Sarah/Assault

Consent · Repeated Returns · Prior Statements · Role Reversal

Sarah’s Assault Allegations: The Contemporaneous Record

Sarah told police she willingly participated, described later sex as “fine” and consensual, repeatedly returned, invited Onision to visit, pursued a relationship, and publicly acknowledged that Onision originally accused her of sexual blackmail. Her messages, interviews, travel records, and post-encounter conduct materially conflict with the later assault narrative.

Connected evidence: Police Reports and Findings   ·   Credibility Record   ·   Grooming Allegations   ·   Trafficking Allegations   ·   Mutual NDA   ·   Later Calls and Admissions   ·   Documented Damages

June 4–6, 2018: Sarah Identifies Kourtney as the Person Who Took Her Virginity

In June 2018, Sarah sent Lucas screenshots of a conversation with a man named Kourtney.

Kourtney told Sarah that he wanted her and asked:

On June 4, 2018, Sarah told Kourtney that he had ghosted her after “you took my virginity,” establishing that she attributed the loss of her virginity to Kourtney before her later allegations involving Onision.

“Will you let me sleep with you or are you too mad at me?”

Sarah responded:

“You haven’t talked to me for over two weeks.”

She then directly told Kourtney:

“I see all you really wanted was sex and that’s fine but you ghosted me for two weeks after you took my virginity. It really sucked.”

This is an unusually clear contemporaneous statement. Sarah did not vaguely refer to a past relationship or an unnamed sexual experience. She directly identified Kourtney as the person who had taken her virginity.

Sarah’s Account to Lucas

After receiving Kourtney’s message, Sarah told Lucas that it caused intense distress:

“I hate men. I literally had those images in my head all day and when I’m finally relaxing HE TEXTS ME FOR THE FIRST TIME IN TWO WEEKS.”

Lucas initially advised her:

“Block him bitch”

Sarah refused because she wanted to respond:

“I WANT THE LAST WORD THOUGH. I WANT HIM TO FEEL BAD. WHAT DO I SAY”

Lucas did not supply the accusation or script Sarah’s response. He answered:

“I DONT KNOW BITCH”

Sarah later said:

“For real though imma have a panic attack”

She also expressed conflicting feelings about Kourtney:

“And the worst part is that I wanna see him again. Not to have sex obviously but I just want closure. Like ask him why”

Sarah discusses her allegation against Kourtney with Lucas, states that Kourtney did not listen when she said no, and briefly jokes that she may have imagined the incident before immediately revealing that she was joking.

Sarah then made the most serious allegation contained in the exchange:

“IF HE HAD JUST LISTENED TO ME WHEN I SAID NO AND DIDNT GHOST ME”

The screenshots therefore document two separate statements by Sarah:

• She identified Kourtney as the person who took her virginity.
• She alleged that Kourtney failed to listen when she said no.

The screenshots establish that Sarah made these allegations. They do not independently establish what occurred between Sarah and Kourtney.

The Chronological Problem

The date is decisive.

By June 2018, more than seven months before the January 2019 encounter later alleged against Onision, Sarah had already:

• Described having sex with Kourtney
• Identified Kourtney as the person who took her virginity
• Alleged that Kourtney ignored her refusal
• Described intrusive memories and panic connected to the encounter
• Said she wanted closure from him
• Explicitly stated that she did not want to have sex with him again

This record directly contradicts any later claim that Onision was the person who took Sarah’s virginity.

It also materially complicates any later presentation suggesting that the January 2019 encounter was Sarah’s first sexual experience or the original source of her claimed sexual trauma.

Sarah had already attributed her virginity loss and an alleged nonconsensual sexual encounter to Kourtney before any alleged sexual activity involving Onision occurred.

That fact cannot be reconciled with any later version.

Why It Matters

The central issue is chronology.

A later legal allegation cannot silently erase Sarah’s earlier documented sexual history. Before the alleged January 2019 encounter with Onision, Sarah had already told both Kourtney and Lucas that Kourtney took her virginity and ignored her refusal.

That earlier account is relevant when evaluating:

• Later claims concerning who took Sarah’s virginity
• Portrayals of Sarah’s prior sexual experience
• Claims regarding the origin of her alleged sexual trauma
• Alternative causes of the emotional harm later attributed to Onision
• Whether later pleadings present a complete and accurate chronology

The fixed fact is Sarah’s own dated statement:

“You ghosted me for two weeks after you took my virginity.”

The timeline does not permit that event to be reassigned to someone else later.

Source

June 2018 screenshots of messages between Sarah and Lucas, containing an embedded conversation between Sarah and Kourtney.

January 7, 2019: Sarah Says She Would Speak Up and Calls the Situation “Sweet,” Not “Creepy”

Sarah tells Lucas that she would speak up if the situation ever felt “shady,” says she could not keep discomfort bottled up, and describes what was happening as “sweet” rather than “creepy.”

On January 7, 2019, Sarah directly addressed whether the developing situation with Lucas felt inappropriate, coercive, or “creepy.”

She told Lucas:

“Yes if I EVER start feeling like this is something that’s shady I’ll say something. I know I wouldn’t be able to keep something like that bottled up inside.”

This statement is highly relevant to Sarah’s later portrayal of herself as unable to recognize, resist, or disclose alleged coercion by the Onision household.

Sarah did not merely say that she felt comfortable at that moment. She made a broader statement about her own ability and intention to respond if anything became improper:

• She would recognize if the situation became “shady.”
• She would say something.
• She believed she was incapable of keeping such discomfort concealed.

Sarah Says Nobody Expected the Relationship to Develop

Sarah continued:

“If anything I was convinced it would never in a million years ever even come up.”

She added:

“And I know you and Greg were too. We know how things have played out.”

This materially conflicts with a later narrative suggesting that Onision and Lucas had spent years deliberately preparing Sarah for a sexual relationship.

According to Sarah’s contemporaneous account, all three believed that such a relationship would never occur. She described the development as unexpected—not as the intended result of a long-term plan.

Sarah Explicitly Rejects the “Creepy” Interpretation

Sarah then stated:

“This isn’t a creepy thing it’s actually kinda sweet the way I look at it.”

She also reassured Lucas:

“I know you. You don’t have a malicious bone in your body. Things are happening naturally and I’m done feeling bad about it.”

These are not ambiguous statements.

Sarah expressly considered whether the situation was:

• Shady
• Creepy
• Malicious
• Unnatural

She rejected each characterization.

Instead, she described the situation as:

• Sweet
• Natural
• Unexpected
• Nonmalicious

Sarah Rejects Outside Narratives About the Relationship

Sarah concluded:

“I’m not letting people who don’t know us AT ALL tell us what’s going on. They know literally nothing.”

This shows that Sarah was already aware that outsiders might interpret the situation negatively. She did not claim ignorance of that possibility.

She evaluated the concern and rejected it based on what she said was her own knowledge of Lucas, Onision, and the relationship.

The Evidentiary Conflict

This message does not independently determine what occurred during every later sexual encounter. It does, however, create a serious conflict with later claims that Sarah:

• Could not recognize inappropriate conduct
• Was unable to voice discomfort
• Had been conditioned to suppress objections
• Believed the developing relationship was predatory
• Was unknowingly following a plan created by Onision and Lucas
• Viewed Lucas as malicious or threatening
• Felt that events were being forced rather than occurring naturally

Sarah’s contemporaneous words state almost the exact opposite.

