Rape victim to pay child support to her rapist

[Darat]

Originally Posted by casebro

She had how many years to cook up the story of forcible rape? Matter of fact, she changed her story from "my unnamed boy friend had consensual sex" to "Therapist forced me "? Bad evidence.

I do wish we know more about her mothering skills. Stupid girl didn't know about rape laws? I bet her household has a book. One. And Dad didn't want her to have a phone? Can you say Fundy? I bet his house has wheels under it too. And the car in the yard doesn't.

Why - how does that alter whether the father should have custody or not? Surely he has to be judged on his own qualities or in this case lack of.

[Darat]

Out of curiosity what age does someone have to be to drink alcohol at a bar legally where she lived?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

So, you're perfectly fine with men traveling to places like Thailand and having sex with 12 year olds. Got it.

The reality is, when you break a law in a place, its the laws of THAT place that apply, not those of other jurisdictions.

Not quite - countries like the UK have made it a criminal offence for a UK citizen to go to places like Thailand to have sex with under-aged children.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Darat

Not quite - countries like the UK have made it a criminal offence for a UK citizen to go to places like Thailand to have sex with under-aged children.

Yes, we have those too. Does it apply in this case? No, so its irrelevant!

Originally Posted by Darat

Out of curiosity what age does someone have to be to drink alcohol at a bar legally where she lived?

21 since 1985

https://www.lsba.org/ChildrensLaw/COAAlcoholDrugs.aspx

[sarge]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Wrong. In Louisiana, where this happened, the AOC is 17. If she gave birth to a full term baby at 17 years and, say, 3 months, this is a direct indicator of statutory rape.

No, it is not. It is a direct indicator that a 16/17 year old had sex. I’d wager that it happens every day in Louisiana and that it is almost never statutory rape. In a hospital where births are a routine occurrence, there is no reasonable expectation that a 17 year old giving birth should trigger an investigation into a possible rape, especially when the mother names a boyfriend as the father.

[sarge]

Originally Posted by Darat

Out of curiosity what age does someone have to be to drink alcohol at a bar legally where she lived?

21, universally in the US.

[casebro]

I'm sure to be corrected if I am wrong, but none of the rape allegations came up until there were child support issues in court? That used to be the norm in custody battles, the wife claimed hubbey was a druggie that abused the kids. Courts here in California finally disallowed that practice- unless police reports/arrest had been filed before the divorce started.

So I'm critical of everything the Mom has to say. Maybe even the statutory rape, without birth date verification. Lost rape kit, or never done? Out of state GYN check?

Just the typical pile of **** that custody battles entail.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by casebro

I'm sure to be corrected if I am wrong, but none of the rape allegations came up until there were child support issues in court? That used to be the norm in custody battles, the wife claimed hubbey was a druggie that abused the kids. Courts here in California finally disallowed that practice- unless police reports/arrest had been filed before the divorce started.

So I'm critical of everything the Mom has to say. Maybe even the statutory rape, without birth date verification. Lost rape kit, or never done? Out of state GYN check?

Just the typical pile of **** that custody battles entail.

You are wrong.

[sarge]

Originally Posted by casebro

I'm sure to be corrected if I am wrong, but none of the rape allegations came up until there were child support issues in court? That used to be the norm in custody battles, the wife claimed hubbey was a druggie that abused the kids. Courts here in California finally disallowed that practice- unless police reports/arrest had been filed before the divorce started.

So I'm critical of everything the Mom has to say. Maybe even the statutory rape, without birth date verification. Lost rape kit, or never done? Out of state GYN check?

Just the typical pile of **** that custody battles entail.

There is reasonable doubt that the sex was non-consensual but there is no reasonable doubt that the father raped the mother.

Statutory rape is rape.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by sarge

No, it is not. It is a direct indicator that a 16/17 year old had sex. I’d wager that it happens every day in Louisiana and that it is almost never statutory rape. In a hospital where births are a routine occurrence, there is no reasonable expectation that a 17 year old giving birth should trigger an investigation into a possible rape, especially when the mother names a boyfriend as the father.

Wrong... I can do math, and strawman... I never said anything about triggering an investigation.

