Sarah/Grooming

Chronological Evidence Review

Sarah: Grooming Allegations

Sarah’s later grooming claims compared with her police statements, private messages, interviews, and repeated contemporaneous denials.

Related: Trafficking · Police Reports · Assault · Phone Calls

September 2016: Sarah Told Police That Nothing Sexual Occurred During Her First Trip to Washington

Sarah told police that nothing of a sexual nature occurred during her first trip to Washington in September 2016 while she was 16.

In this police-report excerpt, Sarah described traveling from Michigan to Washington when she was 16 years old after discussing a conflict she had with her mother.

The report states that Sarah visited James and Lucas in September 2016 for Lucas’s baby shower, stayed for approximately five or six days, and then returned to Michigan.

The report records:

“Sarah told me nothing of a sexual nature occurred during this first trip to Washington.”

What the record directly shows

Sarah told law enforcement that no sexual activity occurred during her first visit to the household while she was a minor.

This was not a later online statement, livestream comment, or informal defense of James and Lucas. It was information Sarah provided directly to police while describing the history of her visits.

Why it matters

This statement directly contradicts any account suggesting that sexual conduct occurred during Sarah’s first trip to Washington at age 16.

It also undermines claims that the household was already using her visit to initiate sexual activity, lure her into a sexual relationship, or engage in sexual conduct with her while she was underage.

The record instead shows Sarah telling police that the trip involved no sexual activity.

Source

Excerpt from Pierce County Sheriff Incident Report 2005101355.1 concerning Sarah’s September 2016 visit to Washington.

February 2017: Sarah Told Police She Had No Sexual Contact With James or Lucas During Her Months in Washington

Sarah told police that she had no sexual contact with James or Lucas while living in their Washington household from October 2016 through February 2017.

In this police-report excerpt, Sarah described returning to Washington in October 2016 and living with James and Lucas until late February 2017.

The report states that Sarah helped with household responsibilities, including cleaning, cooking, and caring for the children. It also records that Sarah said she began to “really love” Lucas as a person but did not have the same feelings toward James.

Most importantly, 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 report further records that Sarah said she eventually returned to Michigan because of “all the drama” in the household.

What the record directly shows

Sarah told law enforcement that she had no sexual contact with either James or Lucas during the period when she lived with them from October 2016 through February 2017.

That statement covers several months in the household while Sarah was still a minor. Even while describing private situations such as bathing or showering in Lucas’s presence, she expressly denied that any sexual contact occurred.

Sarah also acknowledged developing strong feelings toward Lucas while stating that she did not feel the same way about James.

The context behind her departure

The phrase “all the drama” does not explain what caused Sarah to leave.

James and Lucas state that Sarah had privately disclosed her romantic intentions toward Lucas to Lane. Once James and Lucas learned that Sarah wanted to pursue Lucas, they rejected the situation and required Sarah to leave the household.

Their position is that Sarah’s departure was not the result of sexual activity initiated by the household. It was the result of James and Lucas discovering Sarah’s concealed intentions toward Lucas and enforcing a boundary against them.

Why it matters

Sarah’s police statement directly contradicts any claim that she had sexual contact with James or Lucas while living in their household as a minor.

The record instead shows:

• Sarah developed feelings toward Lucas.
• She did not share those feelings toward James.
• She denied having sexual contact with either of them.
• When her concealed intentions toward Lucas were discovered, she was removed from the household.

That sequence is inconsistent with the claim that James and Lucas were jointly preparing Sarah for an underage sexual relationship.

Source

Excerpt from Pierce County Sheriff Incident Report 2005101355.1 concerning Sarah’s stay in Washington from October 2016 through February 2017.

September 16, 2017: Sarah Rejects an Allegation Involving a 14-Year-Old

In a September 16, 2017 Twitter exchange, Sarah stated that Greg would have been “disgusted” by conduct involving a 14-year-old and said the person making the allegation was lying.

In this Twitter direct-message exchange, an Onision detractor known as “The Josh” asks Sarah why she does not believe a source making an allegation about Onision.

Sarah responds:

“Because I know Greg and he would not do that. A 14 year old? He would have been disgusted.”

She then adds:

“Whoever your source is is lying to you.”

What the message directly shows

At the time of this conversation, Sarah did not merely say that she was uncertain or lacked information. She affirmatively stated that, based on personally knowing Onision, she believed he would be disgusted by the idea of sexual conduct involving a 14-year-old. She also stated that the person supplying the allegation was lying.

Why it matters

This statement was made before Sarah’s later grooming allegations. It is relevant because it shows that Sarah’s expressed view at the time was that Onision was opposed to sexual involvement with minors and would not engage in the conduct being alleged. The defense contends that this materially conflicts with the later claim that Onision was grooming or sexually targeting minors.

Source

Twitter direct-message conversation dated September 16, 2017, between “The Josh” and Sarah.

April 25, 2018: Sarah Attributes Unwanted Graphic Sexual Discussions to Her Mother, Not Onision or Lucas

Sarah complained that her mother repeatedly discussed her sex life “IN DETAIL” despite Sarah asking her to stop. Lucas responded by comforting Sarah and changing the subject.

On April 25, 2018, Sarah complained to Lucas about unwanted sexual discussions occurring in her home.

Sarah wrote:

“I’m just pissed off my mom is so fucking selfish.”

She explained:

“I have to listen to her talk IN DETAIL about her sex life which I’ve told her a billion times grosses me out”

Sarah further stated that her mother:

“always gets so mad at me when I ask her to not talk to me about that kind of thing”

She described feeling:

“really used and unwanted lately”

Sarah Identifies the Source of the Unwanted Sexual Discussion

Sarah directly attributed these graphic sexual conversations to her mother.

Her account establishes that:

• her mother discussed her sex life in explicit detail
• Sarah had repeatedly asked her mother to stop
• Sarah said the discussions disgusted her
• her mother allegedly ignored Sarah’s stated boundary
• Sarah experienced sexualized conversation in her Michigan home outside the Onision household

This is relevant to later attempts to attribute Sarah’s exposure to sexual subjects primarily or exclusively to Onision and Lucas.

Sarah’s own messages identify a separate and recurring source of unwanted sexual discussion within her family environment.

Lucas’s Response Was Supportive and Nonsexual

Lucas did not exploit Sarah’s distress or continue the sexual subject.

He responded:

“Ugh she’s the worst”

When Sarah said she was sad, Lucas replied:

“I’m sorry”

He then offered to change the subject and comfort her:

“Would you like to see a cute bean to make you feel better”

Sarah answered:

“Yes”

The interaction shows Lucas responding to Sarah’s boundary complaint by offering emotional support and redirecting the conversation away from sex.

Connection to Sarah’s Own Sexual Banter

After Madison privately told Lucas she was thinking about him, Sarah independently sexualized the message, stated that Madison wanted “the long term dick,” and suggested that she wanted to become Lucas’s “3rd.”

This exhibit should be read alongside Sarah’s December 5, 2017 messages concerning Madison.

In that earlier exchange, Sarah independently initiated explicit sexual banter by stating that Madison wanted:

“the long term dick”

and wanted to become Lucas’s:

“3rd”

The combined record shows two distinct facts:

1. Sarah said her mother exposed her to unwanted graphic sexual discussions
2. Sarah initiated sexualized conversations herself

The April 2018 exchange instead documents Sarah identifying her mother as the person who repeatedly ignored her boundary concerning graphic sexual conversation, while Lucas responded by comforting her and changing the subject.

Source

April 25, 2018 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.

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.