She said she would speak if anything felt wrong, could not keep such feelings bottled up, believed nobody expected the relationship to happen, called it “sweet,” and said events were occurring naturally.

Why It Matters

The importance of this exchange is not simply that Sarah sounded affectionate.

Sarah directly addressed the central questions later raised in her allegations:

Was the situation shady? Would she speak up? Was it creepy? Was Lucas malicious? Had the relationship been planned?

Her answers at the time were clear:

• She would speak up.
• She could not conceal discomfort.
• It was not creepy.
• Lucas was not malicious.
• Events were happening naturally.
• Nobody expected the relationship to develop.

A later accusation cannot erase these statements. Any substantially different account must explain why Sarah’s detailed contemporaneous assessment should no longer be believed.

Source

January 7, 2019 text messages between Sarah and Lucas. Lucas’s messages appear in blue and Sarah’s messages appear in gray.

January 2019: Sarah Tells Police She Willingly Participated in Both Sexual Encounters

Sarah told police that she willingly participated in two January 2019 sexual encounters and that Lucas—not Sarah—felt ignored and emotionally hurt afterward.

Sarah told the Pierce County Sheriff Department that she returned to Washington in January 2019 for a visit lasting only a few days.

The report states:

“She told me during this trip, she engaged in oral sex with Jackson and Kai on two occasions.”

Most importantly, the investigator recorded:

“Sarah told me she was a willing participant in the sexual activity that took place during this trip.”

The report identifies two separate sexual encounters and records Sarah describing herself as a willing participant in the activity.

Who Reported Feeling Harmed?

Sarah did not tell the investigator that she felt frightened, forced, violated, or emotionally harmed during this trip.

Instead, the report states:

“Sarah said Kai felt ignored during the trip and was hurt by that but otherwise the trip was uneventful.”

According to Sarah’s account, Lucas was the person who experienced negative feelings because he felt excluded. Sarah described the visit itself as otherwise uneventful.

The Contradiction

This contemporaneous police account materially conflicts with later allegations portraying the January 2019 encounters as sexual assault or involuntary conduct.

Sarah’s statement to police was specific:

• Two sexual encounters occurred.
• She willingly participated.
• She did not identify herself as the emotionally injured participant.
• She said the trip was otherwise uneventful.

The report does not merely show an absence of an assault allegation. It records Sarah affirmatively describing herself as willing.

Any later account characterizing these same encounters as forced or nonconsensual must therefore confront her direct statement to law enforcement:

“Sarah told me she was a willing participant.”

Why It Matters

Consent is the central disputed fact.

Sarah later presented substantially more severe descriptions of conduct involving the Onision household. Yet when questioned by police about the January 2019 trip, she described two encounters and expressly stated that she participated willingly.

That earlier statement does not disappear because a later legal pleading uses more alarming language. The two versions are materially inconsistent and should be examined together.

Source

Excerpt from a Pierce County Sheriff Department incident report documenting Sarah’s account of her January 2019 visit.

January 20–21, 2019: Sarah Remains Friendly and Says She Has to Return

After the two January 2019 sexual encounters that Sarah later described to police as willing, she continued casually messaging Lucas and said she would have to return so they could play Guitar Hero.

On January 20 and 21, 2019, Sarah continued communicating casually and affectionately with Lucas following the two sexual encounters from that trip that she later described to police as willing.

The conversation includes ordinary discussion about ordering Chipotle, sharing music, and an activity they did not have time to complete.

Lucas wrote:

“We never played guitar hero”

Sarah responded:

“Guess I have to come back so we can play”

Sarah also sent a photograph of a photo-booth strip showing herself and Lucas together.

What the Messages Show

These messages show that immediately after the January visit, Sarah:

• Continued friendly and relaxed communication with Lucas
• Participated in ordinary conversation about food and music
• Shared a personal photograph from the trip
• Expressed an intention to return to the household
• Presented the unfinished Guitar Hero session as a reason to visit again

There is no visible expression in this exchange of fear, avoidance, anger, coercion, or a desire to end contact.

The Evidentiary Conflict

The exchange must be considered alongside Sarah’s separate statement to police that she was a:

“willing participant in the sexual activity that took place during this trip.”

Her conduct immediately afterward is consistent with that original account. She remained comfortable communicating with Lucas and volunteered that she intended to return.

This materially conflicts with any later portrayal suggesting that Sarah immediately regarded the January encounters as forced, feared the household, or wanted to escape further contact.

Why It Matters

The importance of this evidence comes from the combined record:

1. Sarah later told police that she willingly participated in both January encounters.
2. Her immediate messages contain no complaint of assault or coercion.
3. She continued warm, ordinary communication with Lucas.
4. She expressly suggested returning to the household.

Source

January 20–21, 2019 text messages between Sarah and Lucas. Lucas’s messages appear in blue and Sarah’s messages appear in gray.

May 5–7, 2019: Sarah Clarifies That She Invited Onision to Visit Her

Months after the January 2019 encounters, Sarah clarified that her earlier invitation to “come visit me” had been directed at Onision and apologized for not inviting Lucas and the children as well.

On May 5, 2019, Sarah clarified an earlier invitation she had made to Onision:

“Hey I just wanted to clarify that when I said ‘come visit me’ I should’ve said y’all or something. I didn’t mean to make it seem like you and the kids weren’t invited.”

Her wording establishes that the original invitation was directed specifically at Onision. Sarah was not merely responding to an invitation from the household; she had asked Onision to travel to Michigan and visit her. She then apologized for making Lucas feel excluded:

“I also wasn’t being super serious but regardless I’m sorry I said it like that.”

Two days later, Sarah added:

“Sorry I’m not trying to cause problems”

The Contradiction

Sarah later portrayed Onision as having violently assaulted her during the January 2019 trip.

Approximately four months after the January 2019 incident later portrayed as a violent assault that Lucas passively witnessed, Sarah apologized for hurting Lucas, called him “the best friend I ever had,” and said she loved him “so much.”

Yet only months after that alleged event, Sarah personally invited the same man to travel across the country and visit her in Michigan. Her concern was not that Onision might come, it was that Lucas and the children might believe they had been excluded.

That is the opposite of the later narrative.

The messages show Sarah:

• Initiating the possibility of another visit with Onision
• Directing the original invitation specifically to him
• Expanding the invitation to include Lucas and the children
• Apologizing because her wording might create relationship conflict
• Expressing no fear, avoidance, or accusation toward Onision

Why It Matters

Sarah’s later account asks the public to believe that Onision had recently committed a violent sexual assault against her.

Her contemporaneous conduct shows that, afterward, she was inviting him to visit her in another state.

The conflict is direct: Sarah’s private messages treated Onision as someone she wanted to see again, while her later complaint recast him as the perpetrator of a brutal assault.

The invitation supports Onision and Lucas’s position that Sarah’s later allegations do not match how she privately described or treated the January 2019 events at the time.

Source

May 5–7, 2019 text messages between Sarah and Lucas. Sarah’s messages appear in gray.

June 2019: Sarah Returns, Has Sex With Onision and Lucas, and Agrees to Date Onision

Sarah told police that she returned to Washington, had sex with Onision and Lucas, described the encounter as “fine,” and agreed to become Onision’s girlfriend during the same visit.

Sarah told police that she voluntarily returned to Washington for approximately one week at the end of June 2019.

