- Prosecutors filed a waiver for a 16-year-old to be tried as an adult after he sexually assaulted a girl, filmed it, and sent it to his friends.
- A judge denied the waiver because he says the teen came from a “good family” and did well on college tests.
- An appellate court overturned the ruling, but many were upset with remarks the judge made.
- Many were particularly upset with the judge questioning whether or not the victim was really unaware of what was going on, and saying that she should take into account how this case would impact the boy’s life.
16-Year-Old Accused of Sexual Assault
Court documents show that a New Jersey family court judge brought up a 16-year-old boy’s “good family” and high test scores in a case accusing the teen of sexual assault.
Judge James Troiano denied a waiver in 2018 that would allow the teen, who court documents refer to as “G.M.C.” to be tried as an adult. His decision was overturned by an appellate court, whose ruling was made public in June.
According to court documents, in 2017, G.M.C. attended a party along with close to 30 others. Areas of the basement where the party was held were blocked off, and G.M.C. took a 16-year-old girl referred to as Mary to one of those sections. The documents said that the two had been drinking, and Mary was visibly drunk, slurring her words, and stumbling.
“A group of boys sprayed Febreze on Mary’s bottom and slapped it with such force that the following day she had hand marks on her buttocks,” the court document said.
“Mary and G.M.C. had intercourse in the darkened room,” the document continued. “G.M.C. filmed himself penetrating Mary from behind on his cell phone, displaying her bare torso, and her head hanging down. He forwarded the clip to several friends.”
G.M.C. also sent a text to his friends that read, “[w]hen your first time having sex was rape.”
After the incident, Mary was on the floor vomiting, and G.M.C.’s friends told Mary’s friends that she was ill and should be checked on. The next morning, Mary noticed the markings on her body and that her clothes had been torn. She told her mother she was afraid something had happened to her.
Over the next couple of months, she learned that G.M.C. had recorded the incident and tried to communicate with him so she could put the situation in her past. However, G.M.C. denied that such a video existed.
Mary’s mother contacted authorities and investigators told G.M.C. and his friends to delete the video, which they did. Mary and her family then pursued charges.
A prosecutor said there was probable cause to charge G.M.C. with aggravated sexual assault, invasion of privacy and endangering the welfare of a child. They also sought to elevate the charges to adult criminal court.
“[G.M.C.’s] conduct as it relates to the charged offenses was both sophisticated and predatory,” the prosecutor wrote in a waiver. “Filming a cell phone video while committing the assault was a deliberate act of debasement. And, in the months that followed, he lied to [Mary] while simultaneously disseminating the video and unabashedly sharing the nature of his conduct therein. This was neither a childish misinterpretation of the situation, nor was it a misunderstanding.[G.M.C.’s] behavior was calculated and cruel.”
Judge Troiano’s Statements
Judge Troiano issued a denying waiver. He said he did not think this was a “traditional case of rape.” When describing a traditional case he gave the example of “two or more generally males involved, either at gunpoint or weapon, clearly manhandling a person.”
Judge Troiano also said he found it unclear if Mary was really so drunk that she was unaware of what was going on. He later described the text message G.M.C sent as “just a 16-year-old kid saying stupid crap to his friends.”
“[T]his young man comes from a good family who put him into an excellent school where he was doing extremely well,” he later said, before citing that G.M.C. was also involved with Eagle Scouts. “He is clearly a candidate for not just college but probably for a good college. His scores for college entry were very high.”
Judge Troiano later added that Mary and her family need to consider what effects this would have on G.M.C.’s life.
The June appeal that overturned his decision allows for G.M.C. to be tried as an adult and moves the case out of family court. The appeal criticized the way Judge Troiano assessed the case saying it “sounded as if he had conducted a bench trial on the charges rather than neutrally reviewed the State’s application.”
“That the juvenile came from a good family and had good test scores we assume would not condemn the juveniles who do not come from good families and do not have good test scores from withstanding waiver applications,” the appeal added.
Reactions to Case
Once major outlets like the New York Times picked the story up, many were upset with the comments Judge Troiano had made regarding the case. Many criticized him for favoring a young man for the privilege he came from.
Others pointed out that Judge Troiano has been retired for several years, and according to the Times, is 70 years old. While in retirement, he has been asked to fill vacancies.
He is also not the only judge in New Jersey family courts that has been criticized for the way they handled sexual assault cases. In a very similar case, Judge Marcia Silva denied charging a 16-year-old boy accused of assaulting a 12-year-old girl as an adult.
She said that the “offense is not an especially heinous or cruel offense.”
“Beyond losing her virginity, the State did not claim that the victim suffered any further injuries, either physical, mental or emotional,” Judge Silva wrote.
In this case, as well, the appellate court was able to overturn her decision. Many expressed frustrations with her actions.
See what others are saying (New York Times) (The Hill) (NJ.com)
How Safe Injections Sites in the U.S. Are Fighting Back Against The Opioid Crisis & Do They Work?
America has been hit with a historical opioid crisis. In 2018, more than 31,000 people died from opioid overdoses, which is more than any previous year recorded in American history. Healthcare professionals and public health experts are offering alternatives to the status quo treatments, which leads us to today’s topic: supervised injection facilities (SIF).
Also known as overdose prevention sites and medically supervised injection centers, SIF’s have been proposed as a solution to combat America’s opioid problem. In these centers, no drugs are supplied to the users—they bring their own and are given clean syringes to prevent bloodborne diseases. Advocates or these sites are saying that they would stop countless fatal overdoses because there would be medical staff on site. Countries like Switzerland, Canada, and Australia have implemented versions of these facilities and so far there has not been any reported fatal overdoses at a SIF in the world.
