She's a victim of defamation and she's a victim of battery (being touched without consent). That I agree.

She is NOT a victim of sexual assault or rape, she has an opportunity to present either of those arguments in court, but thus far, she has chosen not to.

Instead, her attorneys used a battery claim because it requires no crime or intent. The listed elements of abuse and rape to support the battery claim but they did not have to be proven as they would have had they listed them as the claims themselves. It's a disingenuous legal trick.

So I'm trying to figure out exactly who the victim is here.