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.
The Epstein case is replete with adult women later claiming to have been "abused" or "raped" by Epstein coincidentally when hundreds of millions of dollars were up for grabs for anyone claiming to have been "sexually abused" by Epstein.
The most recent example is Julia Molchanova who had a puff piece written by the WSJ. She was 22 years old when she met Epstein and worked for her "abuser" for 8 full years. As lead plaintiff, she recently sued Bank of America who settled for over $70 million. Bank of America's great crime?Failing to report suspicious transactions and cash withdrawals that theoretically could have been used by Epstein to "traffick" adults by paying them for a massage.
Another example is Juliette Bryant who filed a lawsuit against Epstein in 2019 claiming that her abuse caused her to cry herself to sleep every night. The Epstein files released in January show that Bryant was emailing Epstein in 2015, a full decade after the beginning of her alleged abuse:
"I'm in New York until Sunday, would be great see you if you're here?
Let me know if you're around, I could pop in anytime to say hi quickly - it's been so long since I saw you!
Lots of love"
Those who deny women agency will tell you with a straight face that the "victims" must have had Stockholm Syndrome, which is not even a real thing.