victim. She’s a rape accuser, and one whose story has completely fallen apart. If anything, she’s more of a criminal in this case (and may turn out to be criminally or at least civilly liable before this is all over) and doesn’t seem to be the sort of figure who merits such shielding.

And for all the facts, the WaPo refuses to use Jackie’s last name because 1) they agreed not to publish it as a condition of getting an interview, and 2) it isn’t 100% clear that she wasn’t actually raped.

Jackie isn’t a victim here and while I don’t see any point in reporting her last name, I don’t see why the media refuses to use it when reporting on this story. They sure as hell published the names of those she accused.

Happy Nomad on January 12, 2016 at 7:27 PM

There are people who know her real name. (And yes, I’m nearly positive I know what it is.) But who makes the call as to when we can say it?

The first person or organization to have the courage to do it.

Dusty on January 12, 2016 at 7:30 PM

But who makes the call as to when we can say it?

Ask the NYT; they seem to think everyone in the world needs to know our national secrets as soon as they get a scoop, so I’m sure they would be okay with giving her name .. they also don’t have any problem with publishing the names of alleged rapists before any trial or even investigation, so turnabout seems fair play here.

AesopFan on January 12, 2016 at 7:32 PM

Her name is literally all over the internet and has been printed in a lot of publications.

Timin203 on January 12, 2016 at 7:24 PM

[sniff] That’s the internet, not serious journalism like the WaPo, NYT, and the like. Whoever heard of real news being generated from the internet. /

Seriously, I wonder how much of Jackie’s lies would have stood as true were it not for the internet and individuals going in and doing the kind of scrutiny that Rolling Stone and the WaPo (not to mention the UVA leadership) didn’t do when they went out after that frat and those that Jackie accused.

Jackie should be publicly shamed for her actions.

Happy Nomad on January 12, 2016 at 7:32 PM

Rhymes with “Oakley”.

Rusty Nail on January 12, 2016 at 6:43 PM

Doakley?

Ned Flanders, is that you?

Oxymoron on January 12, 2016 at 7:34 PM

Damn right her name should be revealed. I’ve had it with those who use the cloak of anonymity to destroy men’s lives with false accusations.

WannabeAnglican on January 12, 2016 at 7:38 PM

There are people who know her real name. (And yes, I’m nearly positive I know what it is.) But who makes the call as to when we can say it?
You make the call whenever you want to make the damn call. Shout her damn name right now. You want me to do it for you?
NotCoach on January 12, 2016 at 6:47 PM

Right! What a stupid thing for Jazz to write.

Sherman1864 on January 12, 2016 at 7:40 PM

Well, grow some Jazz Shaw and name her. Who is going to punish you if you do? Who are you afraid of? It was a hoax, you know it, we on the right know it and who cares if her name is revealed. Are you afraid of leftist journalists coming down on you for professional misconduct? Do you care? Name her. I know her name because I have already seen it in print and also pictures of her. It’s not hard at all to find out who she is. You’re twisting yourself in pretzels being politically correct. I don’t get it.

Sue Pratt on January 12, 2016 at 7:41 PM

Sue Pratt on January 12, 2016 at 7:41 PM

Ever been sued?

cozmo on January 12, 2016 at 7:47 PM

How does “Haven” fit into the drama? She was probably part of an elaborate “catfishing” scheme cooked up by Jackie herself.

Haven is a fictional man, not a fictional woman.

J.S.K. on January 12, 2016 at 7:54 PM

Bob Woodward?

He’s good at making things up to score political hits.

viking01 on January 12, 2016 at 7:55 PM

Sherman1864 on January 12, 2016 at 7:40 PM
Sue Pratt on January 12, 2016 at 7:41 PM

Give it a rest … the name is already posted above.

gh on January 12, 2016 at 7:57 PM

Rape and other sexual assaults are particularly heinous crimes which can traumatize a person on a level even worse than a robbery or a beating, and if the victims do not want to be hounded by the press or forced to relive the experience that’s something I agree we should all respect. It’s a basic matter of decency and privacy.

