GUILTY CO - Gannon Stauch, 11, found deceased, Colorado Springs, El Paso County, 27 Jan 2020 *Arrest* #70

[MassGuy]

Gannon Stauch: Murdered Colorado Boy’s Dad Speaks Out After ‘Evil’ YouTuber Sells Autopsy Photos

In an interview with NewsNation’s Brian Entin last night on “Dan Abrams Live,” Gannon Stauch’s father condemned the “evil” YouTuber selling his late son’s autopsy photos online, reportedly for $3 each. As CrimeOnline previously reported, YouTuber Zav Girl reportedly filed a Freedom of...

www.crimeonline.com

 

[MTW2011]

Gannon Stauch: Murdered Colorado Boy’s Dad Speaks Out After ‘Evil’ YouTuber Sells Autopsy Photos

In an interview with NewsNation’s Brian Entin last night on “Dan Abrams Live,” Gannon Stauch’s father condemned the “evil” YouTuber selling his late son’s autopsy photos online, reportedly for $3 each. As CrimeOnline previously reported, YouTuber Zav Girl reportedly filed a Freedom of...

www.crimeonline.com

I feel so sorry for the family.

I was a bit disappointed when the prosecutor said to Entin that they tried to redact or hide the photos during the trial. I’m pretty confident that the YouTube channels who live-streamed the trial didn’t have their own secret personal camera that could see the images. Anyone on the virtual courtroom could see them, the Court had a camera pointed at the witness stand, the television next to the stand showed all the terrible images live. They’re still up on several YouTube platforