June 4–6, 2018: Sarah Identifies Kourtney as the Person Who Took Her Virginity
In June 2018, Sarah sent Lucas screenshots of a conversation with a man named Kourtney.
Kourtney told Sarah that he wanted her and asked:
On June 4, 2018, Sarah told Kourtney that he had ghosted her after “you took my virginity,” establishing that she attributed the loss of her virginity to Kourtney before her later allegations involving Onision.
“Will you let me sleep with you or are you too mad at me?”
Sarah responded:
“You haven’t talked to me for over two weeks.”
She then directly told Kourtney:
“I see all you really wanted was sex and that’s fine but you ghosted me for two weeks after you took my virginity. It really sucked.”
This is an unusually clear contemporaneous statement. Sarah did not vaguely refer to a past relationship or an unnamed sexual experience. She directly identified Kourtney as the person who had taken her virginity.
Sarah’s Account to Lucas
After receiving Kourtney’s message, Sarah told Lucas that it caused intense distress:
“I hate men. I literally had those images in my head all day and when I’m finally relaxing HE TEXTS ME FOR THE FIRST TIME IN TWO WEEKS.”
Lucas initially advised her:
“Block him bitch”
Sarah refused because she wanted to respond:
“I WANT THE LAST WORD THOUGH. I WANT HIM TO FEEL BAD. WHAT DO I SAY”
Lucas did not supply the accusation or script Sarah’s response. He answered:
“I DONT KNOW BITCH”
Sarah later said:
“For real though imma have a panic attack”
She also expressed conflicting feelings about Kourtney:
“And the worst part is that I wanna see him again. Not to have sex obviously but I just want closure. Like ask him why”
Sarah discusses her allegation against Kourtney with Lucas, states that Kourtney did not listen when she said no, and briefly jokes that she may have imagined the incident before immediately revealing that she was joking.
Sarah then made the most serious allegation contained in the exchange:
“IF HE HAD JUST LISTENED TO ME WHEN I SAID NO AND DIDNT GHOST ME”
The screenshots therefore document two separate statements by Sarah:
She identified Kourtney as the person who took her virginity.
She alleged that Kourtney failed to listen when she said no.
The screenshots establish that Sarah made these allegations. They do not independently establish what occurred between Sarah and Kourtney.
The Chronological Problem
The date is decisive.
By June 2018, more than seven months before the January 2019 encounter later alleged against Onision, Sarah had already:
Described having sex with Kourtney
Identified Kourtney as the person who took her virginity
Alleged that Kourtney ignored her refusal
Described intrusive memories and panic connected to the encounter
Said she wanted closure from him
Explicitly stated that she did not want to have sex with him again
This record directly contradicts any later claim that Onision was the person who took Sarah’s virginity.
It also materially complicates any later presentation suggesting that the January 2019 encounter was Sarah’s first sexual experience or the original source of her claimed sexual trauma.
Sarah had already attributed her virginity loss and an alleged nonconsensual sexual encounter to Kourtney before any alleged sexual activity involving Onision occurred.
That fact cannot be reconciled with any later version.
Why It Matters
The central issue is chronology.
A later legal allegation cannot silently erase Sarah’s earlier documented sexual history. Before the alleged January 2019 encounter with Onision, Sarah had already told both Kourtney and Lucas that Kourtney took her virginity and ignored her refusal.
That earlier account is relevant when evaluating:
Later claims concerning who took Sarah’s virginity
Portrayals of Sarah’s prior sexual experience
Claims regarding the origin of her alleged sexual trauma
Alternative causes of the emotional harm later attributed to Onision
Whether later pleadings present a complete and accurate chronology
The fixed fact is Sarah’s own dated statement:
“You ghosted me for two weeks after you took my virginity.”
The timeline does not permit that event to be reassigned to someone else later.
Source
June 2018 screenshots of messages between Sarah and Lucas, containing an embedded conversation between Sarah and Kourtney.
January 7, 2019: Sarah Says She Would Speak Up and Calls the Situation “Sweet,” Not “Creepy”
Sarah tells Lucas that she would speak up if the situation ever felt “shady,” says she could not keep discomfort bottled up, and describes what was happening as “sweet” rather than “creepy.”
On January 7, 2019, Sarah directly addressed whether the developing situation with Lucas felt inappropriate, coercive, or “creepy.”
