Firsthand Statements · Investigative Findings · No Established Crime
Sarah’s Police Reports: What Investigators Actually Found
Police records show that the accusations began largely through third-party reports and media pressure. Sarah denied minor-age sexual contact, described the adult encounters as willing and consensual, said she never told Onision or Lucas no, and supplied no new evidence in 2021. Investigators repeatedly found no established crime or victim.
January 8, 2019: Sarah Privately Reassures Lucas That She Was an Adult and “Nothing Illegal” Had Happened
Sarah privately reassured an anxious Lucas that she was an adult, that “nothing illegal has occurred,” and that police would find no evidence of unlawful conduct.
On January 8, 2019, Lucas expressed anxiety that police might appear because of allegations being circulated online.
Lucas asked:
“Also do you think if the police were going to show up they already would have?”
Sarah reassured him:
“Definitely but even if they did nothing illegal has occurred and I’m an adult so they’d just leave lol”
Lucas explained:
“I know I’m just trying to settle my anxiety”
Sarah again responded:
“Everything is okay. The police would see all their ‘evidence’ and laugh in their face lol there’s nothing illegal that’s happened”
Sarah’s Private Position Was Unambiguous
Sarah made two direct statements:
“nothing illegal has occurred”
and:
“there’s nothing illegal that’s happened”
She also specifically emphasized:
“I’m an adult”
This was not a public statement prepared for viewers. Sarah was privately reassuring Lucas during a conversation about his anxiety and the possibility of police involvement.
Her position was that:
she was an adult
nothing unlawful had occurred
the online accusations lacked supporting evidence
police would find no illegal conduct
Lucas did not need to fear scrutiny
the allegations were based on old claims Sarah considered false
Sarah Again Identifies Ayalla’s Account as False
Sarah continued:
“Especially bc the maya thing was brought up again. There’s nothing left to be told in the situation other than ayalla lying it’s all old news”
Sarah was not expressing uncertainty about whether something illegal might have happened to her.
She identified Ayalla as the person lying and characterized the accusations as recycled “old news.”
This is consistent with Sarah’s private statements four days earlier that:
“nothing illegal has gone on”
the accusers had “zero evidence”
the allegations were “100% slander”
she wanted to contact police and seek a cease-and-desist against Ayalla
The private messages show a consistent position across multiple days—not an isolated sentence.
The Later Litigation Reversal
The later complaint alleges years of grooming, sexual touching while Sarah was a minor, exploitation, coercion, trafficking, and related unlawful conduct.
Sarah’s contemporaneous private statements express the opposite conclusion:
she was an adult
nothing illegal had occurred
no credible evidence supported the accusations
Ayalla was lying
scrutiny would reveal no crime
These messages are especially important because they were exchanged privately before the later lawsuit and were not written for Onision’s audience.
Sarah was not merely repeating a public defense under observation. She was privately reassuring Lucas that the allegations were false and that neither of them had anything to fear from police because no unlawful conduct had occurred.
Sarah Was Reassuring Lucas, Not Being Controlled by Him
The emotional dynamic in the exchange is also significant.
Lucas was the person expressing fear and anxiety. Sarah was the person calming him, evaluating the accusations, and confidently explaining why police intervention would produce nothing.
Sarah told him:
“Everything is okay.”
She then supplied the reason:
“there’s nothing illegal that’s happened”
This is inconsistent with the later portrayal of Sarah as a powerless person being psychologically controlled into concealing unlawful conduct. In this private exchange, Sarah appears confident, decisive, and protective of Lucas while he is the person seeking reassurance.
Source
January 8, 2019 private text-message exchange between Sarah and Lucas.
Sarah’s messages appear in gray. Lucas’s messages appear in blue.
The conversation was displayed through iMessage and captured using a MacBook.
September 2019–February 2020: Police Found No Evidence of a Crime and Received No Direct Victim Report
Pierce County investigators recorded that the allegations were investigated with “no evidence of a crime,” while the information initially provided came largely from third parties rather than firsthand victim reports.
This section of the Pierce County Sheriff Department report explains how the investigation began and what investigators actually had before contacting the individuals named in later media coverage.
The report’s official synopsis states:
“Allegations of sexual assault were investigated. No evidence of a crime.”
