He might have assumed it, but there is evidence.
The evidence is that she had an alcoholic drink in her hand.
Extremely weak evidence, but evidence.
Oh well.
Tom
No, that is you making a weak inference.
An inference?
Yes, an inference:
minor with alcoholic drink in a bar ==> fake id
TomC said:
An inference of what exactly?
As above, you have a belief she had a fake id based upon her drinking in a bar. Louisiana is the state in the US that historically has had the most underage drinking. Yes, minors get fake id's in Louisiana. They also previously in years past had no enforcement of sellers of alcohol getting in trouble for selling alcohol, just the minors (buyers) but that law changed in the 90's. The inertia of unenforced alcohol rules is still there. This is a place of high alcohol use and Mardi Gras. They were the last state to switch from 18 to 21 for alcohol drinking legally and they allow parents to give alcohol to underage offspring, even in a bar. It's a big alcohol culture which has been discussed at length in the thread.
Having an older friend give alcohol, while pretending to be parent would be just one way to get around the rules that are hardly enforced. Bar owner may not enforce the rules either, as previously discussed by quote from a bar owner in Louisiana from 2006, "if you can count to 18, you get a drink."
So, again, your method of getting to a conclusion she had a fake id is weak.
That's not to say she didn't have a fake id. Like I wrote before, there's better evidence of it.
I invite you to use your Google and try to use better reasoning to provide this better evidence to the thread.
TomC said:
Are you inferring that she didn't have an alcoholic beverage?
No, and that is such a weird and illogical question to ask.
As above, I am saying your reasoning to get to a conclusion of a fake id is not great. There's better evidence out there.
The reason you brought up a fake id is to mitigate the statutory rapist's accountability by placing Abelseth on equal terms as him.
The problem is that 30 year olds in a bar in Louisiana know full well that many persons not 21 use fake id's and other means to illegally drink. It's a giant culture. Therefore, Barnes would not make the inference:
id in a bar ==> of legal age
I remember back in the 90s where I live, different state, it was popular to get a fake college id and use that to get into a bar. Everyone knew about this. They weren't requiring official documentation so that they could pretend to be dumb and make a buck selling the alcohol. Louisiana is much more slowly coming to enforcement of alcohol laws, if at all, and so it was probably a popular thing to do in the 2000's or maybe even now still.
Here is an article that shows, even as late as 2013, underage drinking in Louisiana is an "established culture" and as far as fake id's, "[e]veryone had them." One website made $20 million to $40 million in that enterprise. That shows just how prevalent they were, even later on in the next decade:
Love it or hate it, underage drinking is an established culture in parts of South Louisiana.
www.lsureveille.com
So, again, a guy who participated for decades in the culture where underage drinking is prevalent and goes to bars knows full well that an identification in a bar carried by a young person who could pass for any number of years around 16 yo, could easily have a fake id and not be an adult.
Also, as discussed numerous times, humans do not rest conclusions on merely one factor but come to conclusions based on the totality of observations and logic. And when they can't come to a certainty, it's left as a risk or probability.