I said... and I quote "a direct indicator of statutory rape"

FACT: If a girl of 17 years and 3 months old gives birth to a full term child, that child was conceived 9 months earlier when the girl was 16 years and 6 months old.

FACT: In Louisiana, the age of consent is 17 months, therefore 16 years and 6 months is below the age of consent.

FACT: If the girl was impregnated by a sexual intercourse, by a man of 32 years of age (because THAT is what we are talking about here) before the age of consent by 6 months, then whosoever impregnated her has committed statutory rape in the state of Louisiana

Therefore:

FACT: The girl giving birth at that time is a direct indicator of statutory rape.

There is NO wiggle room. No amount of weasel wording, strawmanning, throwing horse **** around, finger wagging, goalpost moving, or pulling utter bollocks out of left field can alter the cold, hard irrefutable facts above.

It might not trigger an investigation (I can tell you it 100% can and does in this country) but it is definitely is an indicator. If the Police do decide to investigate, they WILL use the birth date as evidence against rapist.

Oh and FYI, the Police do NOT need a complaint to investigate a rape. If you think they do, you've been spending too much time watching Law & Order SVU.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by casebro

I'm sure to be corrected if I am wrong, but none of the rape allegations came up until there were child support issues in court? That used to be the norm in custody battles, the wife claimed hubbey was a druggie that abused the kids. Courts here in California finally disallowed that practice- unless police reports/arrest had been filed before the divorce started.

So I'm critical of everything the Mom has to say. Maybe even the statutory rape, without birth date verification. Lost rape kit, or never done? Out of state GYN check?

Just the typical pile of **** that custody battles entail.

You are correct that there was never any claim of rape until after custody/support issues were brought to court. The inititial claim was made roughly 10 years after-the-fact.

Quote:

The documents were unsealed in Tangipahoa Parish Wednesday evening and detail a years-long custody process beginning in 2011 when John Barnes found out he had a daughter with Crysta Abelseth.

In April 2013, Barnes began paying Abelseth $428 in child support for the daughter he fathered after a night of drinking. In July 2015, Crysta filed a police report for the 2005 rape that led to her daughter’s birth with the Tangipahoa Parish Sheriffs Office.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by casebro

I'm sure to be corrected if I am wrong, but none of the rape allegations came up until there were child support issues in court?

I hereby correct you!

[sarge]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Wrong... I can do math, and strawman... I never said anything about triggering an investigation.

I said... and I quote "a direct indicator of statutory rape"

FACT: If a girl of 17 years and 3 months old gives birth to a full term child, that child was conceived 9 months earlier when the girl was 16 years and 6 months old.

FACT: In Louisiana, the age of consent is 17 months, therefore 16 years and 6 months is below the age of consent.

FACT: If the girl was impregnated by a sexual intercourse, by a man of 32 years of age (because THAT is what we are talking about here) before the age of consent by 6 months, then whosoever impregnated her has committed statutory rape in the state of Louisiana

Therefore:

FACT: The girl giving birth at that time is a direct indicated of statutory rape.

There is NO wiggle room. No amount of weasel wording, strawmanning, throwing horse **** around, finger wagging, goalpost moving, or pulling utter bollocks out of left field can alter the cold, hard irrefutable facts above.

It might not trigger an investigation (I can tell you it 100% can and does in this country) but it is definitely is an indicator. If the Police do decide to investigate, they WILL use the birth date as evidence against rapist.

Oh and FYI, the Police do NOT need a complaint to investigate a rape. If you think they do, you've been spending too much time watching Law & Order SVU.

Nonsense. You are conflating the fact that there was a statutory rape with the notion that as presented at the time of the birth there was indication that there was a statutory rape.

At the time of the birth the girl was of an age that is not at all unusual. The mother, at the time of the birth, not only made no allegation of statutory rape, she actively covered up the fact by listing as the father a former boyfriend of hers. The ‘age of consent’ does not apply to the situation as it was presented by the mother at the time of the birth. It was irrelevant until 5 years after the birth and only became relevant because the rapist identified himself as the father. Until that happened there was zero indication that a rape had occurred.

As for the police…..there was no reason at all for the police to have ever been notified. No chance for them to investigate anything at the time of the birth. A 17 year old girl had a baby and named another teen as the father. That is such an ordinary, non-rape event that it would have been strange if the police had been alerted.