How the allegations reached police
According to the report, the initial information received in September 2019 concerned possible sexual-exploitation crimes at Onision and Lucas’s residence.
However, investigators noted that:
There was very little specific information.
There were no firsthand reports from any alleged victim.
The accusations centered on claims being circulated about Onision online.
The original matter was cleared with no evidence of criminal activity.
Afterward, the Sheriff Department received more than 40 additional emails concerning the same or similar allegations.
Those emails did not come from alleged victims reporting crimes they personally experienced. They came from third parties who had heard accusations through social media, commentary channels, and self-described online investigations.
A reporter claimed victims had been groomed
On October 2, 2019, reporter Makena Kelly contacted police and claimed that multiple women had told her Onision had groomed and
In an October 1, 2018 message, Sarah acknowledges that Lucas did not return her romantic feelings and says she had known for two years that a relationship would not happen.
coerced them into sexual intercourse, including individuals she said were 14 to 16 years old at the time.
The investigator told Kelly that police had received numerous third-party allegations but still had not heard directly from anyone claiming to be a crime victim.
Kelly was encouraged to give the investigator’s contact information to the women she had interviewed so they could report any crime themselves.
The report states:
“I was not contacted by anyone else as a result of my conversation with Kelly.”
Chris Hansen’s media campaign also preceded direct reporting
The report then describes Chris Hansen’s YouTube “media investigation.”
Hansen published interviews with alleged victims and others while publicly presenting the situation as an established criminal scandal. Police later asked Hansen to provide identifying information for the people appearing on his program so investigators could determine whether any reportable crime had occurred within their jurisdiction.
This chronology is important:
Accusations spread publicly through social media.
Third parties repeatedly emailed police.
Reporters and online personalities claimed they had spoken with victims.
Police invited those alleged victims to report crimes directly.
No one contacted the investigator following the invitation described in this section.
The earlier investigation had already been cleared with no evidence of criminal activity.In an October 1, 2018 message, Sarah states that she had been in love with Lucas since age 14, knew a relationship would not happen, and says James repeatedly made that clear even after she turned 18.
Why it matters
This report shows that the public narrative moved ahead of the evidence.
Police were not initially responding to Sarah walking into a station and reporting that Onision or Lucas had committed a crime against her. They were responding to a flood of accusations generated by outsiders, online content creators, media figures, and people repeating what they had heard.
The distinction is critical.
A large number of emails does not equal a large number of victims. Repetition does not transform a third-party rumor into firsthand evidence.
At this stage, police had:
No direct victim report supporting the online allegations
Media personalities publicly promoting allegations before investigators had substantiated them
This section establishes that law enforcement began from a position of skepticism and evidence-gathering—not from a conclusion that the accusations were true.
It also directly undermines the impression created online that police had already uncovered criminal conduct involving Onision or Lucas. The report says the opposite: the original allegations were cleared with no evidence of criminal activity.
Source
Pierce County Sheriff Department Incident Report, page 3 of 5.
March 9, 2020: Sarah Repeatedly Denies Underage Sexual Contact While Making an Unverified Image Allegation
This page records Sarah’s March 9, 2020 telephone interview with the Pierce County Sheriff Department.
Sarah told police that nothing sexual occurred during her first visit, that she had no sexual contact with Onision or Lucas while living with them as a minor, and that sexual discussions did not occur during her later 2017 visit.
Before the interview, the FBI told the investigator that it had received many third-party tips but had not established that a sex crime occurred based on its interview with Sarah. Sarah had provided a computer for examination, and investigators were still waiting to determine whether it contained evidence supporting her allegation.
Sarah was the only person on the investigator’s contact list who returned the call. She declined to have the conversation recorded, so the report is the investigator’s written summary rather than an audio-verifiable interview.
The image allegation is vague and unsupported on this page
The report states that Sarah claimed she had sent Lucas:
“a picture of her breasts and a picture of her in her underwear”
It then says Sarah claimed Lucas sent “similar messages,” but that they had all been deleted.
The wording does not establish that the first image showed Sarah nude. It does not say “topless,” “naked breasts,” “exposed breasts,” or that nipples were visible. Without the image itself, the phrase could describe anything from cleavage or a chest-focused selfie to an exposed-breast photograph.