October 1, 2018: Sarah Describes Unreciprocated Romantic Feelings Toward Lucas

In this message, sent after Sarah had turned 18, Sarah tells Lucas that she understands he does not have romantic feelings for her.

Sarah writes:

“I’m not mad because you don’t have romantic feelings for me. It hurts but I know you have no control over that just like I have no control over my feelings.”

She also states:

“I’ve known nothing was ever going to happen for 2 years and I still stuck around because regardless of me being in love with you, you were always my best friend before anything else.”

Sarah explains that she had tried for years to overcome her feelings because preserving the friendship was important to her.

What the message directly shows

Sarah described herself as being in love with Lucas while acknowledging that Lucas did not return those romantic feelings. She also stated that she had believed for approximately two years that a relationship was not going to happen.

Why it matters

This message is relevant to the later grooming allegations because Sarah’s contemporaneous account describes the romantic interest as originating with her and being unreciprocated by Lucas. It also indicates that she expected rejection rather than believing that Lucas had promised, encouraged, or prepared her for a future romantic relationship.

Source

Text-message exchange dated October 1, 2018, between Sarah and Lucas.

October 1, 2018: Sarah States She Knew a Relationship With Lucas Was Never Going to Happen

In this message, Sarah explains that she had been in love with Lucas since she was 14 but kept those feelings secret because she believed revealing them could cause her to be removed from James and Lucas’s lives.

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.

Sarah writes:

“I have known for two years it was out of the question not just when I was 16/17 but even after I was 18.”

She then states:

“Greg made it painfully clear multiple times that pigs would fly before I would ever come close to having a chance with you even after my 18th birthday.”

Sarah also says:

“I stayed because you’re my best friend and I love you.”

She explains that she did not begin the friendship for romantic purposes and had originally planned to keep her feelings secret indefinitely.

What the message directly shows

Sarah states that her romantic feelings toward Lucas originated with her, remained unspoken for years, and were not reciprocated. She also states that James repeatedly made clear that a relationship with Lucas would not happen, including after Sarah became an adult.

Why it matters

This message directly contradicts the claim that James or Lucas were cultivating Sarah for a future romantic or sexual relationship. Sarah’s own contemporaneous account describes the opposite: she concealed her feelings, expected rejection, and understood that James firmly opposed the possibility of a relationship.

Source

Text-message exchange dated October 1, 2018, involving Sarah, Lucas, and James.

October 6, 2018: Sarah Says Being Around Lucas in the Bath “Wasn’t” Sexual

Sarah objected to people portraying her presence around Lucas in the bath as sexual, stating directly that “it wasn’t.”

On October 6, 2018, Sarah discussed an incident involving being around Lucas while he was in the bath.

Sarah wrote:

“It just irks me that now people are making me being around you in the bath a sexual thing bc it wasn’t”

Lucas responded:

“But we know that so its ok”

Sarah replied:

“Yeah it just sucks that they’re kicking us when we’re down”

What Sarah’s Statement Establishes

Sarah was aware that people online were interpreting the bathing incident as sexual. She expressly rejected that interpretation.

Her statement establishes that:

• Sarah did not regard the event as sexual
• She believed outsiders were changing the meaning of an innocent interaction
• She objected to the event being used against Lucas
• She and Lucas shared the understanding that nothing sexual had occurred

This was not a later interpretation imposed by Onision or Lucas. Sarah herself identified the allegation, considered its meaning, and stated plainly that the event “wasn’t” sexual.

The message is consistent with Sarah’s later police statement that, although she sometimes bathed or showered while talking with Lucas, she had no sexual contact with either Lucas or Onision during that stay.

Source

October 6, 2018 text-message exchange between Sarah and Lucas.

Lucas’s messages appear in blue. Sarah’s messages appear in gray.

The conversation was displayed on an iPhone and captured using a MacBook.

See also: Sarah: Police Reports

January 4, 2019: Sarah Privately States “Nothing Illegal Has Gone On,” Calls the Allegations “100% Slander,” and Seeks Action Against the Accuser, Ayalla Karina

Sarah privately states that there was “zero evidence” because “nothing illegal has gone on” and calls the accusations “100% slander” against herself, Lucas, and Onision.

On January 4, 2019, Sarah privately discussed accusations being circulated about herself, Lucas, and Onision.

Sarah stated:

“They have zero evidence of anything illegal going on because nothing illegal has gone on.”

She continued:

“This is harmful to your, my, and Greg’s reputation and is 100% slander”

This was not a public statement prepared for an audience. It was Sarah’s private description of the allegations in a conversation with Lucas.

Sarah Privately Denies Illegal or “Creepy” Conduct

Sarah did not merely say that the available evidence was insufficient. She stated affirmatively:

“nothing illegal has gone on”

She also questioned the timing of the accusations:

“If something creepy was going on why wait till now?”

Sarah’s statements establish that she privately believed:

• no illegal conduct had occurred
• no “creepy” conduct had occurred
• the accusations were unsupported
• the allegations were damaging her own reputation
• the allegations were damaging Lucas’s reputation
• the allegations were damaging Onision’s reputation
• all three were being slandered by the public narrative

Her exact description was:

“100% slander”

Sarah questions why anyone would wait to speak if something “creepy” had occurred and then states that she is calling the police regarding Ayalla.

Sarah Attempts to Report and Confront the Accuser

Sarah did not present herself as frightened, controlled, or unable to act.

After identifying Ayalla, Sarah stated:

“Aight. I’m calling the police.”

She later reported:

“They said I have to call my local police department”

When Lucas encouraged her to do so, Sarah replied:

“I am”

Sarah also stated:

“I’m texting a lawyer family friend about if I can send a cease and desist letter via email”

She then reported:

“Found her address”

The messages show Sarah independently attempting to use both law enforcement and legal remedies against the person spreading allegations about the household.

Sarah accuses Ayalla of misconduct toward her at age 16 and states that she is consulting a lawyer about sending a cease-and-desist letter.

Sarah Accuses the Third Parties of Misconduct

Sarah also expressed her own allegations against Ayalla and Billie.

Sarah wrote:

“The tea is that you tried to sleep with me when I was 16 and Billie help me develop an eating disorder”

This is significant because Sarah was plainly capable of identifying, confronting, and attempting to report conduct she personally regarded as harmful or inappropriate.

In the same private conversation, Sarah:

• accused Ayalla of attempting sexual conduct with her when she was 16
• accused Billie of contributing to her eating disorder
• contacted police
• sought advice from a lawyer
• considered sending a cease-and-desist letter
• located the accused person’s address
• encouraged direct confrontation of what she considered false allegations

Sarah was not behaving like someone unable to identify misconduct or incapable of reporting it. She was actively distinguishing between conduct she considered improper and the accusations against Onision and Lucas, which she called unsupported slander.

The Later Coercion Narrative Does Not Fit This Private Record

The later complaint attempts to explain Sarah’s January 9, 2019 public denial by alleging that Onision and Lucas coerced her into making it.

These private messages occurred on January 4, five days before that video.

Before any public denial was produced, Sarah was already privately stating:

• nothing illegal had happened
• nothing creepy had happened
• the accusations lacked evidence
• the allegations were slander
• Lucas and Onision were being harmed
• she wanted police and legal intervention against the accuser

This private exchange cannot reasonably be dismissed as wording supplied for a public video. Sarah was communicating directly with Lucas, using her own language, expressing anger at the accusers, and independently pursuing action against them.

Her later public denial did not appear from nowhere. It repeated the same position she had already expressed privately.

