Not sure how to interpret this. It seems to be a case where a young sexually repressed woman got taken advantage of. That she was taken advantage of is not bein

Not sure how to interpret this. It seems to be a case where a young sexually repressed woman got taken advantage of. That she was taken advantage of is not being disputed, but whether or not she was raped. I find it bizarre that the ADA dismissed the complaint, but it is possible that there is more at play here (i.e the accused rapist is considered someone "important", leading the office to squash the complaint).