She told Lucas:
“Yes if I EVER start feeling like this is something that’s shady I’ll say something. I know I wouldn’t be able to keep something like that bottled up inside.”
This statement is highly relevant to Sarah’s later portrayal of herself as unable to recognize, resist, or disclose alleged coercion by the Onision household.
Sarah did not merely say that she felt comfortable at that moment. She made a broader statement about her own ability and intention to respond if anything became improper:
She would recognize if the situation became “shady.”
She would say something.
She believed she was incapable of keeping such discomfort concealed.
Sarah Says Nobody Expected the Relationship to Develop
Sarah continued:
“If anything I was convinced it would never in a million years ever even come up.”
She added:
“And I know you and Greg were too. We know how things have played out.”
This materially conflicts with a later narrative suggesting that Onision and Lucas had spent years deliberately preparing Sarah for a sexual relationship.
According to Sarah’s contemporaneous account, all three believed that such a relationship would never occur. She described the development as unexpected—not as the intended result of a long-term plan.
Sarah Explicitly Rejects the “Creepy” Interpretation
Sarah then stated:
“This isn’t a creepy thing it’s actually kinda sweet the way I look at it.”
She also reassured Lucas:
“I know you. You don’t have a malicious bone in your body. Things are happening naturally and I’m done feeling bad about it.”
These are not ambiguous statements.
Sarah expressly considered whether the situation was:
Shady
Creepy
Malicious
Unnatural
She rejected each characterization.
Instead, she described the situation as:
Sweet
Natural
Unexpected
Nonmalicious
Sarah Rejects Outside Narratives About the Relationship
Sarah concluded:
“I’m not letting people who don’t know us AT ALL tell us what’s going on. They know literally nothing.”
This shows that Sarah was already aware that outsiders might interpret the situation negatively. She did not claim ignorance of that possibility.
She evaluated the concern and rejected it based on what she said was her own knowledge of Lucas, Onision, and the relationship.
The Evidentiary Conflict
This message does not independently determine what occurred during every later sexual encounter. It does, however, create a serious conflict with later claims that Sarah:
Could not recognize inappropriate conduct
Was unable to voice discomfort
Had been conditioned to suppress objections
Believed the developing relationship was predatory
Was unknowingly following a plan created by Onision and Lucas
Viewed Lucas as malicious or threatening
Felt that events were being forced rather than occurring naturally
Sarah’s contemporaneous words state almost the exact opposite.
She said she would speak if anything felt wrong, could not keep such feelings bottled up, believed nobody expected the relationship to happen, called it “sweet,” and said events were occurring naturally.
Why It Matters
The importance of this exchange is not simply that Sarah sounded affectionate.
Sarah directly addressed the central questions later raised in her allegations:
Was the situation shady? Would she speak up? Was it creepy? Was Lucas malicious? Had the relationship been planned?
Her answers at the time were clear:
She would speak up.
She could not conceal discomfort.
It was not creepy.
Lucas was not malicious.
Events were happening naturally.
Nobody expected the relationship to develop.
A later accusation cannot erase these statements. Any substantially different account must explain why Sarah’s detailed contemporaneous assessment should no longer be believed.
Source
January 7, 2019 text messages between Sarah and Lucas. Lucas’s messages appear in blue and Sarah’s messages appear in gray.
January 2019: Sarah Tells Police She Willingly Participated in Both Sexual Encounters
Sarah told police that she willingly participated in two January 2019 sexual encounters and that Lucas—not Sarah—felt ignored and emotionally hurt afterward.
Sarah told the Pierce County Sheriff Department that she returned to Washington in January 2019 for a visit lasting only a few days.
The report states:
“She told me during this trip, she engaged in oral sex with Jackson and Kai on two occasions.”
Most importantly, the investigator recorded:
“Sarah told me she was a willing participant in the sexual activity that took place during this trip.”
The report identifies two separate sexual encounters and records Sarah describing herself as a willing participant in the activity.
Who Reported Feeling Harmed?
Sarah did not tell the investigator that she felt frightened, forced, violated, or emotionally harmed during this trip.
Instead, the report states:
“Sarah said Kai felt ignored during the trip and was hurt by that but otherwise the trip was uneventful.”
According to Sarah’s account, Lucas was the person who experienced negative feelings because he felt excluded. Sarah described the visit itself as otherwise uneventful.
