Sarah/Damages

May 16, 2018: Sarah Calls Lucas “the Best Friend I’ve Ever Had” and Says She Loves and Appreciates Him

Sarah spontaneously called Lucas “the best friend I’ve ever had” and told him how much she loved and appreciated him. She continued expressing the same affection years later while describing herself as healed, moved on, and without animosity.

On May 16, 2018, Sarah privately and without prompting told Lucas:

“you’re the best friend I’ve ever had”

Lucas appeared surprised and asked:

“You ok?”

Sarah answered:

“Yeah”

Lucas thanked her and replied that she was also the best friend he had ever had.

Sarah then explained why she had initiated the exchange:

“I know haha I just wanted you to know how much I love and appreciate you”

Sarah’s Own Description of the Relationship

Sarah’s statement was spontaneous, affectionate, and private.

She described Lucas as:

• the best friend she had ever had
• someone she loved
• someone she appreciated
• an important and positive person in her life

Lucas did not request praise, pressure Sarah to reassure him, or tell her what to say.

Sarah initiated the exchange because she personally wanted Lucas to understand how highly she regarded him.

Evidence Concerning Sarah’s Claimed Harm

Contemporaneous notes record Sarah explaining that she felt rejected by Lucas and wanted someone to love her, while also asking Lucas to check on Onision after learning that her conduct had hurt him.

This message comes from the period Sarah later portrayed as emotionally abusive, psychologically damaging, coercive, and exploitative.

Her contemporaneous description was the opposite.

Sarah did not describe Lucas as:

• frightening
• controlling
• abusive
• manipulative
• predatory
• a source of trauma
• someone she wanted to escape or avoid

She called him:

“the best friend I’ve ever had”

and emphasized:

“how much I love and appreciate you”

The message records Sarah’s own emotional assessment of Lucas during the relevant period. She described affection, trust, gratitude, and emotional closeness rather than harm.

Sarah Repeated the Same Position Years Later

This was not an isolated message that Sarah immediately disavowed.

Years later, Sarah continued making statements inconsistent with severe or lasting injury caused by Lucas or Onision.

Contemporaneous records from later telephone calls document Sarah stating that:

• she had “healed”
• she had “moved on”
• she forgave Onision for being rude to her while she was a minor
• she had no animosity toward Onision or Lucas
• she wanted to move on with her life
• she wanted privacy
• she did not want to file the lawsuit
• she did not want to testify
• Lucas was “still the best friend she’s ever had”
• she wanted Lucas to check on Onision because she understood that he had been emotionally hurt

These later statements reinforce the meaning of the May 2018 message.

Sarah continued describing Lucas as her closest friend and described herself as recovered, no longer holding animosity, and wanting to leave the controversy behind.

Continued Voluntary Contact

Sarah’s conduct also matched her positive statements.

The later record documents Sarah voluntarily:

• speaking with Onision for more than half an hour in December 2021
• telling him that she had healed and moved on
• forgiving him for the limited issue of being rude to her while she was a minor
• reconnecting with Lucas in February 2023
• participating in repeated and lengthy telephone calls
• discussing music, relationships, friends, and ordinary life
• arranging additional calls
• sharing highly personal information
• continuing to call Lucas the best friend she had ever had

This was sustained, voluntary contact years after the relationship ended.

Sarah did not behave as though she needed permanent separation from Lucas or Onision for her safety or recovery. She repeatedly chose to resume personal communication with them.

The Claimed-Damages Conflict

Sarah’s later complaint seeks damages based on allegations of severe and continuing emotional, psychological, and reputational injury.

Her own statements create a direct conflict with that presentation.

Sarah repeatedly described:

• love and appreciation for Lucas
• Lucas as the best friend she had ever had
• herself as healed
• herself as having moved on
• no remaining animosity toward the household
• a desire for privacy rather than litigation
• reluctance to testify
• continued concern for Onision’s emotional condition
• continued friendly communication with Lucas

The claimed-damages narrative therefore must be compared with Sarah’s own repeated descriptions of recovery, affection, voluntary contact, and absence of continuing hostility.