The Direct Contradiction

The later litigation narrative portrays Sarah as a minor who was sexually targeted, groomed, controlled, exploited, and unable to recognize or report what had happened.

Sarah’s contemporaneous private position was materially different:

“nothing illegal has gone on”

“If something creepy was going on why wait till now?”

“This is harmful to your, my, and Greg’s reputation and is 100% slander”

Sarah identified herself, Lucas, and Onision as the people being harmed. She identified the outside accusers as the source of the misconduct and attempted to involve police and legal counsel against them.

The record therefore contradicts the later portrayal that Sarah privately understood herself to be a victim of illegal conduct by Onision or Lucas at the time.

Source

January 4, 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 on an iPhone and captured using a MacBook.

See also:

• Sarah: Defamation Claims
• January 5 discussion of Sarah’s public response

January 5, 2019: Onision Tells Sarah to Be Direct, Honest, and Enter “Full on Truth Mode”

Onision asks Sarah to explain what Ayala had told her and what had actually happened, while Sarah retains control over whether and where she would make the statement.

On January 5, 2019, Onision contacted Sarah regarding public allegations portraying Lucas as a predator.

Onision wrote:

“Right now a lot of people think Kai is a predator because of what Ayala said.”

He asked Sarah to make a video explaining:

“what Ayala said to you and what really happened in general”

Sarah asked whether Lucas believed it was a good idea and where she should post it:

“Does Kai think that’s a good idea? Where should I post it?”

Onision responded that Sarah could upload the statement to YouTube and that he could share it, but acknowledged:

“I haven’t asked Kai.”

Sarah instructed him:

“Ask Kai and let me know.”

When Sarah asks whether she should still publish her statement, Onision tells her to enter “Full on truth mode” and to be “strong,” “honest,” and “real.”

Sarah Retained Control Over the Statement

The exchange shows Sarah making decisions about:

• whether she would publish anything
• whether Lucas approved
• which platform she would use
• whether she should publish at the same time as Lucas
• when her statement would go public

After Lucas apparently decided to speak publicly, Sarah asked:

“If he’s going live should I still do it?”

Onision answered:

“Yes”

He then told her:

“Full on truth mode”

Sarah expressed concern about timing:

“Okay I just don’t want to go on at the same time”

Onision replied:

“Yeah, after him I guess!”

Sarah accepted that arrangement:

“Okay sounds good”

Onision’s Instructions Were to Tell the Truth

Onision did not provide Sarah with a scripted accusation or tell her to conceal unfavorable facts.

Sarah privately stated that the allegations would only have “standing” if she personally made them, rather than someone claiming to remember a conversation with her from years earlier.

His instructions were:

“I’d just be direct and real about it.”

and:

“Be strong, be honest, be real, keep your chin up etc etc”

The repeated direction was not to protect the household through deception. It was to explain what Sarah had personally been told, describe what actually happened, and do so truthfully.

The messages establish that:

• Onision asked Sarah to describe her own firsthand experience
• He told her to be direct and real
• He told her to be strong and honest
• Sarah controlled whether, where, and when she spoke
• Sarah insisted that Lucas be consulted
• Sarah independently coordinated the timing of her statement
• No instruction to invent, omit, or falsify facts appears in the exchange

The Coercion Contradiction

The later complaint attempts to characterize Sarah’s public denials as statements created through coercion and control.

This exchange records a materially different process.

Sarah questioned the proposal, requested Lucas’s approval, selected the publication sequence, and expressed her own concerns about scheduling. Onision responded to those concerns and repeatedly instructed her to tell the truth.

There was emotional urgency in the exchange. Onision told Sarah that Lucas was crying and believed Sarah’s firsthand account could correct the public allegations. That establishes a request for help and emotional pressure to respond publicly.

It does not establish pressure to lie.

The distinction is essential:

• Sarah was encouraged to speak
• She was not instructed what to claim
• She was repeatedly told to be honest and real
• She retained control over the platform and timing
• She participated in planning the statement rather than simply obeying a command

The evidence therefore contradicts the portrayal that Onision required Sarah to deliver a fabricated or tightly controlled account.

Sarah Acknowledges That Her Presence Had Created Harm for the Household

During the exchange, Sarah apologized:

“I’m so sorry my presence in your lives constantly cause this kind of bullshit.”

This statement shows Sarah understood the allegations as a consequence of her presence in Onision and Lucas’s lives and recognized that Lucas was being publicly harmed by claims involving her.

At that point, Sarah was not accusing Lucas of predatory conduct. She was apologizing for the damage being caused to him and discussing how she could truthfully correct it.

Source

January 5, 2019 text-message exchange between Onision and Sarah.

Onision’s messages appear in gray. Sarah’s messages appear in blue.

See also:

• Sarah: Defamation Claims
• Sarah’s statement that the allegations would only carry credibility if she personally made them

January 7, 2019: Sarah Promises Immediate Disclosure if She Ever Feels Groomed, Then Confesses That She, Sarah, Groomed Lucas

Lucas asked Sarah to tell him immediately if she ever came to believe she had been groomed. Sarah promised that he would know “right away,” denied feeling that way, and joked that she was grooming him instead.

On January 7, 2019, Lucas directly raised the possibility that Sarah (an adult) might later changer her narrative.

Lucas wrote:

“That’s true but if it ever turns around and you’re like holy shit maybe I was groomed just keep me in the loop you know”

Sarah responded:

“Trust me if I ever start feeling like that you’ll know right away”

She then stated:

“But I don’t. If anything I’m grooming you”

Sarah added:

“Nicely I might add”

Shortly afterward, she complained:

“Greg hasn’t answered my texts and I’m salty”

What the Exchange Establishes

Lucas did not discourage Sarah from questioning the relationship or pressure her to remain silent. He expressly asked her to tell him if she ever decided to change her narrative.

Sarah’s response establishes that:

• She understood the grooming allegation
• She denied believing that grooming had occurred
• She promised to disclose any change in that narrative immediately
• She presented herself as capable of recognizing and reporting it
• She reversed the accusation and called herself the groomer
• She remained actively interested in receiving attention from Onision

The comment about grooming Lucas was plainly made as a joke. Its significance is that Sarah was comfortable treating the accusation humorously because she did not believe Lucas had groomed her.

The Later Contradiction

Sarah later alleged that Lucas and Onision had groomed her over an extended period while she was a minor.

This contemporaneous exchange records the opposite position after Sarah had already reached adulthood:

• Lucas proactively invited Sarah to report any concern
• Sarah said he would know “right away”
• Sarah expressly stated that she did not feel groomed
• She joked that she was the person grooming Lucas
• She was frustrated that Onision had not answered her messages

The exchange also fits the broader chronology in which Sarah admitted that her romantic feelings originated with her, that she concealed them to preserve access to Lucas, and that she expected Onision to remove her if he discovered her intentions.

Sarah was therefore not merely unaware that outsiders might use the word “grooming.” She and Lucas discussed the allegation directly, and she rejected it while affirming her ability to speak immediately if her internal narrative changed.

Source

January 7, 2019 text-message exchange between Sarah and Lucas.

Lucas’s messages appear in blue. Sarah’s messages appear in gray.

The conversation was displayed on an iPhone and captured using a MacBook.

January 7, 2019: Sarah Says She Would Have Realized It by Now If Lucas Were Grooming Her

On January 7, 2019, Sarah told Lucas that if he were grooming her, she would have already figured it out by then.

In this message, Sarah again rejects the claim that Lucas was grooming her.

Sarah writes:

“If you were grooming me I would've already figured it out by now lmao”

What the message directly shows

Sarah did not describe herself as confused, manipulated, or unsure about what was happening. Instead, she explicitly said that if Lucas had been grooming her, she would have recognized it already.