The report states:

“She told me Jackson tried to convince [Sarah] and Kai to participate in a ‘threesome’ and on the last night of her visit, the three of them had sex.”

Sarah described the encounter as:

“fine”

The report further records that Sarah:

“admitted that she also agreed to be Jackson’s girlfriend during the visit despite his marriage to Kai.”

The Contradiction

Sarah later portrayed Onision as someone who had previously subjected her to a violent sexual assault.

Her statement to police establishes a very different sequence:

• Sarah voluntarily returned to Washington.
• She participated in another sexual encounter involving Onision and Lucas.
• She described the encounter as “fine.”
• She agreed to enter a romantic relationship with Onision.
• She remained willing to associate sexually and romantically with the household.

This was not merely continued communication from a distance. Sarah physically returned to the home, participated in sex, and agreed to become Onision’s girlfriend.

Why It Matters

Sarah’s later assault narrative requires the January and June encounters to be interpreted through claims of fear, coercion, and victimization.

Her own police account contradicts that interpretation.

After the earlier encounters, Sarah returned voluntarily, had sex with both adults again, called the experience “fine,” and agreed to date Onision.

The contemporaneous record supports Onision and Lucas’s position that Sarah willingly pursued an adult sexual and romantic relationship and later recast those consensual events as assault.

Source

Pierce County Sheriff Department Incident Report 2005101355.1, documenting Sarah’s account of her June 2019 visit.

July 2019: Sarah Tells Police the Sex Was Consensual and Confirms Onision Accused Her of Blackmail

Sarah told police that she returned to Washington in late July 2019, had consensual sex with Onision while Lucas was away, and that Onision later accused her of blackmailing him into sex before the relationship ended.

Sarah told police that she returned to Washington in late July 2019 while Lucas was traveling in New Mexico.

The report states:

“She said Kai had travelled to New Mexico so she and Jackson were alone at the house for the first time.”

Sarah then admitted:

“She and Jackson engaged in sexual intercourse during the trip and admitted it had been consensual.”

The report further records:

“Jackson claimed she had ‘blackmailed’ him into having sex and they ultimately ‘broke up.’”

The Original Dispute

Sarah’s own police statement establishes the central facts:

• She voluntarily returned to Washington.
• She was alone with Onision while Lucas was away.
• She had sexual intercourse with Onision.
• She expressly admitted that the intercourse was consensual.
• Onision accused Sarah of blackmailing him into sex.
• The relationship ended.

According to Onision’s chronology, he confronted Sarah approximately two days into the visit, refused further sexual involvement, accused her of sexual extortion, and ended the relationship.

The contemporaneous conflict therefore involved Onision accusing Sarah of sexual misconduct, not Sarah accusing Onision of assaulting her.

The Later Reversal

Sarah later portrayed the July encounter as part of a broader pattern of sexual coercion and assault.

Her police statement records the opposite:

“[She] admitted it had been consensual.”

It also confirms that Onision’s blackmail accusation was already part of the relationship’s collapse. This was not an explanation invented after Sarah filed suit; Sarah herself reported the accusation to police.

The later narrative reverses the original roles:

1. Sarah returned voluntarily.
2. Sarah admitted the sex was consensual.
3. Onision accused Sarah of blackmailing him into sex.
4. Onision ended the relationship.
5. Sarah later recast Onision as the sexual aggressor.

Why It Matters

This is one of the clearest contradictions in the record.

Sarah did not merely fail to accuse Onision of rape during her police interview. She affirmatively admitted that the July intercourse was consensual.

She also confirmed the existence of Onision’s accusation that she had blackmailed him into sex and that the relationship then ended.

The police record supports Onision and Lucas’s position that Sarah later reversed a consensual encounter and the accusation originally made against her into an assault narrative against Onision.

Source

Pierce County Sheriff Department Incident Report 2005101355.1, documenting Sarah’s account of her late-July 2019 visit.

July 6, 2019: U-Haul Receipt Corroborates the Trip During Which Onision Says He Rejected Sarah’s Sexual Advance

A July 6, 2019 U-Haul receipt corroborates the furniture-moving trip during which Onision says Sarah placed her face on his lap while he was driving and attempted to initiate oral sex. Onision states that he rejected the advance and did not permit sexual contact.

A U-Haul receipt dated July 6, 2019 corroborates that Onision rented equipment while moving furniture with Sarah during her June 30–July 8 visit.

Onision recorded that while he was driving the U-Haul, Sarah placed her head face-down on his lap, turned her face toward his genital area, and appeared to be attempting to initiate oral sex.

According to Onision, he did not reciprocate, did not give her access to his genitals, and continued driving until Sarah eventually returned to her seat.

The Direction of the Advance

This account is significant because it identifies Sarah as the person initiating sexual contact and Onision as the person refusing it.

The sequence described by Onision is:

1. Sarah positioned her face on Onision’s lap while he was driving.
2. She turned toward his genital area.
3. Onision did not engage with the advance.
4. He prevented the interaction from becoming sexual.
5. Sarah eventually stopped and returned to her seat.

This directly conflicts with Sarah’s later portrayal of Onision as a sexual aggressor.

Here, Onision describes the opposite dynamic: Sarah initiated, and he maintained the boundary.

The Wider June–July 2019 Record

This incident occurred during the same general visit in which Sarah later told police that:

• She voluntarily returned to Washington.
• She participated in sex with Onision and Lucas.
• The encounter was “fine.”
• She agreed to become Onision’s girlfriend.

The U-Haul account adds another relevant detail to that chronology: Sarah allegedly continued initiating sexual contact with Onision outside the threesome, and Onision rejected this advance, and another advance where she indicated she wanted to perform oral sex on him while they watched the live action Aladdin in theaters. Onision refused to engage in that act with her as well.

The Contradiction

Sarah’s later allegations present Onision as the consistent pursuer.

Onision’s recorded account presents the reverse:

• Sarah pursued additional sexual contact.
• The advance occurred while they were alone.
• Onision did not exploit the opportunity.
• He refused the advance.
• He did not turn the situation into sexual contact beyond Sarah forcing her nose directly on the zipper area of his pants.

That conduct is inconsistent with the later depiction of Onision as someone determined to obtain sexual access to Sarah regardless of consent.

Why It Matters

The U-Haul receipt independently confirms the trip and date. Onision’s account documents what he says happened during that trip: Sarah initiated a sexual advance, and he rejected it.

This evidence supports the Onision household’s position that Sarah was not being relentlessly pursued or sexually controlled. She was actively initiating contact, while Onision was capable of refusing her and enforcing boundaries.

It also undermines the later attempt to portray every sexual interaction as originating from Onision’s alleged aggression. The contemporaneous chronology includes Sarah pursuing Onision and Onision saying no.

Source

U-Haul contract and receipt dated July 6, 2019, together with Onision’s recorded account of Sarah’s conduct during the associated furniture-moving trip.

July 19–20, 2019: Sarah Says She Is Safe, Then Lucas Offers to Fly Her Home

These messages document the period immediately surrounding the end of Sarah’s relationship with Onision.

After Onision ended the relationship, Lucas offered to purchase Sarah an earlier flight home. Sarah considered leaving that day or the next but ultimately remained until her originally scheduled departure.

On July 19, Sarah directly stated:

“Hey I’m at the house again and safe I’m really sorry for worrying you I shouldn’t have done that”

Lucas responded:

“Glad you’re safe.”