The Contradiction
This contemporaneous police account materially conflicts with later allegations portraying the January 2019 encounters as sexual assault or involuntary conduct.
Sarah’s statement to police was specific:
Two sexual encounters occurred.
She willingly participated.
She did not identify herself as the emotionally injured participant.
She said the trip was otherwise uneventful.
The report does not merely show an absence of an assault allegation. It records Sarah affirmatively describing herself as willing.
Any later account characterizing these same encounters as forced or nonconsensual must therefore confront her direct statement to law enforcement:
“Sarah told me she was a willing participant.”
Why It Matters
Consent is the central disputed fact.
Sarah later presented substantially more severe descriptions of conduct involving the Onision household. Yet when questioned by police about the January 2019 trip, she described two encounters and expressly stated that she participated willingly.
That earlier statement does not disappear because a later legal pleading uses more alarming language. The two versions are materially inconsistent and should be examined together.
Source
Excerpt from a Pierce County Sheriff Department incident report documenting Sarah’s account of her January 2019 visit.
January 20–21, 2019: Sarah Remains Friendly and Says She Has to Return
After the two January 2019 sexual encounters that Sarah later described to police as willing, she continued casually messaging Lucas and said she would have to return so they could play Guitar Hero.
On January 20 and 21, 2019, Sarah continued communicating casually and affectionately with Lucas following the two sexual encounters from that trip that she later described to police as willing.
The conversation includes ordinary discussion about ordering Chipotle, sharing music, and an activity they did not have time to complete.
Lucas wrote:
“We never played guitar hero”
Sarah responded:
“Guess I have to come back so we can play”
Sarah also sent a photograph of a photo-booth strip showing herself and Lucas together.
What the Messages Show
These messages show that immediately after the January visit, Sarah:
Continued friendly and relaxed communication with Lucas
Participated in ordinary conversation about food and music
Shared a personal photograph from the trip
Expressed an intention to return to the household
Presented the unfinished Guitar Hero session as a reason to visit again
There is no visible expression in this exchange of fear, avoidance, anger, coercion, or a desire to end contact.
The Evidentiary Conflict
The exchange must be considered alongside Sarah’s separate statement to police that she was a:
“willing participant in the sexual activity that took place during this trip.”
Her conduct immediately afterward is consistent with that original account. She remained comfortable communicating with Lucas and volunteered that she intended to return.
This materially conflicts with any later portrayal suggesting that Sarah immediately regarded the January encounters as forced, feared the household, or wanted to escape further contact.
Why It Matters
The importance of this evidence comes from the combined record:
Sarah later told police that she willingly participated in both January encounters.
Her immediate messages contain no complaint of assault or coercion.
She continued warm, ordinary communication with Lucas.
She expressly suggested returning to the household.
Source
January 20–21, 2019 text messages between Sarah and Lucas. Lucas’s messages appear in blue and Sarah’s messages appear in gray.
May 5–7, 2019: Sarah Clarifies That She Invited Onision to Visit Her
Months after the January 2019 encounters, Sarah clarified that her earlier invitation to “come visit me” had been directed at Onision and apologized for not inviting Lucas and the children as well.
On May 5, 2019, Sarah clarified an earlier invitation she had made to Onision:
“Hey I just wanted to clarify that when I said ‘come visit me’ I should’ve said y’all or something. I didn’t mean to make it seem like you and the kids weren’t invited.”
Her wording establishes that the original invitation was directed specifically at Onision. Sarah was not merely responding to an invitation from the household; she had asked Onision to travel to Michigan and visit her.
She then apologized for making Lucas feel excluded:
“I also wasn’t being super serious but regardless I’m sorry I said it like that.”
Two days later, Sarah added:
“Sorry I’m not trying to cause problems”
The Contradiction
Sarah later portrayed Onision as having violently assaulted her during the January 2019 trip.
Yet only months after that alleged event, Sarah personally invited the same man to travel across the country and visit her in Michigan. Her concern was not that Onision might come, it was that Lucas and the children might believe they had been excluded.
That is the opposite of the later narrative.
The messages show Sarah:
Initiating the possibility of another visit with Onision
Directing the original invitation specifically to him
Expanding the invitation to include Lucas and the children
Apologizing because her wording might create relationship conflict
Expressing no fear, avoidance, or accusation toward Onision
Why It Matters
Sarah’s later account asks the public to believe that Onision had recently committed a violent sexual assault against her.
