This is potentially one of the most important and challenging articles I have every written. It is important that it is written because there is a great deal to be learned about the events of 2018. The first glaring issue is the ideological demands that males and females are the same. 

 

The recognition that under societies laws and norms, females can also be sex offenders is one thing but the "sameness" demands mean that there is no law in place that adequately addresses the following highly relevant issue. It is nigh impossible for an older adult male to argue he did not have intent if engaged in sexual activity with a minor. 

​

Adult females on the other hands have suffered sexual abuse and have even been murdered by young male teen offenders. Based on other laws pertaining to rape and sexual violation a sexual act is only lawful if the female (or other recipient) consented to it. A male generally confers consent by participation in the act itself. 

​

This is why on the male on female side of things the strict liability element of sex with a minor comes into play. It is a strict liability offense because no male has successfully argued that he was assaulted by an underage female. It would take an extraordinary set of circumstances to convince a jury that the male was subjected to unwanted sex. 

​

There have been cases where courts have been swayed that a male had good reason to believe the young person was of age or that the male was not capable of forming intent which is rare to say the least but never was there a case where a male argued that the young person assaulted him.

​

The law becomes a nightmare when it comes to accusations from young males against older females they have sexually assaulted. When it come to females assaulting young male accusations the accused female can argue she did not consent. The courts evidently get around this by requiring proof such as texts and other communications to show the female in question had an ongoing sexual interest in the young person. 

​

If the female accused is proved to have consented then she is guilty of the crime. The issue of consent as it applies to male accused simply does not enter the equation. All that is generally required there is sufficient evidence an act of sex took place and the male runs out of road right there.

​

So the law works reasonably well when it comes to male on female and female on male offences. Where we find the devil in the detail is when a minor male sexually assaults an adult female. It is evident there is an assumption that if an adult female was assaulted thus then she would make a complaint accordingly.

​

This gives an appearance that the law as it stands covers all the relevant considerations and scenarios that may have to be contended with. Unfortunately this is a dangerous illusion. The current law as it stands can and clearly has been used as a weapon by teenage sex offenders against their adult female victims. 

​

There are a multitude of reasons as to why women do not disclose. Even if disclosure was made the adult female victim of the teen sex offender is still open to allegations and potentially convictions as a sexual criminal for reporting her own rape. It is evident that the legislators would not have that intention and these potential outcomes likely wholly unseen. 

​

Whatever the case the concept that females did not sexually offend against males protected adult females from being convicted for sexual offenses for being raped by a teenage offender. Now that the principle of "equality" has entered the macro consideration a vulnerability is introduced having regard for the laws failure to affirmatively address the issue. 

​

This aberration became the key to the situation where two parties have accused the other of sexual assault. Having regard for the circumstances only one is telling the truth.  I am confident that the evidence will show beyond any doubt in the minds of reasonable people who the offender is in this situation. 

​

I will now provide the details of how I reached the proven conclusion that the offender in the case of Jimmy Bennett v Asia Argento is in fact Jimmy Bennett. 

​

 

The Allegations 

​

1) Jimmy Bennett was sexually assaulted by Asia Argento in a Californian Hotel in 2013.

​

This allegation is completely false. The evidence clearly shows that Jimmy Bennett sexually assaulted Asia Argento and then later used the fact of his own age as a means to blackmail his victim over the assault he inflicted on her. 

​

2) Asia Argento "lied" to the media when she made her original press release in response to the allegations. 

​

This allegation is completely false. The evidence clearly shows that later information released to the media by Rain Dove was a straw man construct designed to deprive Asia Argento of her legitimate and evidence supported defense being that she was the one assaulted. 

​

3) Asia Argento knew the circumstances that led up to the suicide of Anthony Bourdain and is concealing her supposed culpability. 

​

This allegation is completely false. The evidence that has come to light as a result of the false allegations raised by Jimmy Bennett clearly shows that Asia Argento has no idea about what led Anthony Bourdain to kill himself. 

​

​

The Evidence 

 

The first thing I will do here is lay out the supporting evidence and the considerations that apply. I will then move on to the parties statements and break them down to demonstrate the reasoning behind my position. 

​

​

The Secondary Damage Question 

​

​

When determining the truth of a claim one needs to look for the secondary damage the victim should be exhibiting. Secondary damage is to us what blood patterns are to a murder scene or scorch marks to an arson. There are patterns and symptoms that cannot be faked for extended periods. 

​

In this case the evidence wholly supports Asia Argento. Jimmy Bennett shows no signs of the secondary damage required to support his claim. Bennett claims he was "ashamed" and that his ability to work had been compromised. Apart from lamenting in the world media about his very non specific but apparently deeply felt #metoo pain that is it. 

​

Asia Argento on the other hand has documented evidence of the therapy she underwent for the trauma of the experience she suffered a few weeks after the event. More subjectively but still relevant is that Asia's presentation throughout has been one of a deeply traumatized victim.

​

Simply put there is substantial evidence to show Asia Argento suffered and indeed still suffers text book secondary damage which is wholly supported by the therapy obtained in the weeks immediately after the event. Jimmy Bennett on the other hand does not present with any such symptoms. Nor does he demonstrate the slightest insight in to what it actually means to be a Survivor. 