This is direct contemporaneous evidence. Sarah was inside the same household she would later portray as the setting of coercion and brutal sexual abuse, yet expressly described herself as safe there. The following morning, Sarah reported:

“He officially broke up with me just FYI”

This followed the confrontation in which Onision says he accused Sarah of sexually extorting him, Sarah apologized twice, and Onision ended the relationship. Sarah then referred to an offer Lucas had already made:

“I might take you up on your offer I’ll let you know”

When Lucas asked whether she meant an airline ticket, Sarah confirmed:

“Yeah”

Lucas immediately began helping her arrange an early departure:

“Alright well the earlier you let me know the cheaper it’ll be”

He then asked:

“Are you trying to leave today?”

Sarah considered flights for that day or the following day. She ultimately declined the early-flight option and returned to Michigan according to her original schedule.

What the Messages Establish

The messages establish that:

• Sarah voluntarily returned to the household and directly described herself as safe in the same house as Onision.
• Lucas confirmed that she was safe around Onision.
• Onision ended the relationship.
• Sarah was free to leave immediately.
• Lucas offered to purchase her an earlier flight.
• Sarah controlled whether she left that day, the following day, or at her originally scheduled time.
• Sarah remained in communication with people outside the household.
• Sarah ultimately chose not to leave early, and instead, stay "safe" in the house with Onision.

The household was not detaining, isolating, or preventing Sarah from leaving. Lucas was actively offering financial and logistical assistance to send her home.

The Reversal of Roles

The contemporaneous sequence is materially different from Sarah’s later narrative:

1. Onision accused Sarah of sexual wrongdoing.
2. Sarah apologized twice for raping Onision (claiming later she was just telling rape jokes, and claims it was not sincere).
3. Onision rejected Sarah and ended the relationship.
4. Sarah returned to the house and stated that she was safe.
5. Lucas offered to fly her home early.
6. Sarah controlled the timing of her departure.
7. Sarah later portrayed herself as the victim and Onision as the sexual aggressor.

The person Onision accused of sexual extortion later accused him of sexual assault. The man who rejected her and ended the relationship was later recast as the aggressor. The home Sarah expressly called safe was later portrayed as a place of coercion and violent abuse.

Why It Matters

Sarah’s later account depends on portraying her as frightened, controlled, trapped, and powerless inside the household.

Her own messages show the opposite.

She directly described herself as safe, had unrestricted outside communication, was offered immediate transportation home, and independently chose when to leave.

The contemporaneous record supports Onision and Lucas’s position that Sarah was not being held, controlled, or deprived of the ability to escape. It also shows that the roles later presented publicly were reversed from the conflict documented at the time.

Source

July 19–20, 2019 text messages between Sarah and Lucas, together with the associated travel chronology. Lucas’s messages appear in blue and Sarah’s messages appear in gray.

July 20, 2019: Ring Footage Records Sarah Leaving After Onision Ends the Relationship

Ring footage dated July 20, 2019 records Sarah leaving the Onision household immediately after Onision confronted her over alleged sexual extortion and ended the relationship.

Ring footage dated July 20, 2019 records Sarah leaving the Onision household with her belongings after Onision ended their relationship.

According to Onision, immediately before Sarah left, he confronted her over what he regarded as sexual extortion and told her that he could no longer continue the relationship. Onision states that Sarah responded twice:

“I’m sorry for raping you guys.”

The still image captures Sarah walking away from the residence immediately after that confrontation. The Ring event history displayed beneath the video places the recording at approximately 11:00 a.m. on July 20, 2019.

The Original Direction of the Accusation

The contemporaneous sequence recorded by the Onision household was:

1. Onision accused Sarah of raping him and his spouse via sexual extorting them.
2. Sarah apologized twice.
3. Onision rejected further sexual and romantic involvement.
4. Sarah left the household.
5. Later that day, Sarah acknowledged in messages that Onision was furious specifically with her.
6. Years later Sarah reversed the roles and accused Onision of sexual assault.

This footage therefore documents the moment the relationship ended because Onision accused Sarah of sexual wrongdoing.

The Contradiction

Sarah later portrayed herself as the victim of severe sexual violence by Onision specifically during the earlier January time frame, only to admit on legal documents to repeatedly returning to the Onision household, and having sex with Onision over and over again.

The documented July 2019 chronology shows the opposite of one of many of Sarah's alternating accounts occurring at the time: Onision accused Sarah, rejected her, and terminated the relationship. Sarah then left and later confirmed to police that the intercourse during this visit had been consensual on her part.

The later assault narrative reverses the original accusation and removes the context explaining why Onision ended the relationship.

Why It Matters

This Ring record fixes the date and departure in the timeline.

Read together with Sarah’s police statement and her messages later that day, it supports the Onision household’s account that:

• Sarah voluntarily returned to Washington.
• She had consensual sex with Onision.
• Onision accused her of sexual extortion.
• Onision ended the relationship.
• Sarah left after the confrontation.
• Sarah later transformed the person who accused and rejected her into the alleged perpetrator.

The footage preserves the immediate aftermath of the confrontation that ended the relationship and preceded Sarah’s later reversal of the story.

Source

Ring front-door recording and event history dated July 20, 2019, together with Onision’s account of the confrontation immediately preceding Sarah’s departure.

July 20, 2019: After Onision Accuses Sarah of Sexual Extortion, She Acknowledges His Anger

This exchange occurred immediately after Onision accused Sarah of sexually extorting him and ended the relationship.

After Onision accused Sarah of sexually extorting him, ended the relationship, and became furious with her, Sarah acknowledged that his anger was directed at her and told Lucas, “I hope you’re both okay.”

According to Onision, Sarah apologized to him twice after being confronted. The messages show the aftermath.

Lucas wrote:

“I can’t gauge if he’s mad at me or not”

Sarah responded:

“He’s not he’s pissed at me”

She added:

“I haven’t seen him this mad at me since he kicked me out last. You’re good dude.”

Sarah clearly understood that Onision’s anger was directed at her because he knew she had sexually wronged them, and she had just apologized two times for doing so. Lucas replied:

“It’s sad that we’re all going through this. I hope it gets better for all of us”

Sarah answered:

“Me too. It’s just very eye opening for me I guess”

She then stated:

“I hope you’re both okay”

The Relevant Context

The central fact is not merely that Onision and Sarah had argued.

The conflict began because Onision accused Sarah of sexual extortion, confronted her, and ended the relationship. According to Onision, Sarah apologized twice before leaving. Sarah would later claim she was just kidding around when she apologized twice for raping Onision & Lucas via sexual extortion. Thus admitting, the apology occurred, but claiming right after she had been rejected and dumped, that she was in the mood to make a joke about raping people.

The messages then show Sarah:

• Confirming that Onision was furious specifically with her
• Reassuring Lucas that he had done nothing wrong
• Expressing concern for both Onision and Lucas
• Making no claim that Onision had sexually harmed her
• Treating herself as the person Onision believed had crossed a serious boundary

The Later Reversal

The contemporaneous sequence was:

1. Onision accused Sarah of sexually extorting him.
2. Sarah apologized twice, according to Onision & Sarah's later confession.
3. Onision ended the relationship.
4. Sarah acknowledged that he was furious with her.
5. Sarah later recast herself as the victim and Onision as the sexual aggressor when pursuing Google for millions of dollars.