While cities like Seattle, San Francisco, New York City, and Philadelphia have all proposed plans to make sites, they have been met with heavy opposition. The federal government opposed these sites because they claim it breaks federal laws and some residents in these cities are against them due to concerns over attracting more crime. In this video, we’ll be focusing on Philadelphia, as it might become the first U.S. city to legally open a supervised injection facility, along with the court case between the non-profit who is trying to establish the SIF and the federal government.
Elon Musk Defends Calling Rescue Diver “Pedo Guy” in Lawsuit
- In court documents, Elon Musk defended a tweet where he called a diver who helped rescue the Thai soccer team from a cave a “pedo guy” because it “was a common insult used in South Africa.”
- The diver sued Musk for defamation last year after Musk sent an email to BuzzFeed where he referred to the diver as “child rapist” who had taken a “child bride who was about 12 years old.”
- The court documents from the suit, which were made public Monday, also revealed that Musk paid a private investigator more than $50,000 to look into the diver.
- Musk also said he gave the statement to BuzzFeed based on information provided by the investigator, and because he was concerned the diver could be the next Jeffrey Epstein.
Court Filings Made Public
Telsa CEO Elon Musk defended calling a rescue diver “pedo guy,” court documents revealed Monday.
Musk originally made the comment in July 2018, after Vernon Unsworth, a British diver who helped rescue the Thai soccer team trapped in a cave last year, gave an interview to CNN where he had some choice things to say about Musk.
Notably, Unsworth said the submarine Musk had designed to rescue the soccer team would not work and that it was just a PR stunt.
Musk responded by calling Unsworth a “pedo guy” in a now-deleted tweet.
He also sent an email to BuzzFeed reporter Ryan Mac, in which he accused Unsworth of being a “child rapist” who had taken a “child bride who was about 12 years old at the time.”
Musk said he thought the email was off the record, but BuzzFeed said they never agreed to that. In September 2018, Unsworth filed a defamation lawsuit against Musk in the Central District of California.
Court filings from the defamation suit against Musk were made public on Monday.
Musk Defends “Pedo Guy” Tweet
In those documents, Musk claimed that referring to Unsworth as “pedo guy” was not a direct accusation of pedophilia.
“‘Pedo guy’ was a common insult used in South Africa when I was growing up,” Musk wrote. “It is synonymous with ‘creepy old man’ and is used to insult a person’s appearance and demeanor, not accuse a person of acts of pedophilia.”
“I did not intend to accuse Mr. Unsworth of engaging in acts of pedophilia,” he continued. “In response to his insults in the CNN interview, I meant to insult him back by expressing my opinion that he seemed like a creepy old man.”
The fact that Musk is arguing he was expressing his opinion is important in this context because under the First Amendment, opinions are usually protected speech and not considered defamatory.
The documents also included Musk’s deposition, where he talks more in-depth about the “pedo guy” tweet.
In the deposition, Musk said he sent BuzzFeed the email because he was worried it could turn into a Jeffrey Epstein situation, referring to the wealthy financier who was accused of sexually assaulting dozens of young women, including many underage girls.
“What if we have another Jeffrey Epstein on our hands?” he said. “And what if he uses whatever celebrity he gains from this cave rescue to shield his bad deeds? This would be terrible.”
Musk’s Epstein argument might become problematic. First of all, he made the statements to BuzzFeed before the new allegations surfaced, which some have argued proves he just is using current news to frame Unsworth in a certain way, and that he did not actually consider Epstein at all.
That argument is also furthered by the fact that it has been reported that Musk had attended several events with Epstein, all of which were after Epstein pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution from an underage girl in 2008.
Notably, Musk also said in the filings that he paid a private investigator more than $50,000 to investigate Unsworth after receiving an unsolicited email from the PI in August 2018.
In the documents, Musk says that the investigator: “reported that Mr. Unsworth met and began a relationship with his alleged Thai wife when she around twelve years old.”
He also added that the investigator “reported that Mr. Unsworth associated with Europeans who engage in improper sexual conduct in Thailand,” and that he “learned that Mr. Unsworth frequented Pattaya Beach which is well known for prostitution and sex tourism, and that Mr. Unsworth was unpopular at the rescue site because other rescue workers thought that he was ‘creepy.’”
Musk goes on to say this was the basis for the comments he made in his email to BuzzFeed.
“I did not authorize Mr. Mac or BuzzFeed to publish the contents of the email nor did I intend or expect that they would,” he said. “Especially without first independently verifying and confirming its information.”
He later added that he gave the information to Mac “so that BuzzFeed could conduct its own investigation into Mr. Unsworth and corroborate the information.”
Musk’s lawyers even admitted in the court filings that the private investigator’s findings “lacked solid evidence of Mr. Unsworth’s behavior.”
Following the release of the court documents, Unsworth’s lawyer gave a statement to BuzzFeed condemning the Musk’s defense.
“The motion filed by Elon Musk today is a disgusting and transparent effort to continue falsely smearing Vernon Unsworth without any credible or verified supporting evidence,” the lawyer said.
“Mr. Unsworth’s opposition to Musk’s motion will reveal the whole truth of Musk’s actions and the falsity of his public statements and his motion with respect to Mr. Unsworth will be exposed.”
See what others are saying: (BuzzFeed News) (The Washington Post) (Business Insider)
Controversy, Racism, and Genius Kids?! How One Sperm Bank Changed Everything…
The Repository for Germinal Choice is the most controversial sperm bank in U.S. history. While it was operational some people believed this bank was racist and they even compared the companies goals to Nazi eugenic practices. But even though this sperm bank was highly controversial, it also completely changed the sperm bank industry.
So check out our video for the full story on how this controversial sperm bank would go on to shape an entire industry.