Sarah/Police Report

September 2019–February 2020: Police Found No Evidence of a Crime and Received No Direct Victim Report

Pierce County investigators recorded that the allegations were investigated with “no evidence of a crime,” while the information initially provided came largely from third parties rather than firsthand victim reports.

This section of the Pierce County Sheriff Department report explains how the investigation began and what investigators actually had before contacting the individuals named in later media coverage.

The report’s official synopsis states:

“Allegations of sexual assault were investigated. No evidence of a crime.”

How the allegations reached police

According to the report, the initial information received in September 2019 concerned possible sexual-exploitation crimes at Onision and Lucas’s residence.

However, investigators noted that:

• There was very little specific information.
• There were no firsthand reports from any alleged victim.
• The accusations centered on claims being circulated about Onision online.
• The original matter was cleared with no evidence of criminal activity.

Afterward, the Sheriff Department received more than 40 additional emails concerning the same or similar allegations.

Those emails did not come from alleged victims reporting crimes they personally experienced. They came from third parties who had heard accusations through social media, commentary channels, and self-described online investigations.

A reporter claimed victims had been groomed

On October 2, 2019, reporter Makena Kelly contacted police and claimed that multiple women had told her Onision had groomed and coerced them into sexual intercourse, including individuals she said were 14 to 16 years old at the time.

The investigator told Kelly that police had received numerous third-party allegations but still had not heard directly from anyone claiming to be a crime victim.

Kelly was encouraged to give the investigator’s contact information to the women she had interviewed so they could report any crime themselves.

The report states:

“I was not contacted by anyone else as a result of my conversation with Kelly.”

Chris Hansen’s media campaign also preceded direct reporting

The report then describes Chris Hansen’s YouTube “media investigation.”

Hansen published interviews with alleged victims and others while publicly presenting the situation as an established criminal scandal. Police later asked Hansen to provide identifying information for the people appearing on his program so investigators could determine whether any reportable crime had occurred within their jurisdiction.

This chronology is important:

1. Accusations spread publicly through social media.
2. Third parties repeatedly emailed police.
3. Reporters and online personalities claimed they had spoken with victims.
4. Police invited those alleged victims to report crimes directly.
5. No one contacted the investigator following the invitation described in this section.
6. The earlier investigation had already been cleared with no evidence of criminal activity.

Why it matters

This report shows that the public narrative moved ahead of the evidence.

Police were not initially responding to Sarah walking into a station and reporting that Onision or Lucas had committed a crime against her. They were responding to a flood of accusations generated by outsiders, online content creators, media figures, and people repeating what they had heard.

The distinction is critical.

A large number of emails does not equal a large number of victims. Repetition does not transform a third-party rumor into firsthand evidence.

At this stage, police had:

• No direct victim report supporting the online allegations
• No evidence of a crime
• Numerous third-party messages repeating social-media claims
• Media personalities publicly promoting allegations before investigators had substantiated them

This section establishes that law enforcement began from a position of skepticism and evidence-gathering—not from a conclusion that the accusations were true.

It also directly undermines the impression created online that police had already uncovered criminal conduct involving Onision or Lucas. The report says the opposite: the original allegations were cleared with no evidence of criminal activity.

Source

Pierce County Sheriff Department Incident Report, page 3 of 5.

March 9, 2020: Sarah Repeatedly Denies Underage Sexual Contact While Making an Unverified Image Allegation

This page records Sarah’s March 9, 2020 telephone interview with the Pierce County Sheriff Department.

Sarah told police that nothing sexual occurred during her first visit, that she had no sexual contact with Onision or Lucas while living with them as a minor, and that sexual discussions did not occur during her later 2017 visit.

Before the interview, the FBI told the investigator that it had received many third-party tips but had not established that a sex crime occurred based on its interview with Sarah. Sarah had provided a computer for examination, and investigators were still waiting to determine whether it contained evidence supporting her allegation.

Sarah was the only person on the investigator’s contact list who returned the call. She declined to have the conversation recorded, so the report is the investigator’s written summary rather than an audio-verifiable interview.

The image allegation is vague and unsupported on this page

The report states that Sarah claimed she had sent Lucas:

“a picture of her breasts and a picture of her in her underwear”

It then says Sarah claimed Lucas sent “similar messages,” but that they had all been deleted.

The wording does not establish that the first image showed Sarah nude. It does not say “topless,” “naked breasts,” “exposed breasts,” or that nipples were visible. Without the image itself, the phrase could describe anything from cleavage or a chest-focused selfie to an exposed-breast photograph.

The report also provides no visible supporting evidence for Sarah’s claim about Lucas:

• No screenshot is identified.
• No exact date is given.
• No description of the alleged image is recorded.
• No quoted message from Lucas is included.
• Sarah said the supposed responsive material had been deleted.
• The FBI had not established that a sex crime occurred.
• Her computer was still being examined for possible corroboration.

The page therefore documents an allegation by Sarah, not verified proof that Lucas sent an illegal image.