The report also provides no visible supporting evidence for Sarah’s claim about Lucas:
No screenshot is identified.
No exact date is given.
No description of the alleged image is recorded.
No quoted message from Lucas is included.
Sarah said the supposed responsive material had been deleted.
The FBI had not established that a sex crime occurred.
Her computer was still being examined for possible corroboration.
The page therefore documents an allegation by Sarah, not verified proof that Lucas sent an illegal image.
Sarah denies anything sexual during her first visit
On January 7, 2019, Sarah stated that she would have raised grooming during a major fight if she believed it had occurred, but did not because she was not groomed.
Sarah told police that she first visited Washington in September 2016 at age 16.
The report states:
“Sarah told me nothing of a sexual nature occurred during this first trip to Washington.”
This is a categorical denial. Sarah did not merely say that intercourse did not occur. She said nothing of a sexual nature occurred.
Sarah’s “Bathed or Showered in Front of Lucas” Statement Is Vague and Does Not Establish Nudity or Sexual Conduct
Sarah told police that she returned in October 2016 and remained until late February 2017.
The report states:
“Sarah said she would occasionally bathe or shower in front of Kai while they were talking but did not have any kind of sexual contact with Jackson or Kai during this trip.”
The phrase “bathe or shower in front of” is left completely undefined.
The report does not say:
Sarah and Lucas saw each other naked.
Sarah’s unclothed body was visible.
Lucas entered the shower or bath with her.
A curtain, door, wall, or other barrier was absent.
Lucas watched Sarah bathe.
Anything sexual was said or done.
“While they were talking” could describe Lucas being elsewhere in the bathroom, outside an enclosure, near a doorway, or simply close enough to carry on a conversation while Sarah remained concealed behind a shower curtain or other barrier.
The report provides no physical layout, no description of visibility, and no explanation of what Sarah meant by “in front of.”
On January 7, 2019, Sarah stated that Lucas did not groom her, said she had recognized and reported an attempted groomer at age 11, and accused outsiders of twisting innocent events.
That matters because Sarah’s vague wording creates a suggestive image without supplying the facts necessary to justify it. A person showering behind an opaque curtain while speaking to someone nearby is entirely different from deliberately exposing themselves naked to that person.
The only unambiguous part of Sarah’s statement is her conclusion:
She “did not have any kind of sexual contact with Jackson or Kai during this trip.”
Therefore, this passage cannot reasonably be presented as evidence of sexual activity. Sarah herself expressly denied that sexual contact occurred, while leaving the supposedly unusual bathing detail too vague to establish nudity, exposure, observation, or misconduct.
Sarah denies sexual discussions during her 2017 visit
Sarah told police she returned from August through November 2017.
The report states:
“Sarah said there was not any discussion of a sexual nature at the time…”
Sarah was still under 18 during that visit.
Her police account therefore establishes the same boundary across three separate periods:
September 2016: Nothing sexual occurred.
October 2016 through February 2017: No sexual contact occurred with Onision or Lucas.
August through November 2017: No sexual discussions occurred.
Sarah places the relationship change after turning 18
Sarah told police that she returned in July 2018 and turned 18 during that visit.
Only after documenting that she became an adult does the report describe a change in the relationship. Sarah said Onision, who had previously shown little interest or affection toward her, began treating her better. She then described watching movies together in bed and joking about “threesomes.”
The order of events matters.
According to Sarah’s own police statement:
Nothing sexual occurred during the minor-age visits.
No sexual discussions occurred during the 2017 visit.
Sarah turned 18.
The relationship and conversations then changed.
The police account conflicts with Sarah’s later narrative
Years later, Sarah alleged that sexual touching, sexualization, grooming, and propositions occurred while she was still a minor. Those later allegations are difficult to reconcile with her earlier statements to police that nothing sexual occurred, no sexual contact occurred, and no sexual discussions occurred during the same periods.
This is not a minor difference in wording.
The two accounts describe fundamentally different histories:
In the police report, Sarah repeatedly places sexual conduct and discussion outside her minor-age visits.
In her later allegations, she claims sexual conduct and sexual conditioning occurred during those visits.
Both accounts cannot accurately describe the same chronology without a substantial explanation.
What this page establishes
Sarah told investigators that:
On January 8, 2019, Sarah was told that the mutual NDA did not prevent disclosure of illegal conduct and was encouraged to read the agreement before signing it.
