Today, Yahoo was publicizing an interview by Katie Couric about the gang rape at the University of Virginia.
Ms. Couric, have you considered this hypothesis:
Ryan Duffin and his friend created Haven Monahan.
By the fall of 2012, the word "haven" was being used all the time by the conglomerate to promote voyeurism. That was happening because the illegal videotaping in the shower started at the Good Samaritan Haven homeless shelter in Barre, Vermont, when I was released to that shelter from the Vermont State Hospital at the end of March, 2011. I left Vermont during the summer of 2011 and went to Boston. MIT knew who I was by then; so did Harvard University. Probably, many students at American universities knew who I was, certainly by the fall of 2012.
What happened was that Mr. Duffin was attracted to "Jackie" and she just wanted to be friends. So, he and a friend of his created "Haven Monahan" and wrote the email about Mr. Duffin, pretending that Jackie had written it and sent it to Mr. Monahan. Mr. Duffin and his friend were probably planning to circulate the email around the school, with these goals:
-to punish Jackie for rejecting Mr. Duffin
-to try to get Jackie to go out with Mr. Duffin by creating the rumor that she was in love with him
-to threaten voyeurism and involuntary, Internet pornography toward all female students who knew they had the right to say "No" to the advances of any male student
Those are pictures from today of the part of the email that was shown during Katie Couric's interview of Mr. Duffin.
"I'm a dreamer," the email says.
"Kathryn doesn't understand what I see in Ryan. I guess I don't understand what she doesn't see in him."
That email was written by someone who knew about the conglomerate and who was trying to get a woman who had rejected him to date him.
Mr. Duffin says, during the interview with Ms. Couric, that it was a Gmail account from which he received the email from Haven Monahan. The film of the email shows that the Haven Monahan email was a Yahoo account. Isn't that what the rape-apologist establishment would call a "discrepancy," if the person speaking were Jackie or one of her supporters instead of one of her betrayers?
If you create an email account with a particular name at any email service, you can't use that email name again at that service; that's how email services keep two or more people from getting the same email address. If your name is John Doe, and you try to create an email address from just your name and the name of the email service, such as "johndoe@gmail.com," and another John Doe already has that email account name, you will get an automatic message, on the screen, from the email service, that says that someone else already has that email address and you have to change the name of the account that you want to have. Usually, the email service suggests changes; it will give you a list of other account names you could use, such as "johndoe1," or other variations with numbers or symbols. Mr. Duffin says, during the interview with Ms. Couric, that he did not find the name "Haven Monahan" at the University of Virginia or anywhere in the United States. Of course he didn't, because he had already checked to be sure that there was no such real person as Haven Monahan before he created the fictional Haven Monahan in the fall of 2012, before Jackie was raped.
Was the original email that Mr. Duffin and his friend wrote and pretended was from Jackie something that they wrote before she was attacked? Was it even more insulting toward Jackie than the insult to her intelligence and reputation than the grade-school-esque drivel that they were going to pretend she had written? Was the first version of the email that they wrote salacious? Did they decide, after Jackie was raped, that they should continue with their plan to try to convince Jackie to date Mr. Duffin, but that they should try the tactic of portraying Mr. Duffin as a man worthy of her love, particularly after she was attacked by a group of men and suffering post-rape trauma?
How many versions of the email were written by Mr. Duffin and his friend, and from how many email accounts at how many email services? To start over with a new email address, they couldn't have used the same email service without adding numbers or other symbols to the name "Haven Monahan" in the email account. An email from "havenmonahan" with embellishments to distinguish it from the email accounts of other Haven Monahans would make the rumor that Mr. Duffin hoped to circulate about Jackie less believable right from the beginning, since there is not even one person in the United States named Haven Monahan, let alone more than one. They could have made a few changes to the name "Haven Monahan" at one email service, such as "monahanhaven@gmail.com," however they couldn't do that without creating a record at each email service of several email accounts all for a "Haven Monahan."
Is it possible that Mr. Duffin and his friend had written many versions of the Haven Monahan email in the days leading up to the attack on Jackie? They sent the emails to each other, for amusement, while trying to decide which version to use? After she was attacked, they weren't sure if she would go to the police and draw police attention to herself and to them, so they deleted the Haven Monahan emails that they had written before the attack. When they realized that she wasn't going to contact the police, they created the Haven Monahan Yahoo account and wrote the October 3, 2012 email?