As for the rest of your post, I’ve made no comments that could be remotely described as rape-apology. Save your false angst for the one or two posters to this thread that merit it.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Why should statutory rape between consenting participants be an automatic disqualifier for the father getting custody?

I'm assuming this is a joke. You should add sarcasm tags

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

I had a very simple rule when was out chasing tail as a young man... half my age + 8 years. Kept me out of trouble!

It's half your age + 7

Although in this case, it doesn't matter. 30 year olds shouldn't be messing around with teens.

As for why why this guy hasn't been convicted....stat rape is one thing just not often pursued. Growing up, I knew a 14 yo girl who got pregnant by a 22 year old guy. Heck, not only did he not get charged, they got married. It lasted about as long as you would expect. They were divorced before she graduated from high school. Too often stat rape us treated as "consensual" in that the young person agreed. Of course, the whole point is that young people are not of sufficient mind to give meaningful consent. You will hear success stories, but there is a high rate of disasters.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

I'm assuming this is a joke. You should add sarcasm tags

Are we saying that if a 20 year old has sex with a 16 year old.... they can never have custody of any future children they may have? Ten, twenty years later, they get married, have kids... and what do we do? We see cases fairly regularly of female teachers having sex with their students. If some time later, they have a child, what should happen? He wasn't adopting some random child, it was his child. No allegations of abuse are claimed to have been made until well after he got granted custody.

Maybe that should be the rule, but I think we are failing to apply it quite broadly.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Are we saying that if a 20 year old has sex with a 16 year old.... they can never have custody of any future children they may have? Ten, twenty years later, they get married, have kids... and what do we do? We see cases fairly regularly of female teachers having sex with their students. If some time later, they have a child, what should happen? He wasn't adopting some random child, it was his child. No allegations of abuse are claimed to have been made until well after he got granted custody.

Maybe that should be the rule, but I think we are failing to apply it quite broadly.

No, I'm saying that rape, statutory or otherwise, can not be between "consenting participants."

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

No, I'm saying that rape, statutory or otherwise, can not be between "consenting participants."

OK. Maybe we should say "willing" then?

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Are we saying that if a 20 year old has sex with a 16 year old.... they can never have custody of any future children they may have? Ten, twenty years later, they get married, have kids... and what do we do? We see cases fairly regularly of female teachers having sex with their students. If some time later, they have a child, what should happen? He wasn't adopting some random child, it was his child. No allegations of abuse are claimed to have been made until well after he got granted custody.

Maybe that should be the rule, but I think we are failing to apply it quite broadly.

A 20 and 16 would fall within close-in-age Romeo and Juliet provisions, wouldn't they?

But your point is solid. There can be outliers, judged case by case. The general rule is to stop the middle aged guys from prowling on the kiddies, and that consideration has to sometimes outweigh the occasional...what do you call them?...March-late July romances or something? May-December isn't the right one, I'm pretty sure.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

OK. Maybe we should say "willing" then?

Nope

[plague311]

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

Having read the entire thread and taken account of the reasonable discussion surrounding what is alleged as well as the pure speculation on other issues and finally the, "disagree? RAPIST!" contingent, I conclude that this is a huge, steaming pile of *****.

Both protagonists seem untrustworthy in conclusion.

When I'm confronted by such a huge pile of ****, I tend to step over or around it.

Stepping in it leaves **** on me and both sides here should check their shoes.

You realize the daughter is claiming the father is currently drugging and raping her, right? So, I'm not sure which pile of **** you're putting that poor girl in, but that's pretty ****** up that you would do it at all. Like, really ****** up.

Originally Posted by casebro

I'm sure to be corrected if I am wrong, but none of the rape allegations came up until there were child support issues in court?

Dismiss the mother, the daughter is making allegations too. I think that's a bit bigger than the mother right now. He's drugging and ******* his own daughter. Pretty sure she doesn't give two ***** what the child support amount is...

Originally Posted by casebro

That used to be the norm in custody battles, the wife claimed hubbey was a druggie that abused the kids.

And, as we're learning now, that was commonly the case as well. Take this case, for instance, where the father is currently abusing the daughter. He wanted more access to her and the court literally handed her over to a person raping her.