This was another direct denial made during the same January 2019 period in which Sarah repeatedly rejected the idea that Lucas had groomed her.

Why it matters

This message directly undermines Sarah’s later grooming allegations. Her own words show that, at the time, she did not believe she was being groomed and did not believe Lucas’s behavior fit that label.

It also reinforces the broader pattern in which Sarah repeatedly denied grooming, defended Lucas, and rejected attempts by others to characterize the relationship that way.

Source

January 7, 2019 text-message exchange between Sarah and Lucas, displayed from an iPhone conversation and photographed using an iPhone camera.

January 7, 2019: Sarah Swears She Was Not Groomed

On January 7, 2019, Sarah explicitly told Lucas, “I swear on my grandmother you did not groom me,” before following the statement with a joke.

In this message to Lucas, Sarah gives an explicit and emphatic denial that she was groomed.

Sarah writes:

“I swear on my grandmother you did not groom me.”

She then follows the statement with a joke:

“Would say my mother but...ya know 😂”

What the message directly shows

Sarah did not express uncertainty, confusion, or hesitation. She made a direct statement that Lucas did not groom her and reinforced that statement by swearing on her grandmother.

The casual joke immediately afterward also shows that this was written in Sarah’s ordinary conversational voice rather than as a formal statement drafted by someone else.

Why it matters

Sarah’s January 7, 2019 statement directly conflicts with her later portrayal of Lucas as someone who groomed her.

This is not a vague defense of Lucas or a statement that she simply did not recognize grooming at the time. Sarah specifically identifies the accusation and expressly denies that it happened.

The significance becomes even stronger when this message is considered alongside Sarah’s other statements from the same period repeatedly denying grooming and rejecting the label of “groomer.” Taken together, the messages show a consistent contemporaneous account that differs sharply from the allegations she later made publicly and in litigation.

Source

January 7, 2019 text-message exchange between Sarah and Lucas, displayed from an iPhone conversation and captured on a MacBook.

January 7, 2019: Sarah Says She Was Not Groomed and Calls the Accusation Insulting

In this message to Lucas, Sarah directly rejects the claim that she was groomed and explains why she did not believe the accusation reflected her own experience.

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 writes:

“Well think about this...if I actually felt groomed I would have brought it up in our big fight. But I didn’t because I’m not groomed.”

She then adds:

“And her saying that I am even if you didn’t do it is actually really insulting.”

What the messages directly show

Sarah states plainly that she was not groomed. She also points to a prior major argument as a moment when she would have raised grooming if she genuinely believed it had occurred, but says she did not because that was not how she understood the relationship.

Sarah further describes another person’s attempt to label her as groomed as insulting, especially when Lucas had not committed the conduct being attributed to him.

Why it matters

This message shows that Sarah was not simply unaware of the grooming accusation. She considered it directly, rejected it based on her own experience, and objected to someone else imposing that identity on her.

Her statement is especially significant because she connects her denial to a real conflict in the relationship. According to Sarah, even during a major fight, she did not accuse Lucas of grooming because she did not believe she had been groomed.

This directly conflicts with her later characterization of the same relationship.

Source

January 7, 2019 text-message exchange between Sarah and Lucas, displayed from an iPhone conversation and captured on a MacBook.

January 7, 2019: Sarah Says "I don't get groomed", She Recognized Grooming at Age 11 and Insists That Lucas Did Not Groom Her

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.

In this message to Lucas, Sarah states that she had previously recognized an actual grooming attempt when she was 11 years old and responded by fighting back and contacting police. 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.

Sarah writes:

“You didn’t groom me. I had a grown ass man attempt to actually groom me when I was 11 and once I caught on to what he was doing I clawed the fuck out of him and told the police. I don’t get groomed.”

She then says that Ayalla had attempted to pursue her while she was underage and criticizes outsiders for inventing or distorting private events:

“Nobody knows our business they just make shit up or take something that was innocent and twist it to fit their narrative.”

What the messages directly show 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.

Sarah explicitly states that Lucas did not groom her. She also presents herself as someone who already understood grooming from a prior experience, recognized it at a young age, resisted it, and reported it to police.

Sarah does not describe herself as confused about the meaning of grooming. She distinguishes Lucas from a person she says actually attempted to groom her and states plainly, “I don’t get groomed.”

Why it matters

This message sharply contradicts Sarah’s later claim that Lucas groomed her.

It is especially significant because Sarah does not merely deny the accusation. She explains that she had prior firsthand experience identifying grooming, understood what the conduct looked like, and believed Lucas had not done it.

Her statement that outsiders “make shit up” or twist innocent events to fit a narrative also shows that, at the time, Sarah believed the grooming story was being imposed on the relationship by other people rather than describing what she believed had actually happened.

Source

January 7, 2019 text-message exchange between Sarah and Lucas, displayed from an iPhone conversation and photographed using an iPhone camera.

January 7, 2019: Liz Rejects the Grooming Accusation Based on What She Observed

In this Instagram message, a woman identified in the exhibit as Liz responds to accusations that Lucas groomed Sarah.

On January 7, 2019, Liz stated that the grooming accusation against Lucas was “not even close” to how she had observed him behave with Sarah.

Liz writes:

“I’m so sorry you’re being accused of grooming.”

She then states:

“That’s so gross and not even close to how you act with Sarah.”

Liz also adds:

“Kind of why I tried to warn you.”

What the messages directly show

Liz rejected the grooming accusation and stated that it did not resemble the way she had personally observed Lucas behaving with Sarah.

Her message is relevant because it comes from someone who knew Sarah in person and was present around the household during a relevant period. Rather than describing behavior she considered predatory or inappropriate, Liz said the accusation was “not even close” to Lucas’s actual conduct toward Sarah.

Why it matters

Liz’s statement provides contemporaneous third-party support for the Onision household’s account. It shows that someone familiar with the relationship did not interpret the Onision household’s behavior toward Sarah as grooming and believed the later accusation was inconsistent with what she had observed firsthand.

The message also aligns with Sarah’s own repeated statements from the same period that the Onision household was innocent and had not groomed her.

Source

Instagram direct-message exchange dated January 7, 2019, from the account “vulkenpunch,” preserved within a text-message conversation between Sarah and Lucas.

January 8, 2019: Sarah Says Lucas Is Innocent and Is Not a Groomer

In this message, Sarah directly tells Lucas that he is innocent and says other people are attempting to convince him that he committed grooming when he did not.

On January 8, 2019, Sarah told Lucas that he was innocent, accused others of gaslighting him, and stated that groomers know what they are doing while Lucas had done nothing wrong.

Sarah writes:

“I’m sorry you really don’t deserve this. You know you’re innocent.”

She then states:

“They’re gaslighting you.”

Sarah further explains:

“They’re making you think you were doing something that you weren’t. Groomers know what they’re doing and they don’t feel guilty about it.”

What the messages directly show

Sarah described Lucas as innocent and specifically rejected the claim that he had groomed her. She stated that other people were gaslighting Lucas into believing he had committed conduct that, in her words, he had not committed.

Sarah also demonstrated that she understood grooming as deliberate behavior, stating that groomers know what they are doing and do not feel guilty about it. She applied that distinction directly to Lucas and concluded that he was not a groomer.

Why it matters

This was more than a general expression of support. Sarah expressly identified the grooming accusation, explained her understanding of what grooming involves, and stated that Lucas had not done it.

