Except that is not what I said.
At some point, either women have agency or they do not. People have used the excuse that women cannot be responsible for their decisions as an excuse to keep them from having rights, getting certain jobs, etc. I choose to believe they have agency, they are responsible for their decisions and if you have the same rights as everyone else (and they obviously should) then you have the same responsibilities in tandem.
We give the benefit of the doubt to the accused. With the exception of protecting children, where we decide it is worth it to investigate even accusations because children are helpless. In the case of a he said, she said - he gets the benefit of the doubt. But they should investigate the child abuse and animal abuse is an almost universal sign of a problematic personality as well.
But here is the thing, if she has agency and is in jeopardy - she can just leave. The child cannot. It isn't even her house. It is his. They are not even in a relationship, she is just someone that is choosing to stay in his place and refusing to remove herself which makes it difficult for him to use it. So why should I care about that investigation if the only reason she potentially is in jeopardy is because she is choosing to remain in a place she does not own, does not pay rent for, and can easily resolve the situation by leaving? This is not a domestic dispute, he does not live with her.
Also, child abuse accusations and now animal abuse accusations are used routinely by women to emotionally manipulate the system to get what they want or punish men they were in relationships with. So I am very skeptical, though it should still be investigated.
I don't care about the rest because she shouldn't be there in the first place. And the unhinged nature of her post makes me doubt the veracity of the rest regardless.