Not sure why everyone is disagreeing with you. But you’re right. If they read it normally without getting emotional. It’s pretty obvious. There is no mention of him raping or him doing anything to her when she was underage. It was all after she was 18. I think the article was being vague on purpose to rile people up. Otherwise the article would have listed the age of the girl when she was working at the store and restaurant or listed what he did to her while she was underage. But in regards to the drug and her dying. Hell yeah he’s at fault for that and I’m glad the jury convicted him of it.
Not sure why everyone is disagreeing with you. But you’re right. If they read it normally without getting emotional. It’s pretty obvious. There is no mention of him raping or him doing anything to her when she was underage. It was all after she was 18. I think the article was being vague on purpose to rile people up. Otherwise the article would have listed the age of the girl when she was working at the store and restaurant or listed what he did to her while she was underage. But in regards to the drug and her dying. Hell yeah he’s at fault for that and I’m glad the jury convicted him of it.