This isn't what happened. You're full of shit as usual, Jared, and you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time fixating on and/or lying about me.
I'd already spent three days independently corroborating Jane Doe's identity, long before the OCR scrape on that court aggregator website was brought to my attention last night.
This included speaking to multiple sources who knew Jane Doe personally, cross-checking university records, records from her sorority, her social media accounts, and other materials connected to her, as well as her local counsel of record in her home town, which is identified in the civil complaint, and consulting with a bevy of lawyers, fellow journalists, and other sources.
There *is* material on the official NY State Court docket that reveals the identity of Jane Doe, if you know what to look for. Make sure to check it out, Jared.
I had already reached 95% certainty before that court scraper site appeared last night, and had even already sent Jane Doe a request for comment several hours earlier. I'd also contacted her lawyers Thomas Giuffra and Whitney Seals.
I would obviously NEVER have published her identity based solely on scraped info from a court aggregator website.
That's why I remain completely confident that the reporting is accurate, despite the substantively irrelevant detail some people want to dwell on about the court scraper website.
My logic and thinking has always been the same as to Jane Doe's identity: I place primary blame for this whole fiasco on her notoriously unscrupulous lawyer, Giuffra, and have no ill-will toward her personally at all. I genuinely hope she is doing OK. I suspect she did not fully appreciate what she was getting herself into.
I literally communicated this exact sentiment to her directly, in the text I sent her hours before publishing yesterday.
My journalistic motivation has NEVER been about impugning on her on a personal level. I would genuinely never have any interest in doing that. It was about the sleazy litigation tactics that were deployed on her behalf: namely the cynical exploitation of judicially-decreed, media-enabled anonymity, whenever anyone can self-proclaim any sort of alleged victimization, no matter how well-founded or backed up by the evidence. This is a recurring problem I have reported on before in entirely different contexts.
You can claim I'm lying about my own motives, Jared, and that you know better what's in my own brain than I do, but you're just wrong, as usual. The reporting is accurate. Once her identity was published, the point had been sufficiently made about the need to erode these scummy lawyer-orchestrated, media-abetted anonymity strictures. Thereafter, I no longer wished to contribute to heaping her with negative attention, especially given the unbelievably intense public scrutiny around this case.
Have you noticed that none of NYT, CBS, ABC, etc. -- who are all getting un-redacted material leaked from the Title IX proceedings -- have come out and said that someone has been wrongly identified online as Jane Doe? That's because it's accurate. For better or worse. I'm sorry for her and wish her no further misfortune. Really. I don't care if you believe me -- it's true.
Now fuck off, Jared
mtracey.net/p/note-on-jane-dβ¦