The later assault allegations invert the original conflict.

At the time, Onision was the person alleging sexual wrongdoing, while Sarah understood that his anger was directed at her and still told Lucas:

“I hope you’re both okay”

Why It Matters

This exchange documents the immediate aftermath of Onision accusing Sarah of sexual coercion.

Sarah’s later allegations reverse the roles: the person originally accused of sexually extorting Onision later portrayed Onision as the perpetrator.

The contemporaneous messages support Onision and Lucas’s position that Sarah’s later account was a reversal of what actually caused the relationship to collapse.

Source

July 20, 2019 text messages between Sarah and Lucas, following Onision’s accusation that Sarah had sexually extorted him and his decision to end the relationship. Lucas’s messages appear in blue and Sarah’s messages appear in gray.

Airport Context and Sarah’s Later Statement

These messages show that Sarah expected Onision to personally drive her to the airport:

“I assumed JJ was still going to take me since he has a flight too”

After Lucas offered to purchase an earlier flight home, Sarah remained in Washington and continued with her original travel schedule. The messages show Lucas checking that she had transportation and Sarah arranging her own lodging and airport ride.

Sarah later publicly referred to having begged Onision for forgiveness. That statement places the forgiveness conversation during the same departure documented here.

The combined chronology is significant:

1. Lucas offered Sarah an earlier flight home.
2. Sarah declined and remained until her original departure date.
3. Sarah had already described herself as safe around the household.
4. She expected Onision—the person she later accused—to transport her to the airport.
5. Onision did take her to the airport, where Sarah later acknowledged begging him for forgiveness.
6. Onision states that Sarah cried on his shoulder and explained that she had sexually extorted them because she “wanted a boyfriend.”

Sarah was not avoiding Onision, seeking protection from him, or attempting to escape his control. She remained through the end of the trip, trusted him with her transportation, and sought his forgiveness at the airport.

The Contradiction

Sarah later portrayed Onision as controlling her movements and subjecting her to brutal sexual violence.

Her contemporaneous conduct shows the reverse. After Onision accused her of sexual extortion and ended the relationship, Sarah:

• Said she was safe
• Declined an earlier flight home
• Remained until her planned departure
• Expected Onision to drive her to the airport
• Accepted transportation from him
• Begged him for forgiveness during the airport interaction

The person Sarah later portrayed as her captor was the person she trusted to complete her journey home. Her later statement about begging for forgiveness also confirms that the airport encounter occurred and that she—not Onision—was seeking forgiveness.

This evidence directly undermines claims that the household controlled Sarah’s travel, prevented her from leaving, or made her fear being alone with Onision.

August 27, 2019: Sarah Publicly Admits That She Wanted to Be With Onision

During her August 27, 2019 livestream, Sarah directly admitted that she wanted a relationship with Onision: “Yeah, I wanted to be with Greg too.”

During an August 27, 2019 YouNow livestream, Sarah was directly asked whether she had genuinely wanted to be with Onision.

The interviewer asked:

“Did you really even want to be with Greg, I thought that you liked Kai”

Sarah answered:

“Well I guess simple answer is like yeah I, I wanted to be with Greg too.”

This was a direct public admission made after Sarah’s sexual and romantic involvement with Onision had already ended.

The Admission Is Unambiguous

Sarah did not say that she merely tolerated Onision, dated him to appease Lucas, or entered the relationship against her wishes.

She stated plainly:

“I wanted to be with Greg too.”

Her statement confirms that her interest was not limited to Lucas. Sarah wanted a romantic relationship with Onision and publicly acknowledged that desire after the relationship collapsed.

The Chronology

By the time Sarah made this statement:

1. She had engaged in sexual activity with Onision and Lucas in January 2019.
2. She had invited Onision to visit her in Michigan.
3. She had voluntarily returned to Washington in June.
4. She had sex with Onision and Lucas again and described it to police as “fine.”
5. She had agreed to become Onision’s girlfriend.
6. She returned again in July and later admitted to police that the sex with Onision was consensual.
7. Onision accused Sarah of sexual extortion and ended the relationship.
8. Sarah nevertheless publicly admitted that she had wanted to be with him.

The livestream admission aligns with Sarah’s contemporaneous conduct and her original statements to police: she was actively pursuing an adult sexual and romantic relationship with Onision.

The Contradiction

Sarah’s later allegations portray her involvement with Onision as the product of coercion, manipulation, and sexual victimization.

Her own public statement presents the relationship differently:

• She wanted to be with Onision.
• She agreed to become his girlfriend.
• She repeatedly returned to Washington.
• She described the sexual activity as willing, “fine,” and consensual.
• She continued seeking a relationship with him.
• She admitted this publicly after the relationship had ended.

This directly undermines any portrayal that Onision imposed an entirely unwanted romantic relationship upon Sarah or that she had no independent desire to be with him.

Why It Matters

Sarah’s admission was made publicly, after she was no longer living with or dating Onision and after he had ended the relationship.

She therefore had no need to privately reassure the household or preserve the relationship when she stated:

“I wanted to be with Greg too.”

The statement supports Onision and Lucas’s position that Sarah willingly pursued the relationship and later recast her voluntary romantic and sexual choices as coercion and assault.

Source

Sarah’s August 27, 2019 YouNow livestream, approximately 00:29:32–00:29:49.

Original YouNow account: https://www.younow.com/sarahbear8500

Preserved public reupload: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc2UDXaZzDk&themeRefresh=1

August 27, 2019: Sarah Confirms Onision Accused Her of Blackmail Before Ending the Relationship

Sarah publicly confirmed that Onision repeatedly accused her of blackmailing him and that she became angry and stormed out when he ended the relationship.

During her August 27, 2019 YouNow livestream, Sarah publicly confirmed the original direction of the blackmail accusation.

Sarah stated:

“He broke up with me because I got fucking pissed off and stormed out of the house, like, with all of my shit, because he had kept saying that I had blackmailed him.”

This is direct evidence of who accused whom.

Sarah acknowledged that:

• Onision repeatedly accused her of blackmailing him.
• Sarah became angry in response to that accusation.
• Sarah gathered her belongings and stormed out.

The Original Accusation Was Against Sarah

The dispute centered on Onision accusing Sarah of blackmailing him into sex.

Sarah recounts telling Onision and Lucas, “Only if we do stuff will I sign the papers,” before claiming during the livestream that the statement was “a fucking joke.”

Sarah later acknowledged making two “I’m sorry for raping you guys” apologies, although she attempted to dismiss them as sarcasm or a joke. Her livestream account omits those apologies while confirming the accusation that prompted them.

The documented sequence is:

1. Onision accused Sarah of sexual extortion.
2. Sarah made two apologies using the words “I’m sorry for raping you guys.”
3. Sarah later claimed those apologies were sarcastic or joking.
4. Sarah became angry and stormed out with her belongings.
5. Onision ended the relationship.
6. Sarah later reversed the roles and accused Onision of sexual wrongdoing when a multi-million dollar payout from Google was potentially on the line.

The Contradiction

Sarah’s later narrative portrays Onision as the sexual aggressor and herself as the victim.

Her own August 2019 livestream confirms that the original accusation ran in the opposite direction. Onision was accusing Sarah of blackmailing him.

This admission also matches Sarah’s later police statement that Onision claimed she had “blackmailed” him into having sex and that they ultimately broke up.