Her statement directly conflicts with her later allegations against Lucas. It also reinforces the previous day’s message in which she swore on her grandmother that Lucas did not groom her. Together, these exchanges show a repeated and clearly expressed contemporaneous position that Lucas was innocent and that the grooming narrative was being imposed on him by other people.

Source

January 8, 2019 text-message exchange between Sarah and Lucas, displayed from an iPhone conversation and photographed using an iPhone camera.

January 8, 2019: Sarah Introduces Sexual Terms While Negotiating the NDA

In this exchange, Sarah discusses adding a clause to the proposed mutual NDA. In the surrounding conversation, the clause concerns Sarah’s desire to have sexual contact with James and Lucas.

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.

Sarah writes:

“I think we should definitely think about adding that clause in there. You know...just for my peace of mind”

She then sarcastically adds:

“totally professional intentions with this contract of course”

Sarah also insists that James sign the agreement:

“but fr tho I need at least Greg to sign one bc he’s got a fat mouth”

Lucas responds:

“Yeah it was his idea to have a mutual one”

What the messages directly show

Sarah actively participated in negotiating the NDA before it was signed. She proposed adding a clause connected to the sexual activity she wanted, joked openly about the nonprofessional nature of her intentions, and demanded that James also be legally bound by the agreement.

The sexual condition originated with Sarah. James and Lucas were not using the NDA to introduce sex into the relationship and they were having their 4 other friends sign the exact same agreement as well; Sarah was attempting to connect her own desired sexual activity to the terms under which she would sign.

Why it matters

This exchange directly contradicts the later portrayal of Sarah as a passive or coerced party who was unexpectedly forced to

sign an NDA designed to conceal unwanted sexual conduct.

The contemporaneous messages show Sarah negotiating from a distance before signing, proposing sexual terms for her own benefit, requesting confidentiality for her own “peace of mind,” and requiring that James sign because she feared he might disclose private information.

The record therefore shows Sarah using the NDA to facilitate and protect sexual activity she wanted, not James or Lucas using it to silence her about conduct she opposed. Later filings similarly describe Sarah as conditioning her signature on receiving what she wanted and being permitted to “do stuff” with James and Lucas.

Source

January 8, 2019 text-message exchange between Sarah and Lucas, displayed from an iPhone conversation and captured on a MacBook.

January 8, 2019: Sarah Helps Negotiate the Mutual NDA, Requests That James Sign, and Is Informed It Does Not Protect Illegal Conduct

In this text-message exchange, Sarah actively participates in discussing the proposed mutual nondisclosure agreement. She talks about adding a clause, requests that James be required to sign, asks what the agreement means, and is informed that it does not prohibit disclosure of illegal conduct.

In January 2019, Sarah requested that James sign an NDA because he had “a fat mouth,” discussed adding a clause for her own peace of mind, and was told James wanted the agreement to be mutual.

Sarah writes:

“I think we should definitely think about adding that clause in there. You know... just for my peace of mind.”

She then sarcastically comments:

“totally professional intentions with this contract of course”

Sarah later states:

“but fr tho I need at least Greg to sign one bc he’s got a fat mouth”

Lucas responds:

“Yeah it was his idea to have a mutual one”

Sarah then asks:

“So like what does it mean exactly?”

She also asks whether the agreement would prevent her from speaking with her sister. Lucas explains:

“Basically we can’t talk to anyone about our interactions or any information you learned from us etc unless we are breaking the law”

Lucas also tells Sarah that she can read the agreement herself before signing it.

What the messages directly show

Sarah was not unexpectedly presented with an agreement she knew nothing about. She actively discussed its terms, proposed adding a clause, asked questions about its meaning, and specifically requested that James be legally bound by it.

The exchange also establishes that the agreement was intended to be mutual. James proposed that both sides be subject to confidentiality rather than imposing a one-sided restriction on Sarah.

Most importantly, Sarah was expressly told that the NDA did not protect illegal conduct. Lucas clearly distinguished ordinary private information from actions involving a violation of law.

Why it matters

These messages contradict the later portrayal of the NDA as a one-sided agreement created by James and Lucas to silence Sarah or conceal criminal conduct.

Sarah’s own messages show that:

• She participated in negotiating the agreement.
• She wanted a clause added for her own benefit.
• She specifically demanded that James sign.
• She understood that the agreement would apply to both sides.
• She asked questions before signing.
• She was encouraged to read the document herself.
• She was told that illegal conduct was not protected by the NDA.

The contemporaneous record shows Sarah treating the NDA as a mutual privacy agreement that would protect her interests as well as those of James and Lucas. It does not show her being deceived about the agreement’s purpose or being told that she could not report unlawful conduct.

Source

January 8, 2019 text-message exchange between Sarah and Lucas, displayed from an iPhone conversation and captured on a MacBook.

January 8, 2019: Sarah Says Cuddling With Lucas Did Not Occur Until She Was 18

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.

In this exchange, Sarah and Lucas discuss online accusations involving a joke Squidward meme and claims that the two had cuddled while Sarah was underage.

Sarah first confirms that she was the person who sent the Squidward image and jokes:

“Real sexy picture of squidward there though. Might’ve turned me on 🤷‍♀️”

When Lucas mentions people discussing whether they had cuddled, Sarah states:

“Also that never happened until I was 18”

Sarah then explains that cuddling is not inherently sexual, comparing it to cuddling with her parents and siblings. She also mentions that her 17-year-old friend Madison tries to cuddle her during sleepovers and sarcastically jokes:

“Oh no I’m grooming my underage friend. Call the internet police lol”

What the messages directly show

Sarah states that cuddling between her and Lucas did not happen until after she turned 18.

She also treats the Squidward image as an obvious joke meme rather than sexual material and mocks the suggestion that ordinary cuddling between friends should automatically be characterized as

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.

grooming.

Why it matters

This exchange directly contradicts claims that physical intimacy through cuddling occurred between Sarah and Lucas while Sarah was a minor.

It also shows Sarah rejecting the broader effort to reinterpret ordinary jokes, memes, and nonsexual affection as evidence of

grooming. At the time, Sarah viewed those claims as absurd and compared them to harmless affection between family members and friends.

Source

January 8, 2019 text-message exchange between Sarah and Lucas, displayed from an iPhone conversation and captured on a MacBook.

January 9, 2019: Onision Asks Sarah to Give Her Own Assessment and Freely Confirm or Deny the Allegations

Onision asked Sarah to record her own assessment of Lucas and to state whether she believed the accusations were valid or honest. The message supplied questions, not scripted answers.

On January 9, 2019, Onision clarified what he was asking Sarah to record regarding the accusations against Lucas.

Onision wrote:

“Kai said you thought I wanted audio. All I want is a video recording of you summing up what you feel”

He then listed three subjects for Sarah to address:

“1. What kind of person you think Kai is.”

“2. Weather or not you think what people saying about Kai is valid.”

“3. Whether or not people are being honest....”

Onision described it as:

“Like... a 30 second video. Then that’s it.”

He explained why Sarah’s account mattered:

“People have the most important person in this, telling people who Kai really is.”

Questions, Not Scripted Answers

The message does not tell Sarah what conclusions she must reach.

Onision asked Sarah to state:

• what kind of person she believed Lucas was
• whether she believed the allegations were valid
• whether she believed the people making them were honest
• what she personally felt about the situation

Each question allowed Sarah to answer either way.

She was expressly invited to:

• confirm the accusations
• deny the accusations
• agree with the accusers
• dispute the accusers
• describe Lucas positively or negatively
• give her own personal assessment

No scripted denial appears in the message. No required wording appears. No threat appears if Sarah disagreed.

