From the fine folks over at news.com.au, we learn about 39-year old Warwick Acott, of Seaton (that's in Australia), who was acquitted of assaulting and unlawfully sexing a teenage girl that he met through a vampire website. Wait. What?
Correct. It took a jury 4 hours to acquit Acott of one count of unlawful sex with a teenager and two counts of assaulting the same teenager. He had met this teenager on the vampirefreaks.com website. Then things start to get weird.
The girl had made numerous claims/statements (call them what you'd like), some of which included how he stalked her for four years by sending her sexually violent messages and pushing his way into her house in 2006 (she was 16 at that time) and then biting her breast, whipping her with a cat o' nine tails (That's a whip. Why can't they just say whip? Why all of the drama? It's a whip and it has one purpose. To whip. Don't try to make it sound all exotic and mysterious with that "cat o' nine tails" stuff. It's a whip. And it is meant to whip. So whip it. Whip it good.) and forced her to perform fellatio.
Of course, Acott denied that what the girl described was EXACTLY what happened. He says that she, naturally, pursued him, telling him how good looking he was and how she wanted to be his slave. She told him all of this after finding his picture on the above mentioned vampire website. Of course, Acott was flattered, but he became instantly fascinated when the girl allegedly told him that she was "a pain junkie" and would just love to be his whore!
Acott told the jury that he had stopped having contact with the girl twice after finding out that she had lied about her age. (He found out once she lied and stopped having contact and then what? Found out she lied again and stopped having contact again? Can you stop something you've already stopped? Would you need to? I'm thinking NO on both of those.) But I guess that after he had stopped all of the contacting, he was very happy to see her again on her sixteenth birthday when he bumped into her in, of course, a sex shop. And since it was her birthday, she did what any teenager who had just turned 16 would do and asked him to buy her a whip. Of course, that was followed, not by cake and ice cream, but by her inviting him home and asking him to whip and bite her, which he did (Naturally. I mean, unnaturally. I mean, never mind. He did it. That's what I mean.)
But he said that said fellatio did not occur. That's because he said he pushed her away when she "revealed that sex would be unlawful due to her age." (I'm having a hard time believing that those are the exact words that she used. Actually, I'm having a hard time believing that ANY words that would have indicated to him that she was underage occurred.)
But get this: Down under in South Australia, seventeen is the age of consent, UNLESS BOTH parties are 16. Huh. So if you're going to be doing stuff and you're 16, make sure the other party is 16. Otherwise, wait. Interesting.
Part of the reason for the acquittal was the girl admitted that there were some holes in her story. Mainly the parts that she had lied about, including the time when she claimed that Acott had cut her with a scalpel. (Yeah, that seems like it would be pretty easy to determine if it had happened or not. She might want to try coming up with a lie that doesn't involve blood, bleeding, cuts or scars.)