Sarah admits that she refused to sign the mutual NDA unless she “got something out of it,” then states that she “got what I wanted.”

The accusation was therefore not invented years later in response to litigation. Sarah publicly acknowledged it in 2019 and later repeated it to law enforcement.

Why It Matters

This statement fixes the original conflict in the timeline.

Sarah knew that Onision believed she had sexually extorted them. She became angry according to her, she apologized, but as a "joke" according to her, she stormed out.

Her later allegations reversed that documented sequence by transforming the person who accused and rejected her into the alleged perpetrator.

Sarah’s own words establish:

“He had kept saying that I had blackmailed him.”

That admission directly supports Onision and Lucas’s position, not her most recent change of story.

Source

Sarah’s August 27, 2019 YouNow livestream, approximately 01:10:16–01:10:41.

Original YouNow account: https://www.younow.com/sarahbear8500

Preserved full-stream reupload: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc2UDXaZzDk&themeRefresh=1

September 3, 2019: Sarah Publicly Brags About Having Sex With Onision While Lucas, Onision's Husband & Sarah's Best Friend, Was Away

Sarah publicly bragged that she and Onision had sex while Lucas was in New Mexico, adding defiantly, “Use it against me.”

On September 3, 2019, Sarah publicly posted:

“Greg and I fucked while Kai was in New Mexico. Use it against me.”

Sarah’s Boastful and Defiant Presentation

Sarah did not present the encounter as unwanted, frightening, coercive, or assaultive.

She publicly bragged about having sex with Onision while Lucas was away and challenged others to criticize her for it:

“Use it against me.”

The wording is confrontational and boastful. Sarah portrays herself as a willing participant openly claiming responsibility for the encounter—not as someone describing victimization.

The Later Contradiction

Sarah later incorporated the same relationship into a narrative of coercion and sexual assault.

That portrayal directly conflicts with how she publicly discussed the encounter shortly afterward. She did not accuse Onision of violating her. She bragged that they had sex and defiantly invited people to hold it against her.

Why It Matters

The post supports the chronology established by Sarah’s private messages and police statements:

1. Sarah voluntarily returned to Washington.
2. She had consensual sex with Onision while Lucas was away.
3. She publicly bragged about the encounter.
4. She challenged critics to “use it against” her.
5. She later recast the consensual relationship as sexual victimization.

The contemporaneous record supports Onision and Lucas’s position that Sarah later rewrote an adult relationship she had previously pursued, admitted, and publicly boasted about.

Source

Sarah’s public social-media post dated September 3, 2019.

Original account:

https://twitter.com/notsolillioness

Archived account captures:

https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/https://twitter.com/notsolillioness

September 3, 2019: Sarah Publicly Mocks Onision’s Accusation That She Sexually Extorted Him

Sarah publicly responded “rip” and “damn he mad” after reposting Onision’s accusation that she had used blackmail and committed sexual wrongdoing against him and Lucas.

On September 3, 2019, Sarah publicly shared a message in which Onision described her as a:

“blackmailing, lying, child-harming rapist”

Sarah responded:

“rip”

She then added:

“damn he mad”

What This Establishes

Sarah clearly understood that Onision was accusing her of blackmail and sexual wrongdoing. She did not publicly dispute the direction of the accusation or claim that she had accused him first. Instead, she mocked his anger and reduced the accusation to a punchline.

This is consistent with Sarah’s other admissions:

• Onision repeatedly accused her of blackmailing him.
• Sarah acknowledged saying, “I’m sorry for raping you guys” twice, later claiming sarcasm.
• She admitted saying she would sign the NDA only if they “do stuff.”
• She admitted refusing to sign unless she “got something out of it.”
• She stated that she “got what I wanted.”

The post is important because it preserves Sarah’s reaction before the later reversal of roles. At the time, Onision was publicly identifying himself and Lucas as the people wronged by Sarah’s alleged sexual pressure. Sarah’s response was not confusion—it was ridicule.

Her later assault narrative transformed the person accusing her of sexual misconduct into the alleged perpetrator while omitting the original accusation, her admitted apologies, and her own statements about withholding the NDA until she received what she wanted.

Source

Sarah’s public social-media posts dated September 3, 2019.

Original account:

https://twitter.com/notsolillioness

Archived account captures:

https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/https://twitter.com/notsolillioness

September 4, 2019: Sarah Confirms She Begged Onision to Forgive Her After Her Two Sexual Extortion Apologies

Sarah publicly admitted that she sobbed while holding Onision and begged him for forgiveness after twice apologizing for raping Onision and Lucas, contradicting her later claim that the apologies were merely sarcastic jokes.

On September 4, 2019, Sarah publicly wrote:

“remember when you made me feel so guilty that I was sobbing while holding you and begging for you to forgive me?

I bet that made you feel powerful.

do you feel powerful now?”

This statement is directly connected to Sarah’s two earlier apologies:

“I’m sorry for raping you guys.”

Sarah later admitted that she made both apologies but attempted to dismiss them as sarcasm or a joke.

Her own chronology defeats that explanation:

1. Onision accused Sarah of sexually extorting him while breaking up with her.
2. Sarah seriously apologized twice for raping Onision and Lucas.
3. Sarah became upset and stormed away.
4. At the airport, Onision held Sarah as she was crying, Sarah sobbed, and begged him to forgive her.
5. Sarah later publicly admitted that the forgiveness scene occurred.
6. Only afterward did she attempt to characterize the original apologies as sarcasm or joking.

The Contradiction

Sarah’s public admission that she begged Onision for forgiveness gives the earlier apologies serious context.

If the two apologies were merely meaningless sarcasm, her later decision to cry and be held by Onision at the airport, sob, and beg for his forgiveness makes no sense. Her own statements establish both parts of the sequence:

• She admitted making the two apologies.
• She admitted later begging Onision to forgive her.

Sarah attempts to reframe the airport interaction by claiming Onision “made” her feel guilty. That does not erase what she admitted doing or explain why she believed forgiveness was necessary.

The evidence preserves a direct credibility contradiction: Sarah first apologized twice, later begged forgiveness, and only after the fact attempted to dismiss the apologies for her sexual extortion as jokes.

Source

Sarah’s public Twitter post dated September 4, 2019.

Original account:

https://twitter.com/notsolillioness

Archived account captures:

https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/https://twitter.com/notsolillioness

September 4, 2019: Sarah Publishes Onision’s Detailed Accusation Against Her and Responds “damn he mad”

Sarah publicly shares Onision’s detailed accusations against her and responds, “damn he mad.”

On September 4, 2019, Sarah publicly posted screenshots of a detailed private message from Onision accusing her of blackmail, sexual extortion, violating Lucas’s boundaries, and conducting a dishonest public campaign.

Sarah responded:

“damn he mad”

The message Sarah published states, among other things:

“You blackmailed us which is illegal in the way you did.”

“You raped Kai, not only with the crime of sexual extortion... but also raped Kai when he flirted with you as an adult from afar,

The private message published by Sarah accuses her of blackmail and of ignoring Lucas’s repeated expressions of discomfort.

but said he was uncomfortable repeatedly to you in person. You knew he was uncomfortable, and did what you did anyway. You forced him.”

It further states:

“We haven’t gone public about your blackmail, sexual extortion and rape because we don’t want to violate the NDA...”

