Not to mention that the defendant at the time of the rape was 12 years old! To make an allegation that she was already pretty “skilled” as a 12 year old should have been thrown out by the judge, and the defense should have been given a look at that so-called evidence. Sounds like this whole case was a Hillary promotion. I realize that the lawyer wants to win every case, regardless of the guilt of the client, but it is cases just like these that have put sex offenders back on the streets to rape other 12 year olds. Once a perp has been given a soft sentence, they tend to feel that nothing is going to really stop them. This case needs to get wings.
To give proper context here, the sentence should have been completed as such:
she was already pretty “skilled” as a 12 year old at being raped
By definition, ANY sex with a 12-year-old constitutes rape.