​

The fact that Asia Argento presents tangible evidence of her damage while Bennett can produce none, is highly relevant evidence that cannot be realistically ignored by any who make claim that they support justice. Having regard for the fact we are dealing with a person's life here it is pertinent and unarguable that evidence such as this holds as much weight in support of Asia as any other survivor. 

​

To deny Asia Argento due weight and consideration for her evidence is to deny all of us. 

​

​

A Matter of Common Sense 

​

​

If something does not make sense it is not likely to be true. If there is more than one version of a narrative the lie is exposed. In order to cause maximum harm the allegations were as extreme as they were false. Those who were targeting Asia were naturally keen to defile her reputation as much as possible. 

​

The allegations became more preposterous by the hour. If the accusations were to be believed, Asia Argento was a highly predatory sex fiend who ripped away the innocence of some helpless mewling youth. Asia apparently had groomed Bennett since he was a child but was supposed to have literally forced poor Jimmy into heinous acts while holding a potential acting contract over his head. 

​

We can see here how the Trolls were reaching in all sorts of directions in an attempt to fill the gaping holes in Bennett's narrative with noise and smoke. Firstly if Asia Argento was the super predator as the claims tried to paint her as then it seems wholly inexplicable that such a fiend would meet her victim in one of the only places on the entire planet where such an act is a criminal offense and let her "victim" take a selfie after the event to show all his friends.

​

It is evident that the allegations are patently absurd. A wandering narrative and a lack of any evidence of secondary damage are very indicative. I will now break down the applicable statements from both parties. 

​

 

Statements 

​

​

​

Jimmy Bennett Statement 

 

 Leaked Legal Documents

Published New York Times August 19th 2018

​

Click for Article 

​

The fallout from “a sexual battery” was so traumatic that it hindered Mr. Bennett’s work and income and threatened his mental health, according to a notice of intent to sue that his lawyer sent in November to Richard Hofstetter, Mr. Bourdain’s longtime lawyer, who was also representing Ms. Argento at the time.

​

The document lays out Mr. Bennett’s account: Ms. Argento asked the family member to leave so she could be alone with the actor. She gave him alcohol to drink and showed him a series of notes she had written to him on hotel stationery. Then she kissed him, pushed him back on the bed, removed his pants and performed oral sex. She climbed on top of him and the two had intercourse, the document says. She then asked him to take a number of photos.

​

​

Definition of Sexual Battery 

Source USlegal.com 

​

Click Here

​

"Any person who touches an intimate part of another person while that person is unlawfully restrained by the accused or an accomplice, and if the touching is against the will of the person touched and is for the purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse, is guilty of sexual battery."

​

First we note that Bennett is claiming sexual battery. It is evident that this claim is cynically being made to support the damages claim of 3.8 million. The statement regarding the relative is to indicate this "sexual battery" was premeditated and gives the claim a predatory element. Great trauma has been claimed in the absence of any supporting evidence or display of recognized symptoms in Bennett's presentation. 

​

Obviously Bennett and his lawyer are seeking the maximum amount of money possible and a big damages claim is essential to that purpose. It is here that Bennett's claims start to derail. As mentioned the size of the damages claim plays a role but there is another consideration. 

​

If Bennett had of made the equally false but much more plausible claim he was seduced into the act then his actions take on a far more sinister optic. Essentially he would be saying he had consensual sex with an Italian sex symbol, felt bad about it later and was now demanding cash hanging a selfie he took over Asia's head just as she became an survivor advocate. 

​

Add Bennett's documented history of very dubious if not criminal activities regarding young women to the consideration and what we see is a blackmailing predator. This is a not a narrative that leads to a multi million dollar payment. The problem for Bennett was how to paint a scenario that he suffered sexual battery at the hands of the aforementioned Italian sex symbol. 

​

After all, he was a strong enough youth not Tiny Tim. Seduction was out and a violent assault an absurdity so that leaves incapacity. Enter the claim about alcohol. We are expected to believe Bennett was plied with alcohol and lay there inert and helpless while Asia had her wicked way with him. 

​

In fact the alcohol was consumed by Asia and contributed to her inability to stave off the sexual assault Bennett committed on her. The blackmail selfie shows Bennett taking the picture with a clear focused gaze and steady hand. It is Asia who looks the worse for wear. 

​

The only evidence to support Bennett's stated claims is his own unsubstantiated word. It is certain an act took place and the selfie is evidence of a crime. The crime was committed by Bennett. Asia did not ask him to take photos. Bennett took the selfie to show his friends how he nailed the Italian sex symbol they had all seen on screen. 

​

The statement of intent is a shake down letter. It relies on the fact that the accusation could be made due to Asia being unlucky enough to be assaulted in one of the only places in the world with a consent age of 18. It would force Asia to come out about the assault in public. 

​

The claim is certainly an effective tool for blackmail and extortion but wholly lacing in merit. This will be demonstrated further by examining Bennett's statements in Italian media. 

​

​

​

​

​