Originally Posted by casebro

So I'm critical of everything the Mom has to say. Maybe even the statutory rape, without birth date verification. Lost rape kit, or never done? Out of state GYN check?

Just the typical pile of **** that custody battles entail.

Again, you seem confused. The rape kit that was lost was for the daughter, not the mother. It's funny though, this statement says a lot about you. This man has multiple women claiming he is raping them and you're still like, "Sure, but I bet they're lying. Women are like that."

Why wouldn't they get an out of state GYN check? Every time they've gone to local authorities they've been ignored. ******* duh.

[Warp12]

Quote:

On Feb. 2, 2022, Cashe found Abelseth in contempt over the phone and ordered her to pay $500. Abelseth was instructed not to provide her daughter with a cell phone.

That same month— court records note for the first time that the child was conceived from a rape. It’s also alleged that Barnes drugged and sexually assaulted his daughter on Feb. 21, 2022 and Feb. 22, 2022.

Mom gets found in contempt at the beginning of February. Three weeks later the daughter is supposedly drugged and raped. And the mom suddenly recalls that she might have been drugged, too?

Like, nobody here finds this timing and the claims even a little suspect?

Not surprising, tbh.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Mom gets found in contempt at the beginning of February. Three weeks later the daughter is supposedly drugged and raped. And the mom suddenly recalls that she might have been drugged, too?

Like, nobody here finds this timing and the claims even a little suspect?

Not surprising, tbh.

Nice, you cut off both parts where it showed the daughter had made the claim previous, and that the daughter maintains that it is on-going. Wow, I can't believe you'd post that and think you won't get called out for such bull ****. Jesus you're transparent. You're justifying and defending a child rapist, while victim blaming the ones getting raped.

ETA: Here let me help you:

Quote:

In January 2021, the child’s school counselor notified DCFS as a mandatory reporter that the child alleged Barnes physically and mentally abused her. Abelseth requested that Barnes custody be limited. Judge Cashe denied that motion.

January of 2021 is before February of 2022. Seriously, get your **** together.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by plague311

January of 2021 is before February of 2022. Seriously, get your **** together.

I specifically referenced the claim of rape and drugging of the daughter. What you are referencing has zero to do with that.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Mom gets found in contempt at the beginning of February. Three weeks later the daughter is supposedly drugged and raped. And the mom suddenly recalls that she might have been drugged, too?

If Barnes is so draconianly off-the-wall as to deny a 16 yo a cel phone, then no, a "punishment" to the girl for defying him in short order makes perfect sense.

eta: and Abseleth said she couldn't move during the rape, which she attributed to being drunk/terrified. Hearing that her daughter claimed to have been drugged was a penny drop Abseleth apparently hadn't considered before. Abseleth does not say now that she was drugged. She says she might have been, seeing as the same man allegedly did so to her daughter.

Quote:

Like, nobody here finds this timing and the claims even a little suspect?

Not surprising, tbh.

We have to get past the first and most monstrously mammoth matter first:

He statutorily raped her. It's not a question in any way. How is he awarded any rights at all in any conceivable interpretation of law?

Before we adress how Abseleth might be working the system, and the daughter might be making false claims, and how the daughter (*checks notes*) might have fooled the hospital into making her body appear raped, we need to determine how Barnes has contorted the law and public decency to his will.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Thermal

If Barnes is so draconianly off-the-wall as to deny a 16 yo a cel phone, then no, a "punishment" to the girl for defying him in short order makes perfect sense.

Seriously dude? Not wanting the daughter to be sexting then leads to multiple rapes and drugging incidents as "punishment". This makes "perfect sense"?

You guys are so hung up on this dude having sex with a 16 y/o that you are willing to assign any level of sickness to him. It is bizarre.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Seriously dude? Not wanting the daughter to be sexting then leads to multiple rapes and drugging incidents as "punishment". This makes "perfect sense"?

You guys are so hung up on this dude having sex with a 16 y/o that you are willing to assign any level of sickness to him. It is bizarre.

Denying a 16 yo a cel phone in the 21st century is inexplicably ******* weird, man. "Sexting" is the lamest excuse for denying a basic contact and safety device I've ever heard.