Her contemporaneous conduct shows that, afterward, she was inviting him to visit her in another state.
The conflict is direct: Sarah’s private messages treated Onision as someone she wanted to see again, while her later complaint recast him as the perpetrator of a brutal assault.
The invitation supports Onision and Lucas’s position that Sarah’s later allegations do not match how she privately described or treated the January 2019 events at the time.
Source
May 5–7, 2019 text messages between Sarah and Lucas. Sarah’s messages appear in gray.
June 2019: Sarah Returns, Has Sex With Onision and Lucas, and Agrees to Date Onision
Sarah told police that she returned to Washington, had sex with Onision and Lucas, described the encounter as “fine,” and agreed to become Onision’s girlfriend during the same visit.
Sarah told police that she voluntarily returned to Washington for approximately one week at the end of June 2019.
The report states:
“She told me Jackson tried to convince [Sarah] and Kai to participate in a ‘threesome’ and on the last night of her visit, the three of them had sex.”
Sarah described the encounter as:
“fine”
The report further records that Sarah:
“admitted that she also agreed to be Jackson’s girlfriend during the visit despite his marriage to Kai.”
The Contradiction
Sarah later portrayed Onision as someone who had previously subjected her to a violent sexual assault.
Her statement to police establishes a very different sequence:
Sarah voluntarily returned to Washington.
She participated in another sexual encounter involving Onision and Lucas.
She described the encounter as “fine.”
She agreed to enter a romantic relationship with Onision.
She remained willing to associate sexually and romantically with the household.
This was not merely continued communication from a distance. Sarah physically returned to the home, participated in sex, and agreed to become Onision’s girlfriend.
Why It Matters
Sarah’s later assault narrative requires the January and June encounters to be interpreted through claims of fear, coercion, and victimization.
Her own police account contradicts that interpretation.
After the earlier encounters, Sarah returned voluntarily, had sex with both adults again, called the experience “fine,” and agreed to date Onision.
The contemporaneous record supports Onision and Lucas’s position that Sarah willingly pursued an adult sexual and romantic relationship and later recast those consensual events as assault.
Source
Pierce County Sheriff Department Incident Report 2005101355.1, documenting Sarah’s account of her June 2019 visit.
July 2019: Sarah Tells Police the Sex Was Consensual and Confirms Onision Accused Her of Blackmail
Sarah told police that she returned to Washington in late July 2019, had consensual sex with Onision while Lucas was away, and that Onision later accused her of blackmailing him into sex before the relationship ended.
Sarah told police that she returned to Washington in late July 2019 while Lucas was traveling in New Mexico.
The report states:
“She said Kai had travelled to New Mexico so she and Jackson were alone at the house for the first time.”
Sarah then admitted:
“She and Jackson engaged in sexual intercourse during the trip and admitted it had been consensual.”
The report further records:
“Jackson claimed she had ‘blackmailed’ him into having sex and they ultimately ‘broke up.’”
The Original Dispute
Sarah’s own police statement establishes the central facts:
She voluntarily returned to Washington.
She was alone with Onision while Lucas was away.
She had sexual intercourse with Onision.
She expressly admitted that the intercourse was consensual.
Onision accused Sarah of blackmailing him into sex.
The relationship ended.
According to Onision’s chronology, he confronted Sarah approximately two days into the visit, refused further sexual involvement, accused her of sexual extortion, and ended the relationship.
The contemporaneous conflict therefore involved Onision accusing Sarah of sexual misconduct, not Sarah accusing Onision of assaulting her.
The Later Reversal
Sarah later portrayed the July encounter as part of a broader pattern of sexual coercion and assault.
Her police statement records the opposite:
“[She] admitted it had been consensual.”
It also confirms that Onision’s blackmail accusation was already part of the relationship’s collapse. This was not an explanation invented after Sarah filed suit; Sarah herself reported the accusation to police.
The later narrative reverses the original roles:
Sarah returned voluntarily.
Sarah admitted the sex was consensual.
Onision accused Sarah of blackmailing him into sex.
Onision ended the relationship.
Sarah later recast Onision as the sexual aggressor.
Why It Matters
This is one of the clearest contradictions in the record.
Sarah did not merely fail to accuse Onision of rape during her police interview. She affirmatively admitted that the July intercourse was consensual.
