Clavicular is being charged with rape, drugging a person for sex, and providing alcohol to a minor. The case appears to be a result of the same incident for which a civil lawsuit has been filed, and we can get the story as told from the plaintiff/alleged victim there.
In her lawsuit, [Aleksandra] Mendoza alleges that one night in May 2025, Peters paid for an Uber to take her from where she was staying in Massachusetts to his parents’ Cape Cod home. She went, according to the lawsuit, in the hopes of helping her career as an influencer.
Instead, “with [Clavicular’s] mother’s full knowledge,” she alleges, “excessive amounts of alcohol were being served” at Peters’s home. Peters invited her into his bedroom, according to the suit, where he allegedly gave her multiple vodka shots.
“Peters then had sex with Mendoza while she was knowingly intoxicated, to the point where she was unable to give consent,” her lawsuit reads. “That morning, while Mendoza was asleep, she woke up with Peters penetrating her and having sex with her, again without her consent.”
Mendoza’s lawsuit alleges she ran into him again that November in Miami, where Peters allegedly injected her cheeks on camera with a fat-dissolving substance despite apparently neither having the medical expertise to perform the injections nor providing her—a minor—with warnings that the substances were not FDA-approved. During the injections, Mendoza alleges that Peters perforated her right cheek. She also feared that Peters, who has talked about smoking meth to achieve a hollowed-out “snatched” look for his face, had put meth into the injections.
It must be noted here that she was 17 at the time,1 which is the age of consent in Massachusetts. For any sexual encounter here to be considered a crime, it would have to depend on Mendoza being too drunk to consent or being penetrated while she was sleeping.
This is not a paywall. The rest of this article is available to free subscribers of the newsletter. Just leave your email below to continue reading.
This piece is bereft of any kind of scenario analysis or attempt to understand humans. It sounds like are describing a revenge fantasy for men whose prosecutions scandalize you.
Contrary to what you suggest, evidence of ex-post social contact is in fact routinely introduced in criminal defense. But in fact, this is never solid evidence of innocence because people have professional, personal, or familial reasons for staying in contact with abusers, and accommodation is a normal human response pattern. Using the same logic and omissions, you could write an essay saying that battered women who do not leave their abusive spouses should be stigmatized instead of helped.
Where else is this standard that victim must not have any further contact with perpetrator enforced? In an elder abuse case, would we dismiss a claim that an elderly person was abused if they maintained contact with the abuser after the initial event? This standard seems especially odd in cases of rape involving abuse within a family or human trafficking cases. If a step daughter stays in a house after her step father rapes her, this counts against her claim? Why? When that doctor for the womens olympic gymnastic team was repeatedly abusing the girls, why should it count against their credibility that they didn't immediately focus on bringing charges against him instead of continuing to train at the olympics?
I'm not really seeing what would be more believable about contact stopping after the initial sexual occurrence either. People have consenting one night stands. People have ongoing abusive relationships. What makes a rape allegation more credible when a woman or girl stops associating with a rapist after sex given that women can just as well suddenly stop associating with a man they chose to have sex with?