They probably decided not to circulate the Haven Monahan rumor because they and their mutual friends with Jackie saw that Jackie was suffering from post-rape trauma. They had known from the beginning of the Haven Monahan idea that circulating the email would not bring them universal applause from all students; they had probably initially hoped that they would obtain the "bad boy" status that immature, chauvinist men covet year after year and decade after decade. They probably realized that to circulate the Haven Monahan rumor, after the rape, would bring them more criticism than praise and could also bring them unwanted attention if the rape were investigated.
Far from wanting to tell the truth to the world, he saw that the rape-apologist machine was in full gear to discredit Jackie, and he knew that he would be praised and protected for betraying her, yet again.
Ms. Couric's interview with Charlottesville Police Department Timothy Longo shows a man who knows that it is more likely than not that Jackie was raped, and who also knows that he is likely to lose his job if he doesn't discredit Jackie's story. He is not willing to say that she was not sexually assaulted; he refuses to say that throughout the interview. He tries to protect himself by saying that Jackie won't cooperate with the investigation. The March 23, 2015 statement about the investigation that the Charlottesville Police Department published shows that Jackie did try to report some of what has happened to her at the University of Virginia to the police, and everything she said was then denied by the police, first at the time she reported it and then publicly, in writing, in that statement. Jackie has already talked about what happened; she told Rolling Stone, which published her account of it on November 19, 2014. Why should she talk to the police any more, giving them the chance to take everything she says, use it against her, and then tell the world that nothing she says is true and that the investigation is therefore closed?
Chief Longo says that Jackie won't give the police her academic or medical records; her refusal to give those records to the police is used by him, and shamefully accepted by Ms. Couric, as a sign that Jackie isn't telling the truth about the rape. The March 23rd police statement starts its discussion of the investigation by saying that Jackie first started talking to University of Virginia officials on May 20, 2013, after she was "referred to the Dean because of poor grades." The Rolling Stone article about the rape describes Jackie before the rape, when she had good grades, was socially successful, and a high achiever in many other ways, and after the rape, when she was devastated and her entire life suffered because of it. Why should she give her academic or medical records to the police, who will most likely do nothing with them except to use them to portray her as mentally unstable and a failure who decided to try to protect herself from the consequences of doing poorly at school by telling lies about being sexually assaulted?
Those are pictures from today of the first part of the section entitled "Investigation" from the Charlottesville Police Department's March 23, 2015 statement.
"Nonetheless," begins the paragraph that talks about Jackie's poor grades subsequent to the rape. The police department seems to be trying to imply that Jackie is withholding records that are relevant to the investigation, specifically her academic record. Chief Longo repeated that insinuation during his interview with Katie Couric. Nowhere is it implied that the most relevant records to the investigation, perhaps the ones from Jackie's discussions with University of Virginia officials that are consistent with what the November 19, 2014 Rolling Stone article published, are the records that the University of Virginia, not Jackie, is withholding from the investigation. It's also not unlikely that any University of Virginia record that shows that consistency has already been destroyed.
Haven Monahan is a lie, which, like all of the lies being told about what happened, is being treated as if Jackie is the source of the lie instead of its target.
The Rolling Stone article about rape culture at the University of Virginia described Jackie as being from a rural place. Everything the article says about her describes a beautiful, smart, talented, conscientious woman, the sort of person who wants and deserves a good education. Being those things, she is also the sort of person whom privileged, chauvinist fraternity brothers and their admirers would want to beat down. The man who worked with her, who gained her trust and then delivered her to the rapists, probably researched her on the Internet; his research and what she innocently told him about herself informed him that she was not from an "important" family, and that she was therefore unlikely to have rich parents whose outrage the University of Virginia or the local police department would take as seriously as they would the desire of rich parents to protect their rapist sons from expulsion and jail.
Copyright, with noted exceptions, L. Kochman, April 5, 2015 @ 5:20 p.m./edited April 6, 2015 @ 11:11 a.m.
