From the link - "Over the next few months, we heard other stories from other women. None was willing to go on the record. It appeared to us that Wu's aggressive conduct with women may have continued deep into his adulthood. But we were unable to prove it."

In other words, 'there were some rumors we were unable to verify to the standards of our publication and did not publish but I will go ahead and publish them here since an unnamed staffer now says he heard an unrelated but similar story on a voicemail once.'

I am not defending Wu, I have no idea if he is a rapist, but the most recent Oregonian story seemed thinly sourced from the outset. I gather that they did not have the voicemail and were taking the confidential source on their word as to its contents but I do wish they would have at least had a quote with a detailed description as to what the woman actually said. I saw that they have a follow up story today about the aftermath focusing on the cost of the election and his pension. Where is the story about the police response to the accusations? Has the Oregonian or their confidential source gone to the police in California with the evidence? If the guy is a rapist he needs to go to jail, if he is not he deserves to be exonerated. Instead we get this backslapping from a past managing editor who now believes reporting on sex is in the public interest. Guess what buddy, it is not in the public interest if the sex was actually consensual or alternatively if a rapist goes free. A trial in the court of public opinion does not cut it.