The final screenshot records Onision’s account of the confrontation that ended the relationship:

“After you admitted to raping Kai via sexual extortion, after also raping Kai when he clearly was not into you and you pushed anyway, you stormed off because I refused to have sex with you. I refused to even kiss you.”

Evidentiary Significance

Sarah’s own post proves that she received these specific accusations in September 2019, long before the later litigation.

Onision states that the household remained silent because of the mutual NDA while Sarah violated the agreement and pursued a public campaign.

The accusations were not invented after Sarah sued. At the time, Onision was already asserting that:

• Sarah used the unsigned NDA as sexual leverage.
• Lucas had expressed discomfort that Sarah ignored.
• Sarah admitted wrongdoing and apologized.
• Onision rejected further sexual contact and ended the relationship.
• Sarah stormed off after being rejected.
• The household had remained publicly silent because of the mutual NDA.

Sarah did not answer these allegations with a factual denial in the post. She published them and mocked Onision’s anger with:

“damn he mad”

The screenshots conclusively establish that the allegations were made contemporaneously, were received by Sarah, and were publicly circulated by Sarah herself.

The message records the household’s contemporaneous account that Sarah admitted wrongdoing, was rejected by Onision, and stormed away after he refused further sexual contact.

That chronology is reinforced by Sarah’s separate admissions that she:

• Conditioned signing the NDA on “doing stuff”
• Wanted to “get something out of it”
• “Got what I wanted”
• Made two “I’m sorry for raping you guys” apologies
• Later begged Onision to forgive her at the airport
• Subsequently attempted to dismiss the apologies as sarcasm or jokes

Sarah’s later portrayal reversed the original dispute. In September 2019, the documented accusation ran from Onision and Lucas against Sarah; Sarah’s response was ridicule rather than a substantive rebuttal.

Source

Sarah’s public Twitter post dated September 4, 2019.

Original account:

https://twitter.com/notsolillioness

Archived account captures:

https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/https://twitter.com/notsolillioness

September 11, 2019: Sarah Claims She Helped Onision Cheat, Despite the Relationship’s Actual Rules

Sarah claimed that she helped Onision cheat on Lucas, assigning herself responsibility for the consensual encounter, although Onision states that he did not intentionally pass the relationship’s agreed boundaries with Lucas.

On September 11, 2019, Sarah publicly wrote:

“He was my best friend/first love and I helped his husband cheat on him”

This is Sarah’s characterization of the July encounter. It is not proof that Onision intentionally violated the rules of his relationship with Lucas.

According to Onision, the agreement for Lucas’s absence prohibited vaginal and oral sex but did not address anal sex. Onision states that he and Sarah engaged in anal sex approximately six to eight times over two days. He says the encounters were initially unplanned and Aquaphor was used, but Sarah later requested that they purchase a dedicated lubricant so they could continue having sex more frequently and with less friction.

During one encounter, accidental vaginal penetration briefly occurred. He states that Sarah immediately urged him to impregnate her, specifically shouting "cum in me". Onision refused, corrected the penetration, and interpreted Sarah’s request as evidence that she wanted a permanent tie to him/extort him for decades, despite Lucas’s interests.

That context materially changes Sarah’s accusation of “cheating”:

• The sexual activity was consensual on Sarah's part.
• Sarah actively participated.
• Sarah later admitted to police that the intercourse was consensual on her part as well.
• Sarah publicly bragged that they had sex while Lucas was away.
• Sarah described herself as helping Onision cheat.
• Onision did not intentionally violate the agreed boundary with Lucas.
• Sarah’s alleged request to become pregnant showed disregard for the person she called her “best friend” and “first love.”

Sarah also posted:

“Why Kai? I thought you were saving me.”

and:

“Kai is not innocent. However, I’ve seen what Greg does to him and it’s mental torture. Nobody deserves that.”

The Contradiction

Sarah assigns herself responsibility when discussing the encounter publicly, saying she “helped” it happen. That conflicts with her later portrayal of herself as powerless and sexually controlled.

Her posts also attempt to place blame on Onision while minimizing her own conduct toward Lucas. She called Lucas her best friend, admitted participating in sex while he was away, and urged Onision to impregnate her during the encounter.

The evidence supports the household’s position that Sarah knowingly pursued the relationship and later reframed consensual conduct as coercion while describing the relationship’s internal rules inaccurately.

Source

Sarah’s public Twitter posts dated September 11, 2019.

Original account: https://twitter.com/notsolillioness

Archived account captures: https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/https://twitter.com/notsolillioness

September 12, 2019: Sarah Confirms She Understood the Relationship’s Sexual Boundaries

Sarah stated that she and Onision were “allowed to do certain things” while Lucas was away, confirming that sexual activity was contemplated under specific relationship boundaries.

On September 12, 2019, Sarah publicly wrote:

“We were allowed to do certain things but not have sex. But we did. I’m unsure if Kai knows.”

Sarah’s wording confirms that she understood the relationship operated under specific negotiated boundaries. Sexual contact was not categorically prohibited; certain activity was expressly permitted, while what the participants called “sex” was restricted.

Her statement also assigns herself agency:

• She says “we were allowed.”
• She says “we did.”
• She describes herself as a participant who knew the rules.
• She does not describe the conduct as forced or imposed upon her.

The agreement prohibited vaginal and oral sex but did not address anal sex. The repeated anal encounters occurred within that understanding, while brief vaginal penetration happened accidentally and was corrected shortly after.

The Contradiction

Sarah later portrayed herself as sexually controlled and coerced in the earlier January encounters on legal documents, but to police, she repeatedly reported being consensual during all encounters. Her contemporaneous post instead shows that she knowingly participated in sexual activity, understood the agreed limitations, and publicly discussed whether the conduct crossed those boundaries.

Source

Sarah’s public Twitter post dated September 12, 2019.

Original account: https://twitter.com/notsolillioness

Archived account captures: https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/https://twitter.com/notsolillioness

October 30, 2019: Sarah Affirms That She Was an Adult and Able to Consent During the January Encounter

Sarah affirmatively responds when the interviewer states that she was 18 and able to consent during the January 2019 encounter, matching her later police statement that she participated willingly.

During an October 30, 2019 interview, Sarah described the January 2019 encounter:

“Greg kind of pulled me in and told me to start doing stuff with them.”

The interviewer clarified:

“And you were 18 at this time, so technically this was all legal and you were able to consent.”

Sarah nodded affirmatively and responded:

“Mmhmm.”

The Contradiction

Sarah publicly affirmed that she was an adult and able to consent during the January encounter. She did not dispute the interviewer’s characterization or identify the encounter as rape.

This matches her later statement to police that she was a:

“willing participant in the sexual activity that took place during this trip.”

The interview and police report independently preserve the same original account: Sarah was over 18, legally capable of consenting, and described her participation as willing. Her later assault allegations materially reverse those earlier statements.

Source

Interview dated October 30, 2019, approximately 00:28:08–00:28:34.

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7vma6ynwuy

Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/have-a-seat-with-chris-hansen-ft.-sarah-discussing-onision

October 30, 2019: Sarah Admits Repeatedly Returning to Washington and Having Sex

Sarah states that after returning home and ending contact, she later traveled back to Washington twice and had sex during both visits.

During the October 30, 2019 interview, Sarah described what happened after the January encounter.

She stated that in February she told the household:

“Hey, I want y’all to get out of my life and don’t talk to me again, bye.”