Sarah denies anything sexual during her first visit

Sarah told police that she first visited Washington in September 2016 at age 16.

The report states:

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

This is a categorical denial. Sarah did not merely say that intercourse did not occur. She said nothing of a sexual nature occurred.

Sarah’s “Bathed or Showered in Front of Lucas” Statement Is Vague and Does Not Establish Nudity or Sexual Conduct

Sarah told police that she returned in October 2016 and remained until late February 2017.

The report states:

“Sarah said she would occasionally bathe or shower in front of Kai while they were talking but did not have any kind of sexual contact with Jackson or Kai during this trip.”

The phrase “bathe or shower in front of” is left completely undefined.

The report does not say:

• Sarah and Lucas saw each other naked.
• Sarah’s unclothed body was visible.
• Lucas entered the shower or bath with her.
• A curtain, door, wall, or other barrier was absent.
• Lucas watched Sarah bathe.
• Anything sexual was said or done.

“While they were talking” could describe Lucas being elsewhere in the bathroom, outside an enclosure, near a doorway, or simply close enough to carry on a conversation while Sarah remained concealed behind a shower curtain or other barrier.

The report provides no physical layout, no description of visibility, and no explanation of what Sarah meant by “in front of.”

That matters because Sarah’s vague wording creates a suggestive image without supplying the facts necessary to justify it. A person showering behind an opaque curtain while speaking to someone nearby is entirely different from deliberately exposing themselves naked to that person.

The only unambiguous part of Sarah’s statement is her conclusion:

She “did not have any kind of sexual contact with Jackson or Kai during this trip.”

Therefore, this passage cannot reasonably be presented as evidence of sexual activity. Sarah herself expressly denied that sexual contact occurred, while leaving the supposedly unusual bathing detail too vague to establish nudity, exposure, observation, or misconduct.

Sarah denies sexual discussions during her 2017 visit

Sarah told police she returned from August through November 2017.

The report states:

“Sarah said there was not any discussion of a sexual nature at the time…”

Sarah was still under 18 during that visit.

Her police account therefore establishes the same boundary across three separate periods:

• September 2016: Nothing sexual occurred.
• October 2016 through February 2017: No sexual contact occurred with Onision or Lucas.
• August through November 2017: No sexual discussions occurred.

Sarah places the relationship change after turning 18

Sarah told police that she returned in July 2018 and turned 18 during that visit.

Only after documenting that she became an adult does the report describe a change in the relationship. Sarah said Onision, who had previously shown little interest or affection toward her, began treating her better. She then described watching movies together in bed and joking about “threesomes.”

The order of events matters.

According to Sarah’s own police statement:

1. Nothing sexual occurred during the minor-age visits.
2. No sexual discussions occurred during the 2017 visit.
3. Sarah turned 18.
4. The relationship and conversations then changed.

The police account conflicts with Sarah’s later narrative

Years later, Sarah alleged that sexual touching, sexualization, grooming, and propositions occurred while she was still a minor. Those later allegations are difficult to reconcile with her earlier statements to police that nothing sexual occurred, no sexual contact occurred, and no sexual discussions occurred during the same periods.

This is not a minor difference in wording.

The two accounts describe fundamentally different histories:

• In the police report, Sarah repeatedly places sexual conduct and discussion outside her minor-age visits.
• In her later allegations, she claims sexual conduct and sexual conditioning occurred during those visits.

Both accounts cannot accurately describe the same chronology without a substantial explanation.

What this page establishes

Sarah told investigators that:

• She had no sexual contact with Onision or Lucas while she was a minor.
• Nothing sexual occurred during her first Washington visit.
• No sexual discussions occurred during her later 2017 visit.
• She turned 18 before the relationship and sexual joking changed.
• She had romantic feelings for Lucas but not Onision.
• Onision had previously shown little interest or affection toward her.
• The FBI had not established that a sex crime occurred.
• The alleged responsive material from Lucas was unavailable because Sarah said it had been deleted.
• Her allegation concerning photographs had not yet been corroborated by the computer examination described on this page.

Why it matters

This page is damaging to Sarah’s later account because it records her giving police a detailed chronology that repeatedly excludes sexual contact and sexual discussions from the periods when she was underage.

Her vague image allegation does not erase those categorical statements.

Nor does the report establish that the alleged images were nude, illegal, authentic, or exchanged as she described. The investigator recorded what Sarah said and was still waiting for actual digital evidence.

The strongest evidence on this page is therefore not the unverified allegation about deleted images. It is Sarah’s repeated and specific admission that no sexual contact occurred with Onision or Lucas while she was a minor.

Source

Pierce County Sheriff Department Incident Report, page 4 of 5. Sarah interview conducted March 9, 2020; report printed June 23, 2020. The police account is also identified in the filed evidence collection as materially conflicting with Sarah’s later allegations.