She had no sexual contact with Onision or Lucas while she was a minor.
Nothing sexual occurred during her first Washington visit.
No sexual discussions occurred during her later 2017 visit.
She turned 18 before the relationship and sexual joking changed.
She had romantic feelings for Lucas but not Onision.
Onision had previously shown little interest or affection toward her.
The FBI had not established that a sex crime occurred.
The alleged responsive material from Lucas was unavailable because Sarah said it had been deleted.
Her allegation concerning photographs had not yet been corroborated by the computer examination described on this page.
Why it matters
This page is damaging to Sarah’s later account because it records her giving police a detailed chronology that repeatedly excludes sexual contact and sexual discussions from the periods when she was underage.
Her vague image allegation does not erase those categorical statements.
Nor does the report establish that the alleged images were nude, illegal, authentic, or exchanged as she described. The investigator recorded what Sarah said and was still waiting for actual digital evidence.
The strongest evidence on this page is therefore not the unverified allegation about deleted images. It is Sarah’s repeated and specific admission that no sexual contact occurred with Onision or Lucas while she was a minor.
Source
Pierce County Sheriff Department Incident Report, page 4 of 5. Sarah interview conducted March 9, 2020; report printed June 23, 2020. The police account is also identified in the filed evidence collection as materially conflicting with Sarah’s later allegations.
March 9–June 23, 2020: Sarah Tells Police the Sexual Activity Was Consensual; Investigator Finds No Crime
Sarah told police that the sexual activity occurred after she turned 18, that she participated willingly, never told Onision or Lucas no, and was unsure she had been the victim of a crime; the investigator concluded that no crime had been established.
The final page of the Pierce County Sheriff Department report records Sarah’s account of the sexual activity that occurred after she became an adult and the investigator’s ultimate conclusion.
Across each encounter described, Sarah told police that she participated willingly, never told Onision or Lucas “no,” and was unsure that she had been the victim of any crime.
January 2019: Sarah describes herself as a willing participant
Sarah told police that she returned to Washington in January 2019 for several days and engaged in oral sex with Onision and Lucas on two occasions.
The report states:
“Sarah told me she was a willing participant in the sexual activity that took place during this trip.”
Sarah said Lucas felt ignored and emotionally hurt during the visit, but otherwise described the trip as uneventful.
This account directly contradicts any portrayal of the January 2019 activity as something Sarah told police was forced or nonconsensual.
June 2019: Sarah says the threesome was “fine”
Sarah told police that she returned for approximately one week at the end of June 2019.
She claimed Onision attempted to convince Sarah and Lucas to participate in a threesome and said that, on the final night of the visit, the three had sex.
The report states:
“Sarah said it was ‘fine’…”
Sarah also told police that she agreed to be Onision’s girlfriend during the visit despite his marriage to Lucas.
Her own description again presents her as knowingly participating in an adult sexual and romantic arrangement, not as someone
On January 8, 2019, Sarah stated that cuddling with Lucas did not occur until she was 18 and mocked attempts to portray ordinary jokes and nonsexual affection as grooming.
reporting an assault.
July 2019: Sarah again describes consensual sex
Sarah told police that she returned in late July 2019 while Lucas was traveling and that she and Onision were alone together for the first time.
The report states:
“Sarah told me she and Jackson engaged in sexual intercourse during the trip and admitted it had been consensual.”
Sarah said Lucas later learned what happened and became upset.
The report also records that Onision claimed Sarah had “blackmailed” him into having sex and that the relationship ultimately ended. The police report records this as Onision’s stated position; it does not independently decide the blackmail allegation on this page.
What it does establish is that Sarah herself described the sexual intercourse to police as consensual.
Sarah says she never told either person “no”
The investigator directly asked Sarah whether she had ever been an unwilling participant in any sexual activity with Onision or Lucas.
The report states:
“Sarah told me she ‘never told them no’ and admitted she was not sure she was a victim of any crime.”
This is one of the clearest statements in the entire report.
Sarah did not tell police that she refused, withdrew consent, or was forced to participate. She said she never told either person no and was unsure that any crime had occurred.
The investigator did not believe a crime occurred
After reviewing Sarah’s account, the investigator told her:
“Based on the information she had provided, I did not believe a crime had taken place in PCSD jurisdiction.”