Despite being back in her own state and having ended contact, Sarah admitted that she later resumed communication and returned to Washington:

“I went back out there and we ended up having sex again.”

Sarah continued:

“And then I went back out there again a week after that, just me and Greg, and of course we had sex too.”

The Contradiction

Sarah’s own account establishes that she:

• Returned to her own state
• Ended communication with the household
• Later resumed contact
• Traveled thousands of miles back to Washington
• Had sex during that visit
• Returned again approximately one week later
• Had sex with Onision again

Sarah attempts to reinterpret these voluntary decisions by adding:

“Of course that was his plan all along.”

That is Sarah’s later claim about Onision’s intentions. The concrete chronology she admits is that she repeatedly chose to reconnect, return to Washington, and continue the sexual relationship.

Her repeated voluntary returns directly conflict with her later portrayal of herself as trapped, unable to leave, or deprived of control over the relationship.

Source

Interview dated October 30, 2019, approximately 00:29:01–00:29:55.

YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7vma6ynwuy

Internet Archive:

https://archive.org/details/have-a-seat-with-chris-hansen-ft.-sarah-discussing-onision

October 30, 2019 Interview: Original Upload Made Private, but Archived Copies Preserve Sarah’s Statements

The original upload of Sarah’s October 30, 2019 interview was later made private, removing direct public access to recorded statements that conflict with her later allegations.

The original YouTube upload of Sarah’s October 30, 2019 interview was later made private.

The interview nevertheless survives through a separate YouTube upload and a preserved Internet Archive copy.

This matters because the interview contains several of Sarah’s own statements concerning consent, her repeated decisions to return to Washington, and her reasons for pursuing a relationship with Onision. Those statements materially conflict with the more severe narrative later presented in litigation.

Among other things, Sarah:

• Affirmed that she was 18 and able to consent during the January 2019 encounter
• Admitted that she repeatedly returned to Washington and continued having sex
• Said she chose to “go with Greg” because he was being nice to her
• Described decisions and conduct that conflict with later claims of powerlessness, confinement, and coercive control
• Contained numerous other contradictions of her later changed narratives.

Evidentiary Significance: Selective Removal of Plaintiff Interviews

This was not random channel cleanup.

Sarah’s interview was published through Chris Hansen’s YouTube operation, which was publicly associated with producer Vincent Nicotra. The same channel kept interviews with people who did not become plaintiffs publicly available, while the interviews involving Sarah and Regina were made private.

Hansen also repeatedly interviewed the plaintiffs’ lead attorney, Lisa Haba, on that same channel.

The pattern is significant because Sarah’s interview contained statements that materially conflict with allegations later placed into the lawsuit. In the interview, Sarah:

• Affirmed that she was 18 and capable of consenting during the January encounter
• Admitted that she repeatedly returned to Washington and continued having sex
• Said she chose to pursue Onision because he was “being nice” to her
• Described voluntarily resuming contact after previously ending it
• Admitted traveling thousands of miles back to continue the relationship

The original upload was then made private, removing the easiest public access to those statements while the same channel continued giving exposure to the plaintiffs’ attorney and their litigation narrative.

The sequence is:

1. Sarah gave the recorded interview on October 30, 2019.
2. The interview contained statements damaging to her later allegations.
3. The original Sarah interview was made private.
4. Regina’s interview was also made private.
5. Interviews involving people outside the lawsuit remained publicly available.
6. The same channel repeatedly featured the plaintiffs’ lead attorney.
7. Independent copies preserved Sarah’s statements after the original upload became inaccessible.

The selective removal benefited the plaintiffs’ public narrative by making Sarah’s contradictory prior statements more difficult to locate and review.

Archived copies are therefore essential. They preserve what Sarah said before her account was transformed into the substantially more severe allegations later presented in litigation.

Source

Original YouTube upload, now private: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS5Spil1J10

Prior Preserved YouTube upload: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7vma6ynwuy

Internet Archive preservation: https://archive.org/details/have-a-seat-with-chris-hansen-ft.-sarah-discussing-onision

December 24, 2019: Sarah Again Confirms Onision Accused Her of Sexual Blackmail

In a Newsweek interview, Sarah confirms that Onision accused her of blackmailing him and Lucas into sex, connects the accusation to her NDA “joke,” and states that Onision later drove her to the airport.

In a December 24, 2019 Newsweek interview, Sarah described her final July visit:

“Greg cheated on Kai with me. Greg and I dated for like two weeks.”

She then acknowledged the accusation Onision had made against her:

“He said I had blackmailed them into having sex with me…”

Sarah directly connected that accusation to her admitted NDA demand:

“…because I had made a joke about the NDA.”

This again confirms that the original sexual-blackmail accusation was made by Onision against Sarah. It also shows that Sarah understood the accusation arose from her statement conditioning her NDA signature on sexual activity.

Sarah continued:

“I just packed up all my s**t and left with no car or money. I was going to sleep on the street, and Kai called me saying you can’t do that.”

Her account confirms that Lucas intervened to prevent her from sleeping outside and allowed her to return to safety.

Sarah then stated:

“He drove me to the airport, and that’s the last time I saw him.”

The Contradiction

Sarah’s own interview confirms that:

• She knowingly dated Onision
• She described herself as participating in his alleged infidelity
• Onision accused her of blackmailing him and Lucas into sex
• She connected that accusation to her NDA “joke”
• Lucas helped her after she left
• Onision personally transported her to the airport

This account conflicts with the later portrayal of Sarah as trapped or deprived of control over her travel. She left the house, returned after Lucas expressed concern for her safety, remained until her scheduled departure, and accepted transportation to the airport from Onision.

It also further preserves the original direction of the accusation: Onision accused Sarah of using the NDA to obtain sex. Sarah later attempted to minimize the underlying demand as a joke, despite admitting that she made it, received what she wanted, apologized twice, and later begged Onision for forgiveness.

Source

Newsweek interview with Sarah, published December 24, 2019: https://www.newsweek.com/sarah-her-relationship-youtuber-onision-why-did-you-think-this-was-okay-1479119

March 9, 2020: Sarah Tells Police She Never Said No and Was Unsure Any Crime Occurred

Sarah told police that she had “never told them no,” was unsure she was the victim of any crime, and provided information that led the investigator to conclude no crime had occurred within Pierce County jurisdiction.

On March 9, 2020, the investigator directly asked Sarah whether she had ever been an unwilling participant in 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.”

After reviewing the information Sarah provided, the investigator concluded:

“Based on the information she had provided, I did not believe a crime had taken place in PCSD jurisdiction.”

The Contradiction

This was a direct police interview specifically addressing whether Sarah had been sexually victimized.

Sarah did not report that she resisted, refused, or believed she had been raped. She told police that she never said no and was unsure that she was the victim of any crime.

That statement aligns with her other admissions that the January encounters were willing, the June encounter was “fine,” and the July intercourse was consensual.

It directly conflicts with the later complaint’s portrayal of the same relationship as involving brutal rape, coercion, and repeated sexual assault.

The date should be stated accurately: this interview occurred in March 2020, not 2021. Police contacted Sarah again in January 2021, when she provided no new information and the investigator again concluded that she did not appear to be a crime victim within the department’s jurisdiction.

Source

Pierce County Sheriff Department Incident Report 2005101355.1, documenting Sarah’s March 9, 2020 police interview.