March 9–June 23, 2020: Sarah Tells Police the Sexual Activity Was Consensual; Investigator Finds No Crime

Sarah told police that the sexual activity occurred after she turned 18, that she participated willingly, never told Onision or Lucas no, and was unsure she had been the victim of a crime; the investigator concluded that no crime had been established.

The final page of the Pierce County Sheriff Department report records Sarah’s account of the sexual activity that occurred after she became an adult and the investigator’s ultimate conclusion.

Across each encounter described, Sarah told police that she participated willingly, never told Onision or Lucas “no,” and was unsure that she had been the victim of any crime.

January 2019: Sarah describes herself as a willing participant

Sarah told police that she returned to Washington in January 2019 for several days and engaged in oral sex with Onision and Lucas on two occasions.

The report states:

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

Sarah said Lucas felt ignored and emotionally hurt during the visit, but otherwise described the trip as uneventful.

This account directly contradicts any portrayal of the January 2019 activity as something Sarah told police was forced or nonconsensual.

June 2019: Sarah says the threesome was “fine”

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

She claimed Onision attempted to convince Sarah and Lucas to participate in a threesome and said that, on the final night of the visit, the three had sex.

The report states:

“Sarah said it was ‘fine’…”

Sarah also told police that she agreed to be Onision’s girlfriend during the visit despite his marriage to Lucas.

Her own description again presents her as knowingly participating in an adult sexual and romantic arrangement, not as someone reporting an assault.

July 2019: Sarah again describes consensual sex

Sarah told police that she returned in late July 2019 while Lucas was traveling and that she and Onision were alone together for the first time.

The report states:

“Sarah told me she and Jackson engaged in sexual intercourse during the trip and admitted it had been consensual.”

Sarah said Lucas later learned what happened and became upset.

The report also records that Onision claimed Sarah had “blackmailed” him into having sex and that the relationship ultimately ended. The police report records this as Onision’s stated position; it does not independently decide the blackmail allegation on this page.

What it does establish is that Sarah herself described the sexual intercourse to police as consensual.

Sarah says she never told either person “no”

The investigator directly asked Sarah whether she had ever been an unwilling participant in any sexual activity with Onision or Lucas.

The report states:

“Sarah told me she ‘never told them no’ and admitted she was not sure she was a victim of any crime.”

This is one of the clearest statements in the entire report.

Sarah did not tell police that she refused, withdrew consent, or was forced to participate. She said she never told either person no and was unsure that any crime had occurred.

The investigator did not believe a crime occurred

After reviewing Sarah’s account, the investigator told her:

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

The investigator later contacted the FBI on June 22, 2020. The FBI’s computer examination had not yet been completed, and the agent had no additional information identifying crimes within Pierce County jurisdiction.

As of June 23, the investigator also reported that none of the other women described publicly as alleged victims had contacted police, despite having appeared in media interviews and having been given an opportunity to file reports.

The Report’s Final Conclusion

The investigator concluded:

“Sarah was a willing participant in sexual activity after the age of consent, in fact after turning 18 years old, and was not under the legal care or custody of Jackson or Kai.”

The report also states:

“Based on the information gathered during my investigation, I have not been able to establish that a crime occurred.”

This materially conflicts with the later portrayal of Onision and Lucas as exercising guardian-like legal control over Sarah during the encounters. The report does not resolve every possible claim of emotional influence, but its conclusion is clear: Sarah was an adult, participated willingly, and was not under either person’s legal care or custody.

The report was retained because of extensive third-party emails and public attention, nothing else. This highlights how much of a non-issue the entire situation would be without misinformed public outrage.

What this page directly establishes

Sarah told police that:

• The January 2019 sexual activity was voluntary.
• She was a “willing participant.”
• The June 2019 threesome was “fine.”
• She agreed to enter a girlfriend relationship with Onision.
• The July 2019 intercourse with Onision was consensual.
• She never told Onision or Lucas “no.”
• She was unsure that she had been the victim of any crime.
• All described sexual activity occurred after she turned 18.

The investigator concluded that:

• Sarah was a willing adult participant.
• She was not under Onision or Lucas’s legal care or custody.
• The available information did not establish that a crime occurred.
• No other publicly identified alleged victim contacted the investigator to file a report.

Why it matters

This page is incompatible with Sarah’s later portrayal of the adult sexual encounters as criminal exploitation or assault.

Her own police account repeatedly uses the language of consent:

• “Willing participant”
• “Fine”
• “Consensual”
• “Never told them no”
• “Not sure she was a victim of any crime”

These are not conclusions imposed on Sarah by Onision Wiki. They are statements recorded by law enforcement during Sarah’s own interview.

The police report also establishes a consistent chronology:

1. Sarah denied sexual contact while she was a minor.
2. Sexual activity began only after she turned 18.
3. Sarah described each adult encounter as voluntary or consensual.
4. The investigator found insufficient evidence that any crime occurred.

Source

Pierce County Sheriff Department Incident Report, page 5 of 5. Sarah interview conducted March 9, 2020; FBI follow-up conducted June 22, 2020; report completed June 23, 2020.