UVA Jackie May Have Just Been Caught In Another Big Lie

New evidence submitted in an ongoing lawsuit against Rolling Stone suggest that the legal team of Jackie Coakley, the University of Virginia (UVA) student responsible for a massive gang rape hoax, has been withholding evidence from an ongoing lawsuit. The withheld evidence offers strong evidence of what has long been suspected: That Coakley’s infamous fake gang-rape was concocted as part of a convoluted catfishing scheme to win a boy’s affection.

The new evidence is part of the ongoing defamation lawsuit filed by UVA dean Nicole Eramo against Rolling Stone magazine. While Eramo is not suing Coakley directly, she has played a major role in the case, as Eramo’s lawyers argue Coakley is an egregious serial liar Rolling Stone should have known not to trust. As part of their suit, Eramo’s attorneys have successfully subpoenaed Coakley for all the relevant communications she made during the fall of 2012, when her alleged rape supposedly occurred.

Coakley has claimed to have fully cooperated in the case, but on Monday, Eramo’s attorneys filed new evidence in court suggesting Coakley has continued to hide some evidence.

The evidence in question concerns a person by the name of “Haven Monahan” who was central to Coakley’s suppose rape. Coakley claimed she was dating Monahan, a fellow UVA student, and that he was one of the perpetrators in her rape, but an investigation by police found no evidence Monahan even existed. Instead, Coakley appears to have invented him as part of a bizarre scheme intended to win the affections of Ryan Duffin, a boy she had a crush on. Until now, though, all evidence connecting Coakley to Monahan had been circumstantial.

Since Eramo’s lawsuit was filed last year, her lawyers have sought to have Coakley turn over all documents she possessed pertaining to the nonexistent Monahan, in an effort to prove the two were connected. Coakley’s lawyers have responded by saying that all such documents have been handed over.

But the newly-filed evidence indicates otherwise. Eramo’s lawyers were able to subpoena information from Yahoo concerning the email account Haven.monahan@yahoo.com. The account, this data revealed, was created by a computer connected to UVA’s internet Oct. 2, 2012, one day before Duffin received an email from “Haven.” Eramo’s lawyers had requested all the emails from that account, but Coakley’s lawyers had refused to turn them over, on the grounds that Coakley didn’t have access to them.

That appears to have been untrue, however. The Yahoo data filed on Monday included a stunning revelation: The Haven Monahan account was accessed March 18, 2016 via a computer connected to the network of Stein Mitchell Muse Cipollone & Beato, the law firm representing Coakley. This strongly suggests that Coakley has access to ‘Haven’s’ emails, yet on March 22, the filing says, her attorneys once against claimed that she had no such access.

In other words, it appears likely that Coakley (or her attorneys) have had proof the Monahan email was Coakley’s, but denied it and refused to hand over the relevant evidence. If Coakley is shown to have been deceptive, that would almost certainly bolster Eramo’s claim that Rolling Stone let itself be bamboozled by an obvious “serial liar.”

Whether this revelation will be contested by Coakley’s legal team, and what effect it will have on the case itself, remains to be seen. But the new evidence likely shows that Coakley and Monahan are one and the same. Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/19/uva-jackie-email-liar-new-evidence-lawsuit/#ixzz49LZckGo1

Recent Posts
Search By Tags
No tags yet.
Follow Us

Proudly made by Wix.com

Contact us: 

National Coalition For Men Carolinas

P.O. Box 274

Sherrills Ford, NC 28673-7311


TEL: (828) 478-2281



Disclaimer: This website compiles information for distribution as a public service. The information distributed does not necessarily reflect the views of the National Coalition For Men Carolinas (NCFMC).The information contained on this website is strictly for informational purposes only and is not intended to represent legal advice.