Give me a break. Who are you to say s robbery victim or a beating victim is less traumatized than someone else? And why are they less deserving of privacy and decency even if they are?

xblade on January 12, 2016 at 8:10 PM

Give it a rest … the name is already posted above.

gh

Not by the person who should have named it. You know, the person whining about her name not being released yet who won’t release it himself?

Btw, Mrs. Coakley was married recently, and she’s packed on a few pounds.

xblade on January 12, 2016 at 8:15 PM

So name her. Printing the truth isn’t against the law. There is no law banning printing a rape victims name. Just as there is no law preventing outing a liar. If you know it, name her.

tyketto on January 12, 2016 at 8:18 PM

Eramo filed a $7.5 million defamation lawsuit against Rolling Stone and Erdely last year. Besides faulting the magazine and the reporter for publishing the article without doing due diligence, Eramo’s attorneys assert in that the UVA student at the center of the piece — a woman named Jackie Coakley — is a “serial liar” who fabricated the assault in order to gain the attention of a man she was in love with.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/10/national-organization-for-women-defends-rolling-stone-gang-rape-fabricator/#ixzz3x5Cc0xSd

Umm. This is from 3 days ago. Eramo is a dean at the school and of course NOW is defending her because they support “serial liars” as long as the lie about rape.

Rod on January 12, 2016 at 8:23 PM

Btw, Mrs. Coakley was married recently, and she’s packed on a few pounds.

xblade on January 12, 2016 at 8:15 PM

Must be binge eating due to all the stress from being outed as a crazy liar and having to face the consequences for it.

Rod on January 12, 2016 at 8:28 PM

There are people who know her real name. (And yes, I’m nearly positive I know what it is.) But who makes the call as to when we can say it?

A competent journalist, once it is reveled that the accuser is a liar. Along with the fact that her name is already fairly widely known. And there is no “we”, once the facts are known than it is up to the Journalist, journalism isn’t a collective. Or, at least it didn’t used to be a collective.

Rode Werk on January 12, 2016 at 8:35 PM

It seems to me that Jazz wrote this piece with the intention of having the maker of false accusations named in the comments. It’s good to get Jackie Coakley’s name out so she can live with the consequences of her lying.

thuja on January 12, 2016 at 9:46 PM

Pick any link out of 41,700 using Google search terms, “Images, Jackie Coakley, UVa rape accuser?”

meerbock on January 12, 2016 at 10:08 PM

F&!k Jackie! Oh, wait…never mind.

Kenz on January 12, 2016 at 11:33 PM

How soon before she accuses her new husband of rape?

unclesmrgol on January 13, 2016 at 12:24 AM

It seems to me that Jazz wrote this piece with the intention of having the maker of false accusations named in the comments.

thuja on January 12, 2016 at 9:46 PM

I get that feeling, too.

Rusty Nail on January 13, 2016 at 12:39 AM

Jazz,

If I knew her real name, I would have published it long ago.

I’m not sure what the question is here. It is a news story. She created it. She lied. There is no ethical, moral, or legal basis to keep her name secret. And, there is every reason to publish it – it is news, she is both potentially criminally liable and civilly liable for her hoax. She is not a good person.

If there is an ethical or moral or even legal reason not to publish her name, please cite it?

The very fact that you are wrestling with this “decision” demonstrates just how much you have internalized SJW “philosophy”. That you have some gut feeling that “Jackie” still deserves protection because she was an “accuser” is ridiculous.

Publish her real name already. There is absolutely no reason not to.

Monkeytoe on January 13, 2016 at 7:40 AM

All of this is part and parcel of the continuing feminist assault on “maledom.” The feminist wave has worked to turn our boys into a bunch of pussies afraid to say or do or think the wrong way lest they be labeled a rapist or a sexist or are accused of sexual assault.

Mike from NC on January 13, 2016 at 9:25 AM

The woman who falsely accused the fraternity needs to be prosecuted. She should at least get a stiff fine and be kicked out of school, but I think she should get jail time as well.

earlgrey on January 13, 2016 at 10:48 AM

Say it, say it, say it. Just say it.

djl130 on January 13, 2016 at 10:59 AM

FYI, sorry if this post seems frivolous right now. I wrote and scheduled it before Iran took our sailors and our alleged POTUS sent out his lackeys to say that it wasn’t worth mentioning tonight. Yes, that’s off topic. My bad.