The requested content was Sarah’s own opinion and firsthand account.

Sarah Was Recognized as the Decisive Witness

Onision referred to Sarah as:

“the most important person in this”

That description matches Sarah’s own private recognition that the accusations would only gain “standing” if she personally made them.

The allegations concerned what supposedly happened to Sarah. Her direct account therefore mattered more than claims from people who were not present.

The January 9 request was for that firsthand account—not for Sarah to repeat a predetermined story.

The Coercion Claim Is Contradicted by the Instructions

The later complaint attempts to characterize Sarah’s January 2019 denial as something Onision and Lucas coerced her to produce.

The preserved messages show a different process:

• Sarah had already privately stated that nothing illegal occurred
• Sarah had already called the accusations “100% slander”
• Sarah had already identified Ayalla as lying
• Sarah had already told Lucas that police would find no unlawful conduct
• Onision had told Sarah to be “direct and real”
• Onision had told her to be “strong,” “honest,” and “real”
• Onision then asked open-ended questions allowing Sarah to confirm or deny the claims

The request did not dictate Sarah’s answer. It asked her to provide it.

The message therefore contradicts the portrayal that Sarah was instructed to fabricate a denial or conceal a version of events she actually believed was true.

The Broader January 2019 Record

This message is consistent with the complete private chronology.

Before the video was requested, Sarah had already privately stated:

“nothing illegal has gone on”

“there’s nothing illegal that’s happened”

“This is harmful to your, my, and Greg’s reputation and is 100% slander”

She had also stated that the accusations would only have credibility if she personally adopted them.

The January 9 video request gave Sarah the opportunity to state her own position publicly. The available messages show no effort to supply a false answer. They instead repeatedly direct Sarah toward truthfulness and leave the substance of her response to her.

Source

January 9, 2019 text-message exchange between Onision and Sarah.

Onision’s messages appear in gray. Sarah’s message appears in blue.

The conversation was displayed on an iPhone and captured using an iPhone.

Related evidence:

• Sarah privately calls the allegations “100% slander”
• Onision tells Sarah to be direct, honest, and real
• Sarah recognizes that her endorsement controlled the allegations’ credibility
• Sarah privately reassures Lucas that nothing illegal happened

January 9, 2019: Sarah Denies Underage Sexual Conversations or Plans, and the Complaint Calls Her Statement “Literal Truth”

Sarah stated that she and Lucas never had sexual conversations or planned sexual relations while she was underage. The plaintiffs’ own complaint later characterized Sarah’s statement in this video as “the literal truth.”

On January 9, 2019, Sarah publicly addressed accusations that she and Lucas had discussed or planned a sexual relationship while she was underage.

Sarah stated:

“People are saying we had sexual conversations or were planning on having sexual relations when I was underage and we never did”

She continued:

“I don’t know why people are saying this and bringing up old screenshots that have already been addressed”

Sarah then described Lucas:

“Kai is one of the sweetest people I know and he doesn’t deserve this”

She concluded:

“It’s not fair to me, it’s not fair to him, and I wish this would all stop”

Sarah’s Denial Was Broader Than the Complaint Suggests

The later complaint acknowledges this January 9 video and states:

“Sarah did not wish to lie and therefore only stated the literal truth.”

That admission is critical.

The complaint attempts to summarize the video narrowly as Sarah stating that she did not engage in sexual relations while underage.

Sarah’s actual statement went substantially further.

She denied:

• having sexual conversations with Lucas while underage
• planning to have sexual relations while underage
• any prior agreement that sexual activity would begin after adulthood
• the interpretation being placed on old screenshots
• the claim that Lucas had behaved as a sexual predator toward her

Sarah did not merely say that intercourse had not yet occurred.

She expressly denied the alleged sexual planning and conversations that would form the supposed foundation of a grooming arrangement.

The Complaint Later Alleges the Opposite

The later complaint alleges that, while Sarah was still a minor, Onision and Lucas made it known that they wanted a three-person sexual relationship and propositioned Sarah to engage in sexual acts.

That allegation directly conflicts with Sarah’s recorded statement:

“People are saying we had sexual conversations or were planning on having sexual relations when I was underage and we never did”

Both versions cannot accurately describe the same events.

The January 2019 video states:

• there were no underage sexual conversations
• there was no planning for sexual relations
• the accusations arose from misrepresented screenshots
• Lucas was being treated unfairly
• Sarah wanted the accusations to stop

The later complaint alleges:

• sexual intentions were communicated while Sarah was underage
• sexual activity was proposed before she turned 18
• the household was preparing Sarah for a future sexual relationship

The contradiction concerns the central factual question—not merely Sarah’s later interpretation of conduct whose facts remained unchanged.

The Plaintiffs Admit Sarah Was Telling the Truth

The complaint does not allege that Sarah invented the statements in this video.

It expressly says she:

“did not wish to lie”

and therefore stated:

“the literal truth”

That concession prevents the video from being dismissed simply as a false story authored by Onision or Lucas.

The plaintiffs instead attempt to preserve the later narrative by treating Sarah’s statement as technically true but incomplete.

The full video defeats that characterization.

Sarah did not limit herself to saying that sexual intercourse had not occurred. She specifically denied:

• sexual conversations
• sexual planning
• plans for a future sexual relationship while she was underage

Those are the same categories of conduct the complaint later uses to construct its grooming narrative.

Consistent With Sarah’s Private Statements

Sarah’s public statement matched what she had already been saying privately.

Before publishing this video, Sarah privately stated:

“nothing illegal has gone on”

She called the allegations:

“100% slander”

She told Lucas:

“there’s nothing illegal that’s happened”

She identified Ayalla as lying and attempted to contact police and obtain legal help against the people spreading the allegations.

She also privately recognized that the accusations would only gain credibility if she personally adopted them.

The January 9 video was therefore not an isolated public statement inconsistent with Sarah’s private beliefs. It repeated the same position she had expressed privately across several days.

What the Record Establishes

The combined record establishes that:

• Onision asked Sarah open-ended questions rather than supplying answers
• Sarah had already privately denied unlawful conduct
• Sarah publicly denied underage sexual conversations
• Sarah publicly denied planning future sexual activity while underage
• Sarah described Lucas as one of the sweetest people she knew
• Sarah said Lucas did not deserve the allegations
• Sarah said the accusations were unfair to both of them
• The complaint later admitted that Sarah stated “the literal truth”
• The complaint nevertheless alleges the opposite sexual planning and propositioning outright ignoring the evidence and actual events

This exhibit directly contradicts the later claim that a sexual relationship was discussed, proposed, or planned while Sarah was a minor.

Source

Sarah’s January 9, 2019 video addressing allegations involving Lucas.

Consolidated Third Amended Complaint, paragraphs 335–338. Earlier versions of the pleading may use different paragraph numbers.

Related evidence:

• Onision’s open-ended request for Sarah’s assessment
• Sarah privately calls the accusations “100% slander”
• Sarah privately states that nothing illegal happened

April 17, 2019: Archived Livestream Screenshot Shows Billie Rejecting the Grooming Claim

On April 17, 2019, James received an email preserving Billie’s statement that no one was grooming Sarah.

On April 17, 2019, James received an email titled “Evidence against grooming allegations.” The sender explained that, while reviewing one of Sarah’s older YouNow livestreams, they discovered a chat message posted by Billie Dawn Webb.

Billie wrote:

“Guys, no one is grooming Sarah. 100% not a thing”

What the evidence directly shows

Billie publicly and unequivocally rejected the claim that Sarah was being groomed. She did not describe the situation as uncertain or potentially inappropriate. She stated that no one was grooming Sarah and emphasized that it was “100% not a thing.”

