That's a picture of part of the Columbia Journalism Review's report about the Rolling Stone article.
Does the CJR believe the sentence 'Here, there was no apparent need to fear "front-running" by Phi Kappa Psi'? If so, why?
That's another picture of the CJR's report.
These are pictures of the March 23, 2015 statement that the Charlottesville Police Department published at its website:
It seems to me, and I have said before, that the Charlottesville police did find "Drew," and that the true meaning of the phrase "may have been relevant" is that evidence was found corroborating Jackie's story and the police department is deliberately obfuscating that evidence.
Did Drew directly lie to Jackie that he was a member of Phi Kappa Psi, or did he imply that he was an active member of that fraternity without actually saying that he was?
This is another picture of part of the Charlottesville Police Department's March 23, 2015 statement:
Which "federal laws" obstruct a police department's ability to investigate an alleged felony? Are there such laws? If so, they should be changed. I suspect, though, that what happened, and what has happened before, is that the University of Virginia refused to make available to the police all records that would corroborate Jackie's story, and the police department did everything in its power to avoid obtaining records that would corroborate Jackie's story.
That's another picture of part of the Charlottesville Police Department's March 23, 2015 statement.
Copyright, with noted exceptions, L. Kochman, May 24, 2015 @ 4:22 p.m./edited May 25, 2015 @ 6:45 a.m.