Any cel phone plan controlled by the parents can be monitored by them, with call blocking enabled. To just flat deny her is putting her out of contact with others. That's like Stepford Wife ****.

And this all keeps circling back to how he possibly has any rights or say AT ALL. He gets absolutely NO benefit of the doubt until that is answered.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Thermal

And this all keeps circling back to how he possibly has any rights or say AT ALL. He gets absolutely NO benefit of the doubt until that is answered.

Even if you feel that the courts are wrong, that does not reflect in any way on his actions in a parental role. Why would that impact whether he gets "the benefit of the doubt" in any way? This all comes back to the hang up with him having sex with a 16 y/o who misrepresented her age. You and numerous other have already made this clear.

The best you could hope to prove in this case is that a 30 y/o had consensual sex with a 16 y/o who misrepresented her age.

The primary issue for people is that 16 y/o thing. As mentioned numerous times, the age of consent in most of the western world is 16, and that includes 31 states. The pretend outrage is amazing, and quite unconvincing. I don't think there is any amount of debate that can get around a position so steeped in emotion.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Even if you feel that the courts are wrong, that does not reflect in any way on his actions in a parental role. Why would that impact whether he gets "the benefit of the doubt" in any way? This all comes back to the hang up with him having sex with a 16 y/o who misrepresented her age. You and numerous other have already made this clear.

A resounding NO. Others and I made it clear that a felony rape demonstrably occurred, with no wiggle room for error, and Barnes' ability to make that go away is beyond explanation.

Quote:

The best you could hope to prove in this case is that a 30 y/o had consensual sex with a 16 y/o who misrepresented her age.

Again, a resounding NO. It is proven, with zero doubt (including his own admission), that the child is his, and he raped the former child who gave birth to the fruit of his felony. Rapists have no custodial rights.

Both I and others have even backtracked a bit, with me specifically saying that I get a guy believing a woman at a bar was of age. It can happen.

But that has nothing to do with the case. The case here is simply about some tech-site schmuck guy peddling an insane amount of influence over the police and courts.

Quote:

The primary issue for people is that 16 y/o thing. As mentioned numerous times, the age of consent in most of the western world is 16, and that includes 31 states. The pretend outrage is amazing, and quite unconvincing. I don't think there is any amount of debate that can get around a position so steeped in emotion.

Dude, I genuinely don't care about the AOC in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin or whatever. Here, it was a felony rape, done and done. How does this guy grab courts and cops by the throat and say "you're going to ignore this rape and do what I tell you"?

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Dude, I genuinely don't care about the AOC in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin or whatever. Here, it was a felony rape, done and done. How does this guy grab courts and cops by the throat and say "you're going to ignore this rape and do what I tell you"?

Warp12 also conveniently leaves out that it was not consensual. He keeps referring to it as "consensual sex" when there is no evidence at all that it was. Just because he keeps saying it doesn't make it true.

I've said it before, even if she were 21 and he said he would bring her home, didn't, took her back to his house and ****** her it would still be rape. Literally. The definition of rape.

The fact that he got out of it to this point, took the child, and now has unfettered access to her is really disturbing. He's honestly acting like a jealous, overbearing boyfriend, if you ask me.

"Are you talking to someone else? You can't! I'll take your phone away!"

[plague311]

I'm going to be pleasantly surprised when he gets what's coming to him because he got too cocky and wanted to take the daughter over a phone and $400/month

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by plague311

Warp12 also conveniently leaves out that it was not consensual. He keeps referring to it as "consensual sex" when there is no evidence at all that it was.

Prove it in court.

We are innocent until proven guilty of charges. Not the other way around.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by plague311

He's honestly acting like a jealous, overbearing boyfriend, if you ask me.

If you take her word for what happened. If you take Amber Heard's word for what happened with Johnny Depp, then you'd have been wildly mislead. We'd be fools for taking either side in a custody disputes word for any of this.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by plague311

Warp12 also conveniently leaves out that it was not consensual. He keeps referring to it as "consensual sex" when there is no evidence at all that it was. Just because he keeps saying it doesn't make it true.

I've said it before, even if she were 21 and he said he would bring her home, didn't, took her back to his house and ****** her it would still be rape. Literally. The definition of rape.

