RICHMOND, Va. ― For the first time since Rolling Stone magazine’s shocking story about a brutal gang rape at the University of Virginia hit shelves two years ago, the public may hear from the young woman at the center of the now discredited article “A Rape on Campus.”
A defamation trial against the magazine is set to begin on Monday over the November 2014 article about the woman identified only as “Jackie” and her harrowing account about being gang raped in a fraternity initiation. University administrator Nicole Eramo, who counseled Jackie and claims the story cast her as its “chief villain,” is seeking $7.85 million.
Jackie was forced to answer questions about the case in April, but her comments have been kept under wraps. Now, Eramo’s attorneys have said they intend to call Jackie as a witness at trial, although it’s possible the jury will watch a video of her deposition instead of hearing from her in person. An attorney for Jackie declined to comment.
The story described in alarming detail Jackie’s account of being raped by seven men at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house in September 2012. Eramo’s attorneys claim the article portrayed her as indifferent to Jackie’s plight and only interested in protecting the university’s reputation. After it was published, Eramo, who then served as associate dean of students, received hundreds of emails and letters calling her a “wretched rape apologist” and “disgusting, worthless piece of trash.” Eramo still works for the university, now in a different administrative role.
An investigation by Charlottesville police found no evidence to back up Jackie’s claims and details in the lengthy narrative did not hold up under scrutiny by other media organizations. Rolling Stone officially retracted the story in April 2015. Since then, three lawsuits have been filed against the magazine. A judge earlier this year threw out one case brought by three fraternity members, but a $25 million lawsuit filed by the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity at UVa is scheduled to go to trial late next year.
Eramo’s trial will focus heavily on whether Rolling Stone editors and the article’s author, Sabrina Erdely, acted with “actual malice,” meaning that they knew what they were writing about Eramo was false or at least should have known it wasn’t true. U.S. District Judge Glen Conrad ruled in September that Eramo should be considered a public figure, which means she must prove actual malice in order to get certain monetary damages.
“A lot of this case is already decided,” said Lee Berlik, a Virginia libel attorney. “The big unknown really is how much damage did Ms. Eramo suffer to her reputation, what is that worth and I guess, most importantly, did Rolling Stone know what it was writing was untrue or should it have known?”
