The woman first reported serious injuries, then contacted a detective with additional allegations two days afterward.
CONNERSVILLE, Ind. — What began as an investigation into an injured woman at a health care facility grew into a case carrying two Level 1 felony rape charges after she contacted a Fayette County detective two days later and described an additional alleged sexual assault.
Justin H. Plummer, 44, now faces six criminal charges arising from the reported encounter: two counts of rape while in possession of a deadly weapon, criminal confinement, strangulation, intimidation and interference with reporting a crime. He has pleaded not guilty and remains in the Fayette County Jail on a $450,000 bond. A jury trial has been scheduled for Oct. 19 in Fayette Circuit Court.
The timing of the woman’s reports is one of the central features of the case’s development. Deputies initially responded June 12 after learning that an injured woman was being treated. The first phase of the investigation focused on allegations of restraint, impaired breathing and a head injury. Two days later, the woman contacted investigators again and alleged that Plummer also forced her to engage in a sex act during the same episode.
A supplemental account can change the scope of an investigation because detectives must assess each new allegation, determine whether it is supported by other evidence and submit information to prosecutors. The available reports do not say whether the rape counts were filed at the same time as the other charges or added after the follow-up interview. They also do not identify why two separate rape counts were filed. The woman said the encounter began when an argument escalated. According to summaries of the probable cause affidavit, she accused Plummer of throwing her onto the floor, sitting on her chest and wrapping his arms around her neck. Deputies reported visible bruising, particularly near her neck and chin. Authorities have not released photographs or medical records publicly, and the reports do not provide an exact diagnosis for the neck injuries.
She further alleged that Plummer put a rag-like material over her mouth and face before pouring water across it. She said the act made breathing difficult and caused her to lose and regain consciousness. The affidavit accounts do not specify how long that conduct continued or whether the cloth was collected. Although media reports called the allegation waterboarding, prosecutors did not announce a stand-alone charge using that description.
Investigators were also told that Plummer repeatedly hit the woman’s head with a metal drinking container. One report called it a thermos, while others described a water bottle. Deputies documented a deep injury on the back of her head, and one affidavit summary said the cut exposed her skull. The language describes the reported severity of the wound but does not reveal whether she suffered a fracture, required surgery or remained hospitalized.
The woman said Plummer then directed her into a bathroom and tried to apply superglue to the cut. That allegation may become relevant to the state’s account of the sequence and Plummer’s awareness of the injury. It does not, standing alone, establish his intent or explain why he allegedly used the adhesive. The public reports include no interview in which Plummer addressed the glue, the metal container or the woman’s injuries.
During her later conversation with a detective, the woman said Plummer had ordered her onto a couch and grabbed the back of her head. She alleged that he then forced her to perform a sex act. The rape charges indicate prosecutors believe the conduct described in that statement fits Indiana’s criminal law, but the full charging documents and specific legal theories were not included in the reports reviewed for this article.
The “deadly weapon” portion of the rape charges is also not fully explained in available coverage. The woman reported a verbal threat involving a gun, but published accounts do not say that she saw one or that deputies recovered one. The metal container allegedly used to strike her could also be relevant, depending on prosecutors’ theory and the way it was allegedly used. That question will require the actual charging language or later court filings to resolve.
The woman said Plummer made a threat that he would enjoy shooting her in the head. Authorities filed an intimidation charge, but the publicly reported affidavit contains little additional information about that count. It is not known whether the threat was recorded, heard by another person or reported only through the woman’s statement. She also told investigators that Plummer ordered her to clean herself and cook for him after the forced sexual act. That allegation appears in published descriptions of the affidavit because it helps set out her claimed chronology. It may also be cited by prosecutors as evidence that she remained under his control. The defense, however, will be entitled to challenge both the statement and any conclusion the state asks a jury to draw from it.
The woman reported that she could not leave until Plummer drank multiple vodka-and-cranberry beverages and became unconscious. She then fled to a neighbor, according to the affidavit accounts. Her ability to reach another residence and obtain help is part of the transition from the alleged private encounter to the official investigation. The reviewed reports do not say whether the neighbor gave a formal statement or could describe the woman’s appearance, demeanor or injuries.
Deputies arrested Plummer at his residence. A local report identified the arresting officer as Fayette County Deputy Conner Greenwell. Authorities initially released only limited information, including Plummer’s name, age, the broad categories of charges and the bond amount. The detailed allegations later emerged through reports based on the probable cause affidavit obtained by an Indianapolis television station.
An affidavit is written to explain why officers and prosecutors believe probable cause exists. It generally presents the investigation from the state’s perspective at the time of arrest. It is not a verdict, and it may not include evidence that could favor the defense. At trial, the prosecution would be required to prove each offense beyond a reasonable doubt through testimony and admissible evidence.
The defense can examine whether the woman’s initial and later statements are consistent, whether her injuries support the alleged sequence and whether any physical or electronic evidence corroborates the account. Defense lawyers may also ask why certain information was provided later. Prosecutors, in turn, may offer evidence about the circumstances under which the reports were made. The reviewed sources do not identify Plummer’s lawyer or disclose any defense argument beyond his not-guilty plea. Public information also leaves the interference-with-reporting charge largely unexplained. Authorities have not said whether Plummer allegedly took a phone, blocked a call, damaged a device or prevented the woman from contacting emergency services in some other way. The existence of the charge shows prosecutors believe such interference occurred, but its alleged factual basis remains unclear.
The woman’s identity has not been published, and the reports do not define her relationship with Plummer. They say she told investigators he had been abusive previously and that this was the most severe episode. No independently documented earlier incident was identified, so that assertion remains an allegation within her broader statement.
Before the scheduled trial, both sides may exchange evidence, file motions and ask the judge to rule on what a jury may hear. The case could also be resolved without trial through a plea, dismissal or another court order. For now, Plummer remains accused rather than convicted, and the later disclosure that expanded the investigation will be assessed under the same burden of proof as every other allegation.
Author note: Last updated July 17, 2026.