Agreed, it sounds like full-blown rape on multiple criteria, enough so that I'm not holding any doubts. Yet I'd be willing to entertain the pure speculation that she was more willing than it sounded, partly because in her own description she just says "John Barnes proceeded to rape me on the couch." No talk of resisting or even saying "no". So maybe...just maybe...she was less resistant than "rape" makes it sound, which I think is Warp's point. She possibly agreed to the change of plans and was cooperative.

But it doesn't matter. She was drunk and unable to consent. Old guy picks up a drunk young girl, both complete strangers, and bangs her under the White Knight pretense of getting her home safely. None of this flies, before even getting into the fact that it was demonstrably felonious, whether you like the AOC or not.

Quote:

The fact that he got out of it to this point, took the child, and now has unfettered access to her is really disturbing. He's honestly acting like a jealous, overbearing boyfriend, if you ask me.

"Are you talking to someone else? You can't! I'll take your phone away!"

Yeah, that's what I meant about draconian and Stepford Wives. El Rapo sounds like he has some wicked dominance and control issues, which evidently extend to law enforcement and the Courts.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Thermal

She was drunk and unable to consent.

Was she?

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Was she?

Are we sure she is a "she"? Anyone check "her"birth certificate? "She" might be a North Korean agent.

Eta: I mean come on man. You have to take the plausible claims at face value or we literally can't even discuss anything. Why is an underage (by a full 5 years) at a bar if not to get lit up, which she presumably has little experience with?

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by plague311

I'm going to be pleasantly surprised when he gets what's coming to him because he got too cocky and wanted to take the daughter over a phone and $400/month

We really don't know what is going on here. It is perfectly possible that the mother is a far worse parent than the father, and that is why he pursued custody in the way he did. Maybe she lost custody because she innocently bought her daughter a phone, or maybe she is telling us a misleading story here? There is insufficient information to be sure. Perhaps we will find out, or perhaps we won't.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Maybe she lost custody because she innocently bought her daughter a phone, or maybe she is telling us a misleading story here?

It certainly seems like she is leaving some details out, conveniently:

Quote:

Barnes was awarded joint custody in 2015; in March this year, he won full custody.

Abelseth said that he made 'accusations against me', but refused to elaborate.

'They have not been tested in court,' Triche said.

One of the reasons for losing custody, Abelseth said, was an allegation that the teenager had been given a cell phone without Barnes's consent, and which he did not have access to.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

No, I'm saying that rape, statutory or otherwise, can not be between "consenting participants."

Of course it can, in the case of statutory rape.

The stat rape line is essentially arbitrary. It does not empirically define a 16 year old's ability to consent to sex.

If you agree that 17 is the place to draw the line, because 16 year olds cannot consent to sex in the way that 17 year olds can, that's one thing. But if it's that thing, then you must believe that when a more mature adult has sex with a "consenting" 16 year old in the UK, it's actually rape, even though the UK statute permits it.

If 16 year olds can consent, an arbitrary statute won't change that. If 16 year olds can't consent, then there are a lot of rapists running around the UK who mistakenly believe they're not.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Agreed, it sounds like full-blown rape on multiple criteria, enough so that I'm not holding any doubts. Yet I'd be willing to entertain the pure speculation that she was more willing than it sounded, partly because in her own description she just says "John Barnes proceeded to rape me on the couch." No talk of resisting or even saying "no". So maybe...just maybe...she was less resistant than "rape" makes it sound, which I think is Warp's point. She possibly agreed to the change of plans and was cooperative.

But it doesn't matter. She was drunk and unable to consent. Old guy picks up a drunk young girl, both complete strangers, and bangs her under the White Knight pretense of getting her home safely. None of this flies, before even getting into the fact that it was demonstrably felonious, whether you like the AOC or not.

You are relying on her story here for things you are asserting as facts. We know almost nothing that isn't a story told by her during a custody battle. By her own account, the custody hearing decided she was telling some pretty big lies. Maybe it was correct in that judgement, and maybe it wasn't. If it was correct, then can we take her word on anything?

Originally Posted by Thermal

Yeah, that's what I meant about draconian and Stepford Wives. El Rapo sounds like he has some wicked dominance and control issues, which evidently extend to law enforcement and the Courts.

Only if we take her word for what has happened.