She also confirmed the existence of Onision’s accusation that she had blackmailed him into sex and that the relationship then ended.
The police record supports Onision and Lucas’s position that Sarah later reversed a consensual encounter and the accusation originally made against her into an assault narrative against Onision.
Source
Pierce County Sheriff Department Incident Report 2005101355.1, documenting Sarah’s account of her late-July 2019 visit.
July 6, 2019: U-Haul Receipt Corroborates the Trip During Which Onision Says He Rejected Sarah’s Sexual Advance
A July 6, 2019 U-Haul receipt corroborates the furniture-moving trip during which Onision says Sarah placed her face on his lap while he was driving and attempted to initiate oral sex. Onision states that he rejected the advance and did not permit sexual contact.
A U-Haul receipt dated July 6, 2019 corroborates that Onision rented equipment while moving furniture with Sarah during her June 30–July 8 visit.
Onision recorded that while he was driving the U-Haul, Sarah placed her head face-down on his lap, turned her face toward his genital area, and appeared to be attempting to initiate oral sex.
According to Onision, he did not reciprocate, did not give her access to his genitals, and continued driving until Sarah eventually returned to her seat.
The Direction of the Advance
This account is significant because it identifies Sarah as the person initiating sexual contact and Onision as the person refusing it.
The sequence described by Onision is:
Sarah positioned her face on Onision’s lap while he was driving.
She turned toward his genital area.
Onision did not engage with the advance.
He prevented the interaction from becoming sexual.
Sarah eventually stopped and returned to her seat.
This directly conflicts with Sarah’s later portrayal of Onision as a sexual aggressor.
Here, Onision describes the opposite dynamic: Sarah initiated, and he maintained the boundary.
The Wider June–July 2019 Record
This incident occurred during the same general visit in which Sarah later told police that:
She voluntarily returned to Washington.
She participated in sex with Onision and Lucas.
The encounter was “fine.”
She agreed to become Onision’s girlfriend.
The U-Haul account adds another relevant detail to that chronology: Sarah allegedly continued initiating sexual contact with Onision outside the threesome, and Onision rejected this advance, and another advance where she indicated she wanted to perform oral sex on him while they watched the live action Aladdin in theaters. Onision refused to engage in that act with her as well.
The Contradiction
Sarah’s later allegations present Onision as the consistent pursuer.
Onision’s recorded account presents the reverse:
Sarah pursued additional sexual contact.
The advance occurred while they were alone.
Onision did not exploit the opportunity.
He refused the advance.
He did not turn the situation into sexual contact beyond Sarah forcing her nose directly on the zipper area of his pants.
That conduct is inconsistent with the later depiction of Onision as someone determined to obtain sexual access to Sarah regardless of consent.
Why It Matters
The U-Haul receipt independently confirms the trip and date. Onision’s account documents what he says happened during that trip: Sarah initiated a sexual advance, and he rejected it.
This evidence supports the Onision household’s position that Sarah was not being relentlessly pursued or sexually controlled. She was actively initiating contact, while Onision was capable of refusing her and enforcing boundaries.
It also undermines the later attempt to portray every sexual interaction as originating from Onision’s alleged aggression. The contemporaneous chronology includes Sarah pursuing Onision and Onision saying no.
Source
U-Haul contract and receipt dated July 6, 2019, together with Onision’s recorded account of Sarah’s conduct during the associated furniture-moving trip.
July 20, 2019: Ring Footage Records Sarah Leaving After Onision Ends the Relationship
Ring footage dated July 20, 2019 records Sarah leaving the Onision household immediately after Onision confronted her over alleged sexual extortion and ended the relationship.
Ring footage dated July 20, 2019 records Sarah leaving the Onision household with her belongings after Onision ended their relationship.
According to Onision, immediately before Sarah left, he confronted her over what he regarded as sexual extortion and told her that he could no longer continue the relationship. Onision states that Sarah responded twice:
“I’m sorry for raping you guys.”
The still image captures Sarah walking away from the residence immediately after that confrontation. The Ring event history displayed beneath the video places the recording at approximately 11:00 a.m. on July 20, 2019.
The Original Direction of the Accusation
The contemporaneous sequence recorded by the Onision household was:
Onision accused Sarah of raping him and his spouse via sexual extorting them.
Sarah apologized twice.
Onision rejected further sexual and romantic involvement.
