To SKB:

    I have not seen the Times legal report either.  However, accepting your narrative and juxtaposing it with USA law I can assure you (after 38 years of practicing criminal law) that a child under the age of (in this country) 16 cannot, absolutely, positively, end of story, give consent to sexual goings on.  I have handled many cases where the child was 15, looked 25, but, alas it is the birthdate and not the appearance that controls.  As to the (alleged) victim's sexual history, I will suggest that it is inadmissible into evidence protected by our "Rape Shield Law."  Of course the logic behind the law is that a woman (or a man) can consent to sex a dozen times and refuse once and the gentleman or gentle lady who transgresses that one time will be found guilty of rape.  These considerations rarely enter the minds of a pederast (the correct name for a pedophile).  Usually, a practiced sexual predator knows the law and always seeks concealment of the fact. 

    BTW, HH would have never conveyed his amorous intentions via Email.  His ego would have prevented it.  HH needed the exhilaration of the empirical "reaction" "expression"  etc.  I have no doubt, however, that Lolita would have burned up cyber-space with her fantasies.   JS

All private editorial communications, without exception, are read by both co-editors.