Why it matters

Billie’s statement is relevant because she was publicly defending the relationship before the later grooming narrative became widely established. Her words show that someone familiar with Sarah and the surrounding events rejected the accusation completely.

In an archived screenshot from Sarah’s YouNow livestream, Billie stated, “Guys, no one is grooming Sarah. 100% not a thing.”

The April 17, 2019 email also documents how the screenshot was located and preserved. The sender identified Sarah’s older YouNow livestream as the source and forwarded the image to James.

Source

Email received by James on April 17, 2019, containing an archived screenshot from a YouNow livestream hosted by Sarah under the username “Sarahbear8500.”

Original channel: https://www.younow.com/sarahbear85000

June 13, 2019: Sarah Admits She Hid Her Feelings Because James Would Have Kicked Her Out

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.

In this message to Lucas, Sarah acknowledges that she concealed her romantic feelings for him because she believed James would remove her from the household if those feelings became known.

Sarah writes:

“You wonder why I lied about liking you for so long...was I supposed to just tell you while I was around so I could give Greg a reason to kick me out or...?”

What the message directly shows

Sarah admits that she lied about her feelings toward Lucas and intentionally kept them hidden.

Her stated reason was that she expected James to respond by kicking her out. This shows that Sarah understood James would not tolerate her pursuing an inappropriate romantic relationship with Lucas while she was living around them.

The message also identifies Sarah as the person privately holding and concealing romantic intentions. She does not describe James or Lucas as encouraging those feelings or preparing her for a future relationship.

Why it matters

This message directly undermines the claim that James and Lucas were jointly cultivating Sarah for a romantic or sexual relationship.

Sarah’s own account shows the opposite:

• Her romantic feelings originated with her.
• She concealed those feelings from the household.
• She believed James strongly opposed the possibility.
• She expected disclosure to result in her being removed from their lives.

The grooming narrative depends on the idea that James or Lucas encouraged, developed, or exploited Sarah’s romantic attachment. This message instead shows Sarah hiding that attachment because she knew James would reject it and take immediate action.

Source

June 13, 2019 text-message exchange between Sarah and Lucas, displayed from an iPhone conversation and captured on a MacBook.

June 13, 2019: Sarah Reaffirms That Lucas Did Not Try to Groom Her

On June 13, 2019, Sarah reaffirmed that she did not believe Lucas had groomed her and said she continued to stand by that position.

In this message to Lucas, Sarah again rejects the grooming allegation and states that she continues to stand by that position.

Sarah writes:

“No I assured you I didn’t think you tried to groom me which I of course still stand by...”

She then discusses occasions when Lucas joked that she would do anything he asked, explaining that the jokes hurt her feelings because she believed she was deeply attached to him.

What the message directly shows

Sarah explicitly states that she did not believe Lucas tried to groom her and says that she still stood by that conclusion as of June 13, 2019.

The message also shows that Sarah distinguished between having strong feelings or emotional attachment and being groomed. Even while acknowledging that she felt highly devoted to Lucas, she continued to deny that Lucas had groomed her.

Why it matters

This statement was made months after Sarah’s repeated January 2019 denials. It demonstrates that her position was not limited to one conversation or one brief moment.

Sarah continued to state that Lucas had groomed her, even while openly discussing the emotional dynamics of their relationship. Her own contemporaneous account therefore separated her personal feelings from grooming by Lucas.

This adds to the repeated record of Sarah denying grooming before later adopting the opposite public and legal narrative.

Source

June 13, 2019 text-message exchange between Sarah and Lucas, displayed from an iPhone conversation and captured on a MacBook.

August 27, 2019: Sarah Denies Any Sexual Relationship With James or Lucas Before Turning 18

On August 27, 2019, Sarah publicly denied having any sexual relationship with James or Lucas before she turned 18.

During a YouNow livestream interview, Sarah was asked whether she had been in a relationship with James and Lucas before she turned 18.

The interviewer clarified:

“Like sexual relationship?”

Sarah answered:

“No.”

She then repeated:

“Yeah, no.”

Sarah further explained:

“It’s literally just, yeah, we did not.”

What the video directly shows

Sarah clearly and repeatedly denied having any sexual relationship with James or Lucas before she became an adult.

Her answer was not ambiguous. Once the interviewer clarified that the question concerned a sexual relationship, Sarah responded “No,” repeated the denial, and confirmed that it did not happen.

Why it matters

This public statement directly contradicts any later claim that Sarah had a sexual relationship with James or Lucas while she was underage.

The statement is especially important because Sarah made it publicly during one of her earliest livestream interviews after the relationship ended. At that time, while discussing the household and answering direct questions, she expressly denied that any pre-adulthood sexual relationship occurred.

Source

August 27, 2019 YouNow livestream hosted by Sarah under the username “Sarahbear8500.”

Relevant timestamp: approximately 11:06–11:54.

Original channel: https://www.younow.com/sarahbear8500

Archived upload: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc2UDXaZzDk

October 30, 2019: Sarah States She and Onision Never Even Kissed Until Their First Sexual Encounter After She Turned 18

Sarah stated that she and Onision “never even kissed” until the first time they had sex, placing the beginning of all physical intimacy after she had turned 18.

During her October 30, 2019 interview, Sarah was asked whether Onision had attempted to form a physical or sexual relationship with her during the earlier period being discussed.

Sarah answered:

“We never, we never did anything.”

She then clarified:

“In fact, we, Greg and I never even kissed until the first time we had sex.”

Sarah identified that first sexual encounter as occurring on January 17, 2019, months after she turned 18.

What Sarah’s Statement Establishes

Sarah’s account places the beginning of every physical interaction between herself and Onision in adulthood:

• Onision did not have sexual contact with Sarah while she was a minor
• Sarah and Onision did not kiss while she was a minor
• They did not engage in any earlier physical relationship
• Their first kiss occurred during their first sexual encounter
• That encounter occurred after Sarah had turned 18

Her statement is categorical:

“We never did anything.”

This is not merely a denial of intercourse while underage. Sarah removes kissing and all other physical conduct from the minor-age timeline.

The Later Contradiction

Sarah’s later allegations portray Onision as having sexually targeted, conditioned, or exploited her while she was still a minor.

Her recorded interview establishes the opposite chronology. According to Sarah herself, Onision did nothing physical or sexual with her during that period, and they did not even kiss until their first adult sexual encounter.

This statement also matches Sarah’s other recorded admissions that:

• Neither Onision nor Lucas kissed her while she was underage
• Neither attempted intimate sexual contact before she turned 18
• She was an adult and able to consent during the January 2019 encounter
• She openly confessed to demanding sex in exchange for her signing an agreement designed to create legal consequences for anyone who lied about any other party
• She later told police that she willingly participated in that encounter

The evidence consistently places physical and sexual conduct months after entering adulthood—not during Sarah’s childhood.

Source

Interview dated October 30, 2019, approximately 00:17:12–00:17:35.

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

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

See also:

• Sarah: Assault Allegations
• Sarah: Police Reports

December 24, 2019: Sarah Describes James as Hostile Rather Than Affectionate Toward Her

In a December 24, 2019 Newsweek interview, Sarah described James as insulting, hostile, and emotionally rejecting toward her rather than romantically encouraging.

In a Newsweek interview, Sarah described James as repeatedly insulting her and making her feel unwanted.

Sarah stated:

“Greg would say mean things to me, he would call me stupid, a c**t, call me a dyke…”

She continued:

“He would say that I’m stupid. He made me feel really dumb and ugly.”

