In the Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall travesty, incongruously, the delinquent and criminal was old and mature enough to form the mens rea or criminal intent to rape his teacher and also to molest her at school, how many times I don’t know, apparently pinning her against a wall or her desk and the like and kissing her against her will on at least a few occasions, and possibly mature enough to have been charged and punished as an adult had she reported the sexual assault to police, according to her lawyer. But he was too young and immature to willingly and knowingly initiate and enjoy subsequent acts of intercourse and whatever else with the woman he sexually assaulted. Under the law, he knew what he was doing, legally and morally, when he forced himself on her but not when he initiated sex with her thereafter. He was a rapist and molester when his aggressions involved criminal force,, but a victim of “sexual assault” when his aggressions didn’t involve criminal force, i.e, when she foolishly acquiesced to subsequent acts of “intercourse” (including not only coition but also fellatio and other acts under Wisconsin law) and “sexual contact.” Legally, he was a man, an adult or quasi-adult, when he raped and molested Cassandra, but a “child,” fundamentally indistinguishable from prepubertal girls of 9 and 11 in the inability to knowingly and willingly consent to or initiate sex with an adult and and his putative corollary “traumatization, when he initiated and enjoyed acts of coitus and who knows what else during the intrigue that followed and, according to two psychologists, “manipulated” their “relationship.”