The most charitable way I can read that statement is something like, “we were a long way from the sex that our parents would have approved of, but I hadn’t heard of a band member being raped in front of everyone, and I certainly wasn’t there”. That directly contradicts this account though:
3 Likes
Jett’s statement said in part:
denied witnessing the event *as it has been described here*.
The dependent clause seems important to the meaning of the sentence. You disagree?
2 Likes
Yes, the idea is to say, “there is discussion of topic X in here, so if X bothers you or is likely to trigger post-traumatic stress symptoms, do not read it.”
1 Like
Well, yes. She’s denying that she witnessed the described event. What else would there be for her to say, especially if others are claiming she did?
1 Like
In Judith Herman’s book Trauma and Recovery, she describes how traumatic responses can be triggered by seemingly non-traumatic occurrences. For veterans, a loud noise can “trigger” a panic response rooted in survival of months of anxiety about potential violence. Rape victims can be triggered by a description of a relationship which reminds them of an acquaintance rape they endured.
Judith Herman also argued in T&R for inclusion of complex PTSD in the DSM as a diagnosis which better explains some symptoms than listed diagnoses. It’s distinguished from simple PTSD which tends to result from a single traumatic event like a bombing or an assault.
For example, an incest victim may suffer complex PTSD despite never sustaining physical bruising or broken bones.
5 Likes
There should be a trigger warning at the end of the birth canal before we are thrust into this world. “Proceed with Caution, Dangers Ahead!” The Shakespearean notion that we are a work art and grace and harmony that will prevail is a fantasy giving us false hope. When I read news like this it makes me happy I lived a dis-engaged, withdrawn, Autistic/Asperger’s type life.
Amazing that for all his unreported rapes, Bill Cosby, didn’t seem to leave behind any illegitimate children. But these days the whole human species seems to be dominated by children who failed to meet the demands of our better angels.
Maybe the Panopticon really is the answer. Not just the Police, but everyone should be required to wear camcorders 24/7. The results may be disconcerting and ugly, but would give us a far better understanding of human nature than our Governments, Politicians, Priests, and Leaders provide. Freedom, transparency, and civilized behavior – not likely coming to a venue near any of us.
Compare:
denied witnessing the event
and:
denied witnessing the event as it has been described here
If she was denying having witnessed the event, the first statement would be a good way to say it. The second would not, because it has implications beyond the first.
Namely that Jett witnessed the event but disagrees with Fuchs’ description of the event.
3 Likes
It actually sounds to me like a lawyer writing it which is an additional sad bit to me. Regular people don’t write or talk like that.
2 Likes
Yeah, it seems really carefully contrived, but I don’t blame her for trying to cover her ass, and I’m not really sure how much of it is lawyers and PR people so I think it’s hard to judge Jett on this basis.
1 Like
Or she remembers many events superficially similar, but none where a rape occurred.
“denied witnessing the event as described here” doesn’t seem to allude to any other “superficially similar” events let alone “many” of them. There is no textual evidence that Jett is having any trouble identifying which event we are talking about. There is textual evidence that Jett does not agree with the description of the event.
The most obvious implication is that Jett is denying that any rape occurred in the event in question, but doesn’t say so in as many words. The structure of the quoted sentence does imply that Jett takes issue with Fuchs’ description of the event and it is hard to imagine any other aspect of the event that would be relevant to Jett’s statement. (For example, it seems unlikely that Jett would take issue with some mundane detail such as whether Fuchs had been drinking beer vs. wine at the time.)
That said, I’ve already conceded that there’s no real reason to get outraged at Jett for either trying to cover her ass or deferring to her lawyers and PR people on how to deal with the situation. I think your interpretations of Jett’s statement are strained and implausible, but I don’t think the interpretation matters that much in the end.
1 Like
For what it’s worth, I read “denied witnessing the event as described here” as laywer/PR-ese for “denied witnessing the event [that was] described here”. But yeah, I don’t think it really matters much one way or the other how we all interpret her words.
1 Like
I find that implausible for two reasons:
- If they meant that, they could have just said it.
- Multiple witnesses confirm she was there, so it seems unlikely she’d impeach herself by making such a brazen lie.
1 Like
Yes, she is telling the truth that at this point in time, she is no longer “aware” that she was present in a place where not only other witnesses recall her, but her subsequent behavior, actions, and participation in joking regarding the incident, made it quite clear she was cognizant of what happened at the time. And years later, as an adult, she participated very willingly in an effort to harass and make threats of legal action against Jackie, but to simply write her out of the story of the Runaways altogether, as if not only her rape, but she herself, simply never existed.
1 Like
1 - Lawyers/PR folk have a tendency to get overly fancy with wording, so it really wouldn’t surprise me to see one of them word it that way
2 - I’m not sure that one lie is particularly more brazen than the other.
Trauma from rape is an injury to consent. So an actual panopticon would institutionalize systemic injuries to consent, partly by precluding trigger-warnings and other safeguards for consent.
Also, please note that Cherie Currie has made very contradictory statements regarding this and/or other rape scenes. She claims, on camera, in the Rodney Bingenheimer doc, Mayor of Sunset Strip, that Fowley made the entire band witness him having sex, as well as that he was breaking the law by having sex with minors.
1 Like
“did not witness the event as described here” would be very difficult to pin down as a lie, whereas “did not witness the event in question” is rather easy.
Yes, this is a case of lawyers getting fancy with their wording to introduce enough plausible deniability into the statement so that Jett can simultaneously avoid claiming not to witness the event (demonstrably untrue) while still not admit to having witnessed a rape.
2 Likes
Aside from Jackie herself, all the former Runaways dealt with some serious substance abuse. This alone is enough to reasonably explain how they remember things differently. When you add in that ALL of them were children who were bullied, manipulated, and seduced by adult men in various ways? I just don’t see any reason to judge the responses of Jackie’s former bandmates.
4 Likes
I tire of this particular GIF. Can we have some sort of moratorium or limit on its use?
1 Like
