___________________________________
The first picture is from today, of part of the Columbia Journalism Review's article, which was published yesterday at Rolling Stone.
The second picture is also from today, of part of the March 23, 2015 statement published by the Charlottesville Police Department at its website.
CJR thinks that the police "found no evidence" that connected the lifeguard with Jackie's assault? That's the interpretation that CJR made of the police statement about the police investigation of the lifeguard? No evidence, after looking at his personal records which "may have been relevant to a dinner date that 'Jackie' had with her alleged offender" on September 28, 2012?
If, after looking at the lifeguard's personal records, the police thought he could have had nothing to do with Jackie's assault, what was the reason for which the police then "turned their attention to the fraternity house in which this subject was a member in 2006"?
Nobody admitted knowing anything; is that surprising?
Copyright, with noted exceptions, April 6, 2015 @ 8:23 p.m.
