Just over a year ago, an associate dean of students at the University of Virginia filed a $7.85 million lawsuit against Rolling Stone magazine. Nicole Eramo, who heads UVA’s sexual misconduct board, was named specifically in Sabrina Erdely’s horrifying yet thoroughly debunked story, “A Rape on Campus,” which Rolling Stone eventually retracted. Both Rolling Stone and Erdely are named as defendants.

Rape on campus is a real problem, which is why it’s so unfortunate that Rolling Stone felt it had to find the most sensational take on the subject possible at the expense of simple fact-checking. Eramo’s suit is now being heard, and the evidence her lawyers have presented should put to rest any doubts about Erdely’s story being fabricated.

Rolling Stone looks to be on shaky ground after rushing Jackie’s story to print. The Washington Post reports that Charlottesville Police investigating alleged rapist “Haven Monahan” found that no person by that name had ever attended the university.

Maybe it was just an alias for a real person? Unlikely. “Photographs that were texted to one of Jackie’s friends showing the alleged attacker were actually pictures depicting one of Jackie’s high school classmates in Northern Virginia,” the Washington Post reports. That classmate confirmed to the paper that the photos were of him, but that he barely knew Jackie.

There’s plenty more, but the story takes a particularly Clinton-like turn regarding some recent tinkering with [email protected] email account, even though Haven Monahan doesn’t exist.

The Washington Post reports:

After filing the lawsuit, Eramo’s lawyers asked Jackie and her legal team to hand over all documents in their possession related to “Haven.” In multiple responses, Jackie’s lawyers wrote that they had already given Eramo’s legal team everything they had.

In the most recent court filing, Eramo’s lawyers note, however, that the data from Yahoo shows that someone on the Stein Mitchell law firm’s network [home of a lawyer representing Jackie] accessed the [email protected] email address on March 18, 2016. Four days later, Eramo’s lawyers assert in court filings, Jackie’s lawyers sent another letter indicating “that Jackie was not in possession of these emails.”

Jackie’s lawyers did not respond to a request for comment.

What were they going to say? That someone must have wiped Yahoo’s mail server, like, with a cloth or something?

The problem is, Rolling Stone thought this was good journalism because it fit their narrative.