Sarah left the household.
Later that day, Sarah acknowledged in messages that Onision was furious specifically with her.
Years later Sarah reversed the roles and accused Onision of sexual assault.
This footage therefore documents the moment the relationship ended because Onision accused Sarah of sexual wrongdoing.
The Contradiction
Sarah later portrayed herself as the victim of severe sexual violence by Onision specifically during the earlier January time frame, only to admit on legal documents to repeatedly returning to the Onision household, and having sex with Onision over and over again.
The documented July 2019 chronology shows the opposite of one of many of Sarah's alternating accounts occurring at the time: Onision accused Sarah, rejected her, and terminated the relationship. Sarah then left and later confirmed to police that the intercourse during this visit had been consensual on her part.
The later assault narrative reverses the original accusation and removes the context explaining why Onision ended the relationship.
Why It Matters
This Ring record fixes the date and departure in the timeline.
Read together with Sarah’s police statement and her messages later that day, it supports the Onision household’s account that:
Sarah voluntarily returned to Washington.
She had consensual sex with Onision.
Onision accused her of sexual extortion.
Onision ended the relationship.
Sarah left after the confrontation.
Sarah later transformed the person who accused and rejected her into the alleged perpetrator.
The footage preserves the immediate aftermath of the confrontation that ended the relationship and preceded Sarah’s later reversal of the story.
Source
Ring front-door recording and event history dated July 20, 2019, together with Onision’s account of the confrontation immediately preceding Sarah’s departure.
July 20, 2019: After Onision Accuses Sarah of Sexual Extortion, She Acknowledges His Anger
This exchange occurred immediately after Onision accused Sarah of sexually extorting him and ended the relationship.
After Onision accused Sarah of sexually extorting him, ended the relationship, and became furious with her, Sarah acknowledged that his anger was directed at her and told Lucas, “I hope you’re both okay.”
According to Onision, Sarah apologized to him twice after being confronted. The messages show the aftermath.
Lucas wrote:
“I can’t gauge if he’s mad at me or not”
Sarah responded:
“He’s not he’s pissed at me”
She added:
“I haven’t seen him this mad at me since he kicked me out last. You’re good dude.”
Sarah clearly understood that Onision’s anger was directed at her because he knew she had sexually wronged them, and she had just apologized two times for doing so.
Lucas replied:
“It’s sad that we’re all going through this. I hope it gets better for all of us”
Sarah answered:
“Me too. It’s just very eye opening for me I guess”
She then stated:
“I hope you’re both okay”
The Relevant Context
The central fact is not merely that Onision and Sarah had argued.
The conflict began because Onision accused Sarah of sexual extortion, confronted her, and ended the relationship. According to Onision, Sarah apologized twice before leaving. Sarah would later claim she was just kidding around when she apologized twice for raping Onision & Lucas via sexual extortion. Thus admitting, the apology occurred, but claiming right after she had been rejected and dumped, that she was in the mood to make a joke about raping people.
The messages then show Sarah:
Confirming that Onision was furious specifically with her
Reassuring Lucas that he had done nothing wrong
Expressing concern for both Onision and Lucas
Making no claim that Onision had sexually harmed her
Treating herself as the person Onision believed had crossed a serious boundary
The Later Reversal
The contemporaneous sequence was:
Onision accused Sarah of sexually extorting him.
Sarah apologized twice, according to Onision & Sarah's later confession.
Onision ended the relationship.
Sarah acknowledged that he was furious with her.
Sarah later recast herself as the victim and Onision as the sexual aggressor when pursuing Google for millions of dollars.
The later assault allegations invert the original conflict.
At the time, Onision was the person alleging sexual wrongdoing, while Sarah understood that his anger was directed at her and still told Lucas:
“I hope you’re both okay”
Why It Matters
This exchange documents the immediate aftermath of Onision accusing Sarah of sexual coercion.
Sarah’s later allegations reverse the roles: the person originally accused of sexually extorting Onision later portrayed Onision as the perpetrator.
The contemporaneous messages support Onision and Lucas’s position that Sarah’s later account was a reversal of what actually caused the relationship to collapse.
Source
July 20, 2019 text messages between Sarah and Lucas, following Onision’s accusation that Sarah had sexually extorted him and his decision to end the relationship. Lucas’s messages appear in blue and Sarah’s messages appear in gray.
