I have always understood that Common Law is the basis for prosecutions of BDSM-related "crimes..... one reference can be found here....
In other words, you do not have the right to allow yourself to be a victim of sexual assault......and your consent to it means nothing. We are all in the United States, commiting a crime when we play....I recall that point being made over and over at a forum held at a local event.
Mr. Madison left that one off the Bill of Rights :)
As for this "leader".....apparently, it does not always pay to play "follow the leader". All of the self-righteous folks beating him up however would suffer the same fate if local police acted on their ability to enforce the law.
I attended a large play party in a southern city years ago, and was talking to one of the organizers outside of it and a police car pulled up with 2 officers in it. The organizer excused himself a moment and walked to the cruiser, passing something from his pocket to the officer.
When he returned I asked him what that was all about - he simply shrugged and said "$200.00 for each officer .....Common Law can be a bitch...it's insurance."
He explained it to me and I later that year attended this forum and found that he was indeed, 100% right. Is it enforced much? No....definitely not...CAN it be?...it appears the answer is..."yes".
If I am wrong about that someone please offer the exceptions.
It's really very simple:
Consent was given. We know that for a fact. The alleged victim admits it.
However what it comes down to is: Was consent at any point withdrawn and the withdrawal of the consent communicated to The Wolf in a manner understandable by him? (If you agree to rape play where 'no' and 'stop' are negotiated to be ignored, you cannot at that point withdraw consent by saying 'no' and 'stop'... that's exactly why we have safewords.) And IF consent was withdrawn, and that withdrawal communicated, did he continue after the withdrawal?
If consent was not withdrawn, it wasn't rape.
If the withdrawal of consent was not communicated to The Wolf, it was not rape.
If The Wolf stopped as soon as the withdrawal of consent was communicated to him, it was not rape.
The only way this was rape is if it was communicated to The Wolf that consent that was previous given was withdrawn and he ignored it and continued... and none of us here know if that happened or not.
Aside from my little mini-rant there, (thanks to all for the patience) there are a couple of things that are bugging the crap out of me about it. (Technically, three.)
One of them is, why did this investigation take so long? Fourteen months seems like one heck of a stretch, wouldn't you think? Even if they interviewed every, single person that might have seen them together when the evening was going.... Ummm... Well. What it really comes down to is what happened between them. Mostly, that's whatever physical evidence they had, (whatever it is) her statements, and his statements. I know this case wasn't "front burner" material, but fourteen months?
Two, I keep seeing the same quote being reiterated by other people that came from one of T_W's writings about how he "misread" someone. I couldn't say if the timing matches, but I do question it. If it's about the same instance, and he "misread"? We've got a whole new ball game.
My technical third. It's never been my impression that law enforcement appeals to the public for "more information" unless they've got leads that they can't finish. The 99% of the time that gets wasted is just hoping for that 1% payoff.