Except in the case of the other party, it seems. I wonder what her nearly 600 texts were saying.
And, no, this is not a justification of Schaap, or an argument for the mitigation of the sentence he got, and neither do I believe it should have been, but neither do I buy the "he-cast-a-spell-on-us" baloney.
Effectively 17 is not an innocent age. Both parties are responsible for their actions. And I'd start there when counseling the girl (who would be nearly 30 now). I think telling her that she was just a vulnerable, hypnotized victim is not telling her the truth, nor of any help to her.
My takeaways from the document I linked:
- She was a trouble-maker with boys to begin with. I suspect by that fact and the way things went with Schaap, that she was hot, and that she knew how to exploit her sex appeal. I don't think that her troubles were about just one romantic interest who no longer returned her affection. I also suspect her 'self-destructive behaviors' were a way to manipulate her parents and the administrators of the school.
- Schaap's communications don't strike me as the kind written by a predator. Predators know better than to put things in writing unless they're worded to lend plausible deniability. They look to me like like the songs of a giddy, silly, stupid old fool, who fell in love with a willing hottie.
- According to the document, their counseling started about her relationship. Now how do you suspect this turned into meetings for sex? Schaap wasn't a bad looking guy at the time, despite his nearly 60 years of age.
There's a lot of stupidity to go around, here. Schaap's stupidity is paramount, of course.
The parents also peg the stupidity meter...allowing their daughter to go to counselling alone with a man? Trust-worthy or not, that's just stupid. Monumentally stupid. Being under some kind of spell? Baloney...but even if it were so...they're responsible. They're hollering "witch!" just to save their skins.
And of course, the church. I mean...talk of a ship of fools, for the same reason.
The victim is, of course, legally innocent, but only on a technicality. Morally, she is responsible for her actions. Under some kind of spell? Baloney...but even if it were so...she's responsible.