The investigator later contacted the FBI on June 22, 2020. The FBI’s computer examination had not yet been completed, and the agent had no additional information identifying crimes within Pierce County jurisdiction.
As of June 23, the investigator also reported that none of the other women described publicly as alleged victims had contacted police, despite having appeared in media interviews and having been given an opportunity to file reports.
The Report’s Final Conclusion
The investigator concluded:
“Sarah was a willing participant in sexual activity after the age of consent, in fact after turning 18 years old, and was not under the legal care or custody of Jackson or Kai.”
The report also states:
“Based on the information gathered during my investigation, I have not been able to establish that a crime occurred.”
On June 13, 2019, Sarah admitted that she hid her romantic feelings for Lucas because she believed James would kick her out if those feelings became known.
This materially conflicts with the later portrayal of Onision and Lucas as exercising guardian-like legal control over Sarah during the encounters. The report does not resolve every possible claim of emotional influence, but its conclusion is clear: Sarah was an adult, participated willingly, and was not under either person’s legal care or custody.
The report was retained because of extensive third-party emails and public attention, nothing else. This highlights how much of a non-issue the entire situation would be without misinformed public outrage.
What this page directly establishes
Sarah told police that:
The January 2019 sexual activity was voluntary.
She was a “willing participant.”
The June 2019 threesome was “fine.”On August 27, 2019, Sarah admitted that she told Onision and Lucas she would sign the NDA only if they first engaged in sexual activity with her, then claimed the demand was a joke.
She agreed to enter a girlfriend relationship with Onision.
The July 2019 intercourse with Onision was consensual.
She never told Onision or Lucas “no.”
She was unsure that she had been the victim of any crime.
All described sexual activity occurred after she turned 18.
The investigator concluded that:
Sarah was a willing adult participant.
She was not under Onision or Lucas’s legal care or custody.
The available information did not establish that a crime occurred.
No other publicly identified alleged victim contacted the investigator to file a report.
Why it matters
This page is incompatible with Sarah’s later portrayal of the adult sexual encounters as criminal exploitation or assault.
On August 27, 2019, Sarah publicly denied having any sexual relationship with James or Lucas before she turned 18.
Her own police account repeatedly uses the language of consent:
“Willing participant”
“Fine”
“Consensual”
“Never told them no”
“Not sure she was a victim of any crime”
These are not conclusions imposed on Sarah by Onision Wiki. They are statements recorded by law enforcement during Sarah’s own interview.
The police report also establishes a consistent chronology:
Sarah denied sexual contact while she was a minor.
Sexual activity began only after she turned 18.
Sarah described each adult encounter as voluntary or consensual.
The investigator found insufficient evidence that any crime occurred.
Source
Pierce County Sheriff Department Incident Report, page 5 of 5. Sarah interview conducted March 9, 2020; FBI follow-up conducted June 22, 2020; report completed June 23, 2020.
January 2021 Follow-Up: Police Again Find No Established Criminal Activity or Pierce County Victims
These three pages document a follow-up investigation conducted after renewed publicity surrounding a documentary about Onision.
The follow-up was not triggered by newly discovered physical evidence or a new firsthand crime report. Police revisited the allegations because media coverage created the possibility that people previously interviewed online might now be willing to speak directly with law enforcement.
Police recorded that the original allegations were cleared with no evidence of criminal activity and that the renewed attention came from more than 40 third-party emails, CyberTips, and online media coverage.
The original allegations had already been cleared
The report first summarizes the September 2019 investigation:
“At the time of the initial complaints, there was very little information about the alleged crimes and no first hand reports from any alleged victim.”
It then states:
“The original allegations were documented under PCSD FIR #19-259-01267 and cleared with no evidence of any criminal activity.”
Despite that result, police subsequently received more than 40 emails and CyberTips because of social-media campaigns and self-described “online investigations,” including Chris Hansen’s coverage.
The volume of communications reflected extensive internet attention, not 40 independent victims or 40 verified crimes.
The media campaign came before direct victim reporting
Chris Hansen provided police with a list of people portrayed publicly as potential victims.
Investigators attempted to contact them directly. During the earlier investigation, Sarah was the only person who returned the investigator’s call.