Jazz Shaw on January 12, 2016 at 6:56 PM

It’s more interesting that the President’s speech was…

ReggieA on January 13, 2016 at 12:59 PM

I am glad there is an investigation. They need to look at the protest environment in Charlottesville that late summer/early fall which included the hang over of Ferguson in the summer, and the search for the missing student named Hannah Graham.

The protest elements were up in arms and acting up because “whenever there is a rape, they look for the black man raping the white woman.” They did not believe the police were not just being racists, and had signs up that said “Townies rape too” and did not believe cops should be profiling a black man for the girls abduction/ later, rape/murder.

… and on a perennial basis they get mad about a bunch of themes having to do with history, tradition, get mad at Thomas Jefferson, get mad, act up, get mad about slavery, and recently see white privilege everywhere especially at the fraternity system, and especially hate the historic first fraternities founded in the nation. And they get mad that doing good in school or college is “acting white,” and you don’t want to do that, you just want someone to mail you your degree without having to work for it. It’s fairness. (George Bush did not merit going to Yale and was too dumb to do the work, and was too dumb to fly planes in the service, he got his degrees, didn’t he? They think white privilege is like that.)

Perfect storm.

That is what the Rolling Stone article was all about. Find someone with a kid at UVA that fall and ask them. Post ferguson, people were acting crazy. Like that NAACP white woman who thought she was black, taunting herself with a noose, or burning down your own church, they don’t realize that fakers eventually will be found out.

Fleuries on January 13, 2016 at 1:53 PM

Ever been sued?

cozmo on January 12, 2016 at 7:47 PM

Cozmo, who is going to sue him? Jackie herself? Who else would have an interest in suing a journalist for revealing the name of someone who has turned out to be a hoaxster? The UVA police determined there was no evidence of the things she described. Rolling Stone has three lawsuits against them for shoddy journalism in reporting the hoax. You think the NY Times is going to sue him for not adhering to their PC policies? There isn’t anyone to sue Jazz Shaw!

Sue Pratt on January 13, 2016 at 2:08 PM

She was identified by multiple sources over a year ago as Jackie Coakley. She is a criminal hoaxer who should not be accorded any deference.

Picaro on January 13, 2016 at 2:15 PM

I know I’m in the minority on this, but I actually think she deserves to remain anonymous. It’s pretty clear from the circumstances that Jackie never intended to hurt anyone.

For starters, the person she accused of rape is entirely fictional, not a real person. She didn’t set out to ruin someone else to get what she wanted, like most other campus rape hoaxes.
Secondly, it’s been reported that she tried to back out of the story with Rolling Stone, but they wouldn’t let it go and refused to drop it at her request.
Third, to my knowledge she never filed a complaint against the fraternity that held the party where she claimed it happened. They were only sanctioned by the university after Rolling Stone published their hit piece.

I don’t think she ever intended to become a national story. I think she just wanted to get the attention of a boy she liked, and it quickly got out of her control, with more lies being told to keep from exposing the first one. She isn’t anything like Mattress Girl, who tried to frame an actual person for rape and was abetted by a University that gave her college credit for lying to the press.

The real villain here is Rolling Stone. They went looking for the most outrageous campus rape story they could find to fit their predetermined narrative, and they intentionally ignored journalistic standards and did no vetting or fact-checking because they knew, deep down, that the story wasn’t true. They just thought they wouldn’t get caught.

Until Rolling Stone got involved, Jackie was nothing but a naive girl trying to get sympathy from a boy she had a crush on. It was a stupid scheme, yes, but she clearly wouldn’t have caused any damage had it not been for the left-wing journalists who were willing to report what they knew was not true, just to advance their narrative.

Caiwyn on January 13, 2016 at 6:05 PM

No, Jazz, quit being squishy. We’re not on the horns of a dilemma AT ALL. This woman is a slanderer and should be named and shamed without qualm because of that. She LIED about being a victim. NAME HER.

I know the name of another slanderer/liar, something to do with a Video.

Goodie on January 13, 2016 at 6:33 PM