I asked Mother Jones a Question
I wanted to know why the magazine, one of the good ones, chose to run an article about the current state of Jamie Leigh Jones’ case against KBR. The state of it is not good, in large part because now, four years after the alleged attack, imprisonment, and destruction/mishandling of evidence, Ms. Jones’ story has “inconsistencies.” The response was disappointing.
Hi, Meredith. Appreciate the note. Given the outcry that’s ensued from Jones’ story—including new federal laws, Congressional hearings, and lots and lots of articles (many of them at MoJo)—we felt it was important to follow-up as the case reached a conclusion. And in this case, it seems clear that the final outcome is a lot less clear-cut than it’s been presented. We’re not passing judgment on how the case will turn out or on Jones’ character; simply explaining why the case hasn’t been as much of a slam-dunk as it was first presented.
1. There is no such thing as a “slam-dunk” rape case, ever, and especially not when alleged perpetrators have the benefit of a massive corporation and its lawyers. Four years and millions of dollars can go a long way towards poking holes in the testimony of even the most virtuous rape victim.
2. If Ms. Jones loses her case, IT DOESN’T MEAN IT DIDN’T HAPPEN. It means that we live in a society drowning in rape apologism, where sexual assaults go unprosecuted at horrifying levels, and that the people responsible for deciding the case did so in that context.
3. The article falls into many, MANY extremely common victim-smearing tropes. There’s not enough evidence so it couldn’t have happened! She might have been crazy before the attack! Even if something happened, it was probably only acquaintance rape!
4. You report the findings of experts HIRED BY KBR in “evidence” section, which comes after Ms. Jones’ allegations. Kinda looks like you’re refuting her claims, don’t you think? You know what expert witnesses hired by defendants do? They find explanations that discredit the claims of the victim! Professionally!
If the point of this article was to show why a jury might find against Ms. Jones, it failed miserably. Mother Jones has a lot of great writers (One of whom has written brilliantly about rape! Recently!) It’s disgusting that a publication that likes to brag about its staff’s gender parity relative to other progressive magazines did such a terrible job framing this story. Even if the intentions were good, and I can’t assume that, this article is a slap in the face to rape survivors.
