Connect with us

U.S.

Michelle Carter, Who Encouraged Her Boyfriend to Commit Suicide, Files Appeal With Supreme Court

Published

on

  • Michelle Carter, the Massachusets woman who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for encouraging her boyfriend to kill himself in text messages and phone calls, has filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.
  • Her legal team argues that her conviction violated her constitutional rights to free speech and due process. 
  • According to the filing, Massachusetts is the only state to have upheld the conviction of a “physically absent defendant who encouraged another person to commit suicide with words alone.”

Supreme Court Appeal Filed 

Lawyers for Michelle Carter, the Massachusetts woman who was convicted last year for encouraging her boyfriend to kill himself in text messages and phone calls, are asking the United States Supreme Court to review her case.

The 22-year-old’s legal team filed a petition on Monday, asking the Court to consider, “the questions whether Carter’s conviction for involuntary manslaughter violated the U.S. Constitution.”

In the filing, Carter’s attorneys claim her conviction did so by violating her First Amendment right to freedom of speech and Fifth Amendment right to due process. 

The Death of Conrad Roy III 

In 2014, 18-year-old Conrad Roy III poisoned himself with carbon monoxide in a Kmart parking lot in Fairhaven, Massachusetts. After his death, investigators discovered that he had exchanged several text messages and phone calls with Carter, his then 17-year-old girlfriend, as he contemplated and attempted suicide. 

Messages showed that Carter encouraging him to do it. “I thought you wanted to do this. The time is right and you’re ready, you just need to do it! You can’t keep living this way,” one of several text messages to Roy read.

Carter even suggested ways for Roy to commit suicide. “Drink bleach. Why don’t you just drink bleach?” she asked in other messages found by investigators. “Hang yourself. Jump over a building, stab yourself, idk. There’s a lot of ways.”

According to prosecutors, Roy stepped out of his car as it filled with toxic fumes when he had second thoughts about what he was doing. Then Carter instructed him to return to the car.

In 2017, Carter was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter for her part in Roy’s death. Judge Lawrence Moniz of Bristol County said Carter’s “virtual presence” made her responsible for his death and she was sentenced to 15 months in jail. 

Her attorneys appealed the decision, but the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld her conviction in February. The court said it, “rejected the defendant’s claim that her words to the victim, without any physical act on her part and even without her physical presence at the scene, could not constitute wanton or reckless conduct sufficient to support a charge of manslaughter.”

Carter was then required to begin serving her sentence following the verdict.

Free Speech & Due Process Arguments 

“Michelle Carter did not cause Conrad Roy’s tragic death and should not be held criminally responsible for his suicide,” said attorney Daniel Marx of Fick & Marx LLP.

“This petition focuses on just two of the many flaws in the case against her that raise important federal constitutional issues for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide.”

In their filing to the Supreme Court, Carter’s legal team says her conviction was “based on words alone” and violated her First Amendment right to free speech. They argue that Carter’s communications with Roy, “did not constitute speech that was ‘an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute.’” 

The team goes on to say that her case shows an “urgent need” for the Supreme Court to clarify “that narrow category of unprotected speech.”

Along with this, Carter’s lawyers also claim that the conviction was an arbitrary enforcement of assisted suicide laws that violated her right to due process. “As applied to assist or encouraging suicide with words alone, the common law on involuntary manslaughter violates due process because neither Carter nor any prior precedent has established meaningful guidance to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”

According to the filing, Massachusetts is the only state to have upheld the conviction of a “physically absent defendant who encouraged another person to commit suicide with words alone.”

“Before this case, no state had interpreted its common law or enacted an assisted suicide statute to criminalize such “pure speech,” and no other defendant had been convicted for encouraging another person to take his own life where the defendant neither provided the actual means of death nor physically participated in the suicide,” the filing states. 

Monday was the last day for Carter to file an appeal to the Supreme Court, but it is unclear if the Court will take the case.

HBO Documentary

The filing came the day before an HBO documentary on Carter titled “I Love You, Now Die: The Commonwealth v. Michelle Carter.” The documentary, which first premiered at this year’s South by Southwest Festival, will air in two installments on Tuesday and Wednesday. 

If you or someone you know may be contemplating suicide, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-8255. Other international suicide helplines can be found at befrienders.org. You can also text TALK to 741741 for free, anonymous 24/7 crisis support in the US from the Crisis Text Line.

See what others are saying: (Fox News) (The Boston Globe) (The Washington Post)

U.S.

How Safe Injections Sites in the U.S. Are Fighting Back Against The Opioid Crisis & Do They Work?

Published

on


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.

Continue Reading

U.S.

Elon Musk Defends Calling Rescue Diver “Pedo Guy” in Lawsuit

Published

on

  • 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.

Source: Elon Musk

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.”

Source: BuzzFeed

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.

Musk even said he visited Epstein’s house “several years ago.” Epstein also told The New York Times he had advised Musk while Tesla was trying to go public in 2018, though Musk denies those claims.

Private Investigator

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)

Continue Reading

U.S.

Controversy, Racism, and Genius Kids?! How One Sperm Bank Changed Everything…

Published

on


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.

Continue Reading