What the statement directly shows

Sarah described James’s behavior toward her as openly harsh, insulting, and rejecting. She did not describe James as flattering her, building her confidence, cultivating affection, promising a future relationship, or attempting to make himself emotionally desirable to her.

Why it matters

Sarah’s own description is inconsistent with the claim that James was trying to groom her through praise, affection, romantic encouragement, or calculated emotional seduction.

According to Sarah, James behaved in the opposite manner: he insulted her, made her feel unattractive, and communicated hostility rather than romantic interest.

This statement also supports the broader record showing that Sarah believed James opposed her romantic interest in Lucas and would remove her from the household if she pursued it.

Source

Newsweek interview with Sarah published December 24, 2019.

Article title: Sarah on Her Relationship With YouTuber Onision: “Why Did You Think This Was Okay?”

https://www.newsweek.com/sarah-her-relationship-youtuber-onision-why-did-you-think-this-was-okay-1479119

December 24, 2019: Sarah Confirms She Was Removed After Her Concealed Feelings for Lucas Were Discovered

In a December 24, 2019 interview, Sarah acknowledged having a concealed crush on Lucas and confirmed that she was required to leave after her intentions were discovered.

In a Newsweek interview, Sarah discussed being required to leave James and Lucas’s household in February 2017.

Sarah stated:

“My friend Lane had told the internet that there’s some sneaky shit going on. They told me that I had to leave…”

When asked how she felt at the time, Sarah acknowledged:

“It was just because I had this crush on Kai…”

What the statement directly shows

Sarah confirms that she had concealed romantic feelings for Lucas and that she was required to leave after the situation was discovered.

According to James and Lucas, Sarah communicated her feelings and intentions toward Lucas to Lane. Once James and Lucas learned that Sarah wanted to pursue Lucas, they rejected the situation and removed Sarah from the household.

The problem was not merely that Sarah’s feelings became public. The problem was that those concealed feelings and intentions existed at all.

Why it matters

James and Lucas did not encourage Sarah’s interest, participate in a secret plan with her, or prepare her for a future relationship.

They did the opposite.

When they learned that Sarah wanted to pursue Lucas, they rejected her intentions and made her leave. This conduct is fundamentally inconsistent with the allegation that the household was grooming Sarah for an eventual romantic or sexual relationship.

Sarah’s statement also aligns with her later admission that she concealed her feelings because she believed James would remove her if he discovered them. The record shows Sarah hiding her own intentions while James and Lucas maintained a boundary against the relationship she wanted.

Source

Newsweek interview with Sarah published December 24, 2019.

Article: Sarah on Her Relationship With YouTuber Onision: “Why Did You Think This Was Okay?”

https://www.newsweek.com/sarah-her-relationship-youtuber-onision-why-did-you-think-this-was-okay-1479119

December 24, 2019: Sarah Confirms She Strongly Disliked James After He Rejected Her/Kicked Her Out and Had No Romantic Interest in Him

In a December 24, 2019 interview, Sarah confirmed that James’s hostility caused her to strongly dislike him rather than develop romantic interest in him.

In a Newsweek interview, Sarah described remaining close with Lucas after she returned home while strongly disliking James.

Sarah stated:

“Kai and I are still friends and Greg isn’t mad.”

She then described her feelings toward James:

“I really did not like [Greg]. He was an a**hole. He was such an idol to me, and I’m like why is this guy so f***ing mean?”

What the statement directly shows

Sarah confirms that James’s behavior caused her to dislike him. She describes him as rude, hostile, and emotionally unappealing rather than affectionate, flattering, seductive, or romantically encouraging.

Her account also distinguishes her relationship with Lucas from her relationship with James: she remained close with Lucas while having no romantic interest in James.

Why it matters

Sarah’s own description is inconsistent with the claim that James was attempting to gain her affection or cultivate sexual interest in him.

According to Sarah, James’s conduct had the opposite effect: she strongly disliked him and regarded him as mean. James’s position is that his treatment of Sarah consistently discouraged any belief that she could pursue him or become part of a relationship with the household.

This statement fits the larger record in which Sarah acknowledged that James repeatedly opposed her interest in Lucas, made clear that a relationship would not happen, and would remove her if her concealed intentions became known.

Source

Newsweek interview with Sarah published December 24, 2019.

Article: Sarah on Her Relationship With YouTuber Onision: “Why Did You Think This Was Okay?”

https://www.newsweek.com/sarah-her-relationship-youtuber-onision-why-did-you-think-this-was-okay-1479119

December 24, 2019: Sarah Recasts a Mocking Remark as Sexual Interest

In a Newsweek interview, Sarah claimed that James had previously made a comment about her body and later reacted angrily when

In a December 24, 2019 interview, Sarah said James immediately kicked her out after she brought up an inappropriate comment involving her body.

she mentioned it during a trip to Walmart.

Sarah stated:

“I went to Walmart with Greg and jokingly mentioned that comment about my ass when I was 16 that had freaked me out. He kicked me out immediately.”

Sarah also attributed the following words to James:

“you’re going to ruin my career, this is exactly what Kevin Spacey went through.”

That quotation is Sarah’s retrospective account of what James supposedly said. It is not an audio recording, message, transcript, or independently verified quotation. James disputes that wording and context.

What James says actually happened

James states that the original remark was mockery in pattern with the other bullying Sarah already confessed he inflicted upon her due to him being disinterested in her, it was, per Sarah's own reported prior pattern, not flirtation.

He commonly used sarcastic phrases such as “that belly though” or “that ___ though” when joking about someone’s appearance, an awkward situation or pose. In Sarah’s case, she was posing with her backside raised on a bean bag chair, and James mocked the pose by commenting “dat booty doe.” According to James, the remark was consistent with the openly rude and insulting way Sarah herself has repeatedly said he treated her.

Years later, Sarah brought the remark up as though it had been sexual interest. James states that his reference to public scandals concerned the broader reality that even a false sexual rumor can destroy a person’s career. He did not claim that his situation was identical to Kevin Spacey’s, as Sarah’s interview quotation suggests.

What the incident directly shows

Even under Sarah’s own account, James did not respond by encouraging sexual discussion, indicating attraction, or attempting to pursue her.

He became angry and immediately removed her from the household sending her thousands of miles away back to Michigan, he was sick of her perverted implications, there were multiple witnesses to Sarah's immediate removal.

James’s position is that he realized Sarah was attempting to reinterpret years of ridicule and rejection as evidence that he had been sexually interested in her. He rejected that characterization and told her to leave.

Why it matters

Sarah’s presentation reverses the meaning of the original interaction.

The contemporaneous pattern documented throughout this page shows James behaving toward Sarah in a hostile, mocking, and rejecting manner. Sarah herself has said that James made her feel unattractive, insulted her, opposed her interest in Lucas, and repeatedly made clear that no relationship would occur.

The claim that a mocking comment was secretly sexual is inconsistent with that broader record.

The incident also demonstrates the household’s response when Sarah attempted to sexualize an interaction with James: she was not encouraged, welcomed, or groomed. She was removed.

Sarah was removed when it was discovered she was plotting to be with Lucas. Sarah was again removed when she mistook one of the many bullying comments James/Onision made toward her, as a compliment.

Source

Newsweek interview with Sarah published December 24, 2019.

Article: Sarah on Her Relationship With YouTuber Onision: “Why Did You Think This Was Okay?”

https://www.newsweek.com/sarah-her-relationship-youtuber-onision-why-did-you-think-this-was-okay-1479119