The available record does not show Sarah consistently describing herself as emotionally destroyed by Lucas or Onision.

It shows Sarah repeatedly describing Lucas as deeply valued and later describing herself as healed, moved on, and without animosity.

A Broader Pattern Relevant to Damages

This page will collect additional evidence concerning Sarah’s claimed harm, including:

• Sarah’s statements that she had healed and moved on
• Sarah’s statement that she had no animosity toward Onision or Lucas
• Sarah’s repeated voluntary contact with the household
• Sarah’s statement that she did not want the lawsuit
• Sarah’s statement that she did not want to testify
• Sarah’s desire to move on and have privacy
• her continued social, romantic, employment, and financial activity
• her friendly discussions of music and everyday life
• her continuing description of Lucas as her closest friend
• evidence that any public controversy was amplified through Sarah’s own interviews, social-media activity, and documentary participation

The evidence should be evaluated cumulatively. Sarah’s private messages, later telephone statements, and voluntary conduct consistently conflict with the portrayal of ongoing, incapacitating damage caused by Onision or Lucas.

Source

May 16, 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.

Exhibit 103.

Related evidence:

• Sarah says she has healed and moved on
• Sarah says she has no animosity and wants to move on
• Sarah again calls Lucas the best friend she has ever had
• Sarah calls Lucas one of the sweetest people she knows

June 6, 2018: Sarah's "Trauma" Attributed to One Of The Many People She Has Accused, Supposedly Violating Her Many Months Prior

Sarah privately stated that another person failed to listen when she said “no” and discussed wanting answers and closure from him.

On June 6, 2018, Sarah privately discussed a distressing encounter involving another person.

After receiving an unexpected message from him, Sarah wrote:

“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”

She expressed a desire to confront him:

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

Sarah then directly identified the conduct she believed was wrong:

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

Sarah Clearly Understood and Expressed Nonconsent

Sarah’s statement was explicit:

“I said no”

She did not describe herself as unable to understand whether a boundary had been violated. She identified:

• that she had refused
• that the other person allegedly ignored her refusal
• that she blamed him for what occurred
• that the experience continued to upset her
• that she wanted him to acknowledge the harm
• that she wanted answers and closure

This private exchange shows that Sarah could clearly distinguish conduct she considered consensual from conduct she considered nonconsensual.

The Allegation Concerned Someone Outside the Onision Household

In this exchange, Sarah attributed the alleged ignored refusal to another person—not to Onision or Lucas.

Lucas appears only as the person Sarah trusted with the disclosure. He advised her:

“Block him bitch”

Sarah continued discussing whether she wanted closure from the other person:

“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”

The communication depicts Lucas as Sarah’s confidant while she described an alleged violation by someone else.

Relevance to Sarah’s Later Account

The exchange is relevant because it demonstrates that Sarah was capable of:

• recognizing an alleged consent violation
• stating that she had said no
• identifying the person she blamed
• describing the emotional effect
• seeking advice and support
• differentiating an unwanted encounter from consensual conduct

This should be compared with Sarah’s contemporaneous descriptions of her later adult interactions with Onision and Lucas, which she repeatedly described differently.

In her police statements and earlier interviews, Sarah described herself as a willing participant in the adult sexual relationship and stated that she had not told Onision or Lucas no.

The distinction in Sarah’s own language is important:

• In this exchange, she said another person ignored her “no”
• In her original descriptions of Onision and Lucas, she did not make the same claim
• She instead described the adult interactions as willing or consensual
• The severe allegations against Onision and Lucas appeared later

This exhibit therefore contributes to the consent chronology by showing how Sarah spoke when she believed someone had actually disregarded a refusal.

Connection to Related Evidence

Separate messages may establish additional facts concerning this person, including Sarah’s description of the relationship and whether she regarded that encounter as her first sexual experience.

Those facts should be presented in their own supported entry or incorporated here only when the corresponding source is displayed.

This image directly establishes only that Sarah accused another person of failing to listen when she said no.

Source

June 6, 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.

Related evidence:

• Sarah: Assault Allegations
• Sarah: Police Reports