Just for discussion sake, what if this wasn’t so? I think the answer would have to be:
[list=a][li] They would be well advised to refuse to answer questions, taking the 5th.[/li][li] According to the rules as I understand them, they can’t be selective about what questions to answer. If they take the 5th, they must refuse to answer all questions.[/li][li] If they do answer questions, they could incriminate themselves and be prosecuted.[/li][li] If they take the 5th, the prosecutors could grant them immunity, if he wanted their testimony badly enough.[/li][li] In which case, they’d have to testify, even it it means admitting getting good and drunk when they were 17.[/li][li] In which case, whoever gave them the booze (quite possibly the frat organization) could get charged with crimes.[/list][/li]One salient point being, you can decline to incriminate yourself but if you are compelled to testify, you could end up incriminating anyone or everyone else in sight.
Are you sure about your point b, that you can’t just take the fifth on certain questions? That seems wrong to me. But what do I know; IANAL.
Now this is just bizarre. From Random House.
That they are offering to pay his attorney bills right off the bat without even meeting him would indicate that really don’t want this to get to a courtroom or a deposition. The Breitbart reporter looking any shred of the existence Dunham’s rapist based on her vivid descriptions of him could find nothing. The described person (who would molested her) have did not exist as an Oberlin student based on her description of him.
In the common law legal system, you have to have standing to sue in general. That is, that you were harmed in some way by the action or event or law you’re suing over. This also applies to false claims. So a person would have to be able to prove that he was wronged by false claims. This is called libel (written word) and slander (spoken word).
So yeah, in the end, it is possible for newspapers and magazines to totally lie about stuff and as long as they’re not making any specific accusations, there’s no one to sue them. Of course, that isn’t the case in this rape case, but it is in a lot of other political issues. Newspapers used to lie like crazy back in the day, and to some extent all media still do, but for vague stuff there’s no one to sue them. A newspaper could have a staff that;'s ideologically against, let’s say pot, and they could be like “pot is as addictive as crack! You’ll be addicted your whole life!” (obviously not true), and there might not be anybody to sue them, since “marijuana” isn’t any person.
Would the police hire such a person? (Admitted he gave drugs to a few of his buddies during a frat party, but no charges laid, no police investigation on file, just a deposition). Does the police application even ask this?
I love this story, it has all kinds of possibilities for speculation. Like:
(1) She made up the story, or really embellished something that really happened,then elaborated on it to the point where it became fiction, but she pulled in enough actual characteristics, of somebody, that it sounded like a specific person.
(2) Nothing like this ever happened but she had a super crush on the real Barry guy, only he didn’t know she was alive, so she made this up as vengeance on him for not knowing she was alive.
(3) It’s really him, he really did it, only she was so inconsequential that he doesn’t remember ever meeting her.
(4) Since she didn’t confront the guy at the time she changed certain details and then grabbed the name “Barry” out of thin air, because he was so inconsequential that she didn’t remember him either. It’s a fake name, but unfortunately one shared by a real innocent person.
I mean, I can see her problem. If she wrote down the true details as she remembered them, including the guy’s real name, she would be open to libel and with no way to prove it. If it happened, she remembers the guy’s name. Naturally she doesn’t want to use it since at this point she can’t prove anything (and probably never could).
I really think women should be believed. Although she did say she was an unreliable narrator. In fact, right before relating her version.
But this and the Rolling Stone reporter…
I think you are confusing a couple of things. We are talking about a civil deposition. There is no prosecutor involved to give immunity. The question is basically if a prosecutor will go back and charge off of testimony given in a civil deposition. The answer is “It depends.” But most likely the testimony alone would not be enough for charges.
There isn’t really any way to discover this unless the information is given freely. It’s been a long time since I filled out an application. I don’t remember if it asks beyond arrests and convictions. But if that information was known I would certainly recommend against hiring that person.
Specifically she wrote a chapter about a sexual encounter and described it in great detail basically saying it was an unpleasant experience that helped her learn about her sexuality. Then the next chapter she starts off saying she is an unreliable narrator and the incident in the previous chapter was actually a rape. She then describes it much differently.
The incident could very well have happened exactly as she stated. She could have fictionalized the other party’s description. She does not say that. However, Oberlin is a small school that is overwhelmingly liberal. There was an outspoken conservative named Barry who is easily googlable. He just doesn’t fit any of the other descriptions. If the person is fictionalized in the book she needs to come out and say so. Barry has a wife, kids and career. He is now being contacted by new agencies and you can find out his name and information. He has had to shut down his social media due to harassment. If he is innocent she needs to come forward and say so. If not the cat is already out of the bag and she should step up and stop with the vague defensive tweets.
Of course the fact that she has made a career out of blending facts from her own life with fiction does not help her credibility.
Just wanted to mention that it can very dangerous to sue if there are skeletons in your own closet. A case in point. CBC recently fired a popular broadcaster after one the women working on his show accused him of sexual harassment. He sued for wrongful dismissal. After that, at least a half dozen women have come forward and publicly accused him of assault. He doesn’t exactly deny the accusation but claims that he beat them with their consent, which they deny. He has now been charged with assault and will likely be prosecuted. He should have left well enough alone when he was summarily fired. Now he may go to jail and, in any case, is professionally ruined.