Sarah told police that:
She was over 18 during the sexual relationship.
She fully consented to the sexual activity.
She was unsure that she had been the victim of any crime in Washington.
The report therefore distinguishes sharply between allegations promoted through media interviews and what Sarah actually told law enforcement when questioned directly.
The FBI had not established criminal activity
Before conducting the January 2021 interviews, the investigator contacted the FBI agent handling a separate federal review.
Police recorded that Sarah described consensual adult sex, Regina had never met Onision in person or visited Washington, and Shiloh reported no history of violence and was unsure that a legal crime had occurred.
The FBI had taken possession of Sarah’s laptop because it allegedly might contain evidence of unlawful images exchanged with Lucas.
The report states:
“The FBI investigation had so far not been able to conclude any criminal activity had taken place.”
That wording should be read precisely. It does not say the FBI completed every examination and issued a universal declaration of innocence. It establishes that, despite possessing Sarah’s computer and investigating her claims, the FBI had not found sufficient evidence to conclude that criminal activity occurred.
Sarah again provided no new evidence
On January 15, 2021, the investigator contacted Sarah again.
Sarah appeared surprised by the follow-up and stated that she had no new information to report since her March 2020 interview.
The investigator concluded:
“Based on the information I had obtained at that time, it did not appear Sarah was a victim of a crime in PCSD jurisdiction.”
This was not the first time Sarah’s account failed to establish a crime.
In her earlier interview, Sarah had already stated that:
Nothing sexual occurred during her first visit at age 16.
She had no sexual contact with Onision or Lucas during her later minor-age stay.
Sexual discussions did not occur during her 2017 visit.
All sexual activity occurred after she turned 18.
She participated willingly.
She never told Onision or Lucas no.
She was unsure that she had been the victim of any crime.
The January 2021 follow-up produced nothing that changed the investigator’s conclusion.
When police contacted Sarah again in January 2021, she supplied no new information, and the investigator again concluded that she did not appear to be the victim of a crime in Pierce County jurisdiction.
Regina's Lack of Relevance to Onision or Connection to Washington
The investigator also contacted Regina.
Regina stated that she:
Lived in Florida
Had never traveled to Washington
Had never met Onision in person
Had not filed a police report
Had no law-enforcement contact other than the FBI
Regina claimed that she had developed an online friendship with Lucas and had worked as a chat moderator. The report, however, does not attach messages, emails, account records, moderator logs, or other material confirming the nature or extent of any actual connection to Onision.
Onision states that he does not remember knowing or communicating with Regina. At most, he believes he may once have responded to a routine request concerning permission to use his music, but he does not recall any personal relationship with her as she is just one of hundreds of people who may have reached out via his public email at some point.
The distinction is significant. Regina never visited the household, never met Onision, and did not claim to police that she was the victim of a crime in Washington. Her alleged connection to him rests on her own uncorroborated description of online interactions that Onision does not have any awareness of ever occurring.
Despite that extremely remote and disputed connection, Regina later became a major public accuser whose statements contributed to serious damage against a person who regards her as a stranger.
Regina’s Image Allegations Were Vague and Unverified
Regina claimed that she had sent and received “nude or semi-nude” photographs through an online account. She later described the images she sent as “mostly nude.”
Those descriptions are vague and do not establish what the photographs actually depicted. The report does not explain:
Whether any explicit nudity was visible
What “mostly nude” meant
The age associated with each alleged image
Which account sent each specific file
Whether any image even qualified as CSAM (Judge Chun ruled that it did not)
Whether the alleged exchanges could be authenticated
The report does not reproduce a single photograph, message, request, or account record supporting Regina’s allegation.
The FBI was reportedly attempting to access the relevant online account. At the time of the report, investigators had not verified the alleged images or established criminal activity.
This section therefore records Regina’s unsupported account, not proof that illegal material existed, that Onision was involved, or that a crime occurred.
Regina Says She Became Involved to Help Establish a “Pattern”
When asked why she spoke out, Regina said she had heard Sarah’s account and wanted to demonstrate Onision’s alleged:
“patterns of predatory behavior”
She also said she had retained a civil attorney and was considering legal action based on alleged defamation.
This creates a serious credibility and independence problem.
