NEWS

Accuser must testify about 'Rolling Stone' rape story

John Bacon
USA TODAY
This file photo shows the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville.

The former University of Virginia student whose tale of brutal gang rape at a fraternity house set off a nationwide firestorm is scheduled to give a deposition Thursday in a defamation lawsuit filed by a school official against Rolling Stone magazine.

The magazine retracted its November 2014 article when claims made by the alleged victim, identified as "Jackie," fell apart under intense media scrutiny.

Jackie, whose real name remains unknown, has for the most part declined to speak publicly since the article was published. Lawyers for Nicole Eramo, the associate dean of students who counseled Jackie, sought her deposition. A judge in Charlottesville, Va., ruled Jackie must answer questions from lawyers for both sides. Jackie is not directly involved in the suit.

Eramo claims the magazine cast her as the "chief villain" in its ill-fated story. She is seeking more than $7 million and says her suit will "set the record straight." The deposition will take place behind closed doors.

Rolling Stone has been hit with at least two other lawsuits linked to the story. The fraternity named in the article, Phi Kappa Psi, sued for $25 million, and three former fraternity members filed a separate suit.

Dean at U.Va. sues 'Rolling Stone' over discredited rape article

Rolling Stone report: Too much reliance on one source

The gripping story A Rape on Campus detailed Jackie's claim that she was at a fraternity party on Sept. 28, 2012, when she was lured upstairs, raped and beaten by several men over a period of about three hours. The fraternity immediately challenged the article's claims, and the magazine quickly backpedaled. Eventually, local police investigated and found no evidence of rape.

The magazine commissioned the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism to study the way the article was handled.

The 13,000-word report — 4,000 words longer than the article itself — released a year ago found a systematic failure by the magazine, starting with relying too heavily on a single source: Jackie. They also said the magazine, not Jackie, was to blame for the botched piece.