Regina did not describe independently reporting a crime and only later discovering that Sarah had made similar allegations. Her stated sequence was the reverse:
She heard Sarah’s account.
She decided to help establish a broader alleged pattern.
She participated in public media coverage.
She consulted a civil attorney.
She later joined Sarah in civil litigation.
That means Regina should not be presented as a completely independent second accuser whose experience naturally corroborated Sarah’s. By her own account, she became involved after hearing Sarah and with the express purpose of helping create the appearance of a broader pattern.
In civil litigation, showing a “pattern” can strengthen a claim. But repeating or aligning separate accusations does not make either accusation true, especially where Regina:
Never met Onision or Lucas in person.
Was a stranger to Onision.
Never visited Washington
Did not report being the victim of a crime there
Could not provide verified evidence supporting her allegations
Was ultimately found not to be the victim of criminal activity within the department’s jurisdiction
The core problem is that Regina’s story was used to make Sarah’s allegations appear independently corroborated, while Regina’s own police interview shows that her involvement began as an effort to support Sarah’s narrative.
The investigator concluded:
“Based on the information provided, I determined Alonso was not the victim of any criminal activity in PCSD jurisdiction…”
Shiloh was unsure she was the victim of a legal crime
Shiloh told the investigator that she was unsure whether she qualified as a crime victim “under the law,” but believed Onision had committed what she called “moral crimes.”
She also stated that:
Their sexual relationship was consensual.
Shiloh stated that there was no history of violence between them. Onision disputes that characterization. According to Onision, there were at least two incidents in which Shiloh became physically aggressive after he attempted to create distance or contact police. In one incident, after Onision ended the relationship and retreated to his room, Shiloh repeatedly body-slammed the door, prompting him to call law enforcement. In another, Onision says Shiloh knocked the phone from his hand to prevent him from calling police, then wrapped her arms around him and physically restrained him from retrieving it. For that reason, Onision does not agree that the relationship had “no history of violence.
Her only law-enforcement contact involving Onision concerned an incident in which he reported that she was suicidal.
Police transported her to a psychiatric hospital.
She had never lived at the Gig Harbor property.
She did not know the other alleged victims well before they “came together” concerning their experiences.
There had been interpersonal “drama” connected to the documentary.
The investigator concluded:
“Based on the information provided, I determined Schramm did not appear to be a victim of a crime in PCSD jurisdiction.”
What these pages directly establish
The report documents that:
The original allegations were cleared with no evidence of criminal activity.
The renewed investigation arose from media attention and large numbers of third-party messages.
Sarah told police the sexual relationship occurred after she turned 18 and was fully consensual.
Sarah was unsure that she had been the victim of a crime.
Sarah later supplied no new information.
The FBI had not established criminal activity from Sarah’s laptop or interview.
Regina had never visited Washington or met Onision or Lucas in person.
Regina had not reported being the victim of a Washington crime.
Regina’s alleged images had not been located and were classified as non-CSAM by Judge Chun in a later civil suit.
Regina said she became involved after hearing Sarah’s story and wanting to demonstrate a supposed pattern.
Shiloh described consensual sex and no history of violence.
Shiloh was unsure that any legal crime occurred.
Police did not identify Sarah, Regina, or Shiloh as victims of criminal activity within Pierce County jurisdiction.
Why it matters
The later public narrative portrays multiple women independently emerging as victims of a coordinated criminal pattern.
The police chronology presents something materially different.
The allegations first spread through online campaigns, commentary, interviews, and a documentary. When investigators contacted the individuals directly:
Sarah described consensual adult conduct.
Regina described an entirely online relationship and no Washington victimization.
Shiloh described consensual conduct and “moral,” rather than identifiable legal, wrongdoing.
The alleged digital evidence had not established criminal activity.
Police repeatedly concluded that no crime had been established within their jurisdiction.
The report does not merely show that no prosecution occurred. It shows that the firsthand accounts given to investigators differed substantially from the extreme public characterization of the allegations.
It supports Onision and Lucas’s position that the appearance of numerous corroborating criminal victims was created through media repetition and coordinated storytelling, while the direct reports to law enforcement failed to establish the same narrative.
Source
Pierce County Sheriff Department Incident Report 2101900529.1, follow-up investigation certified January 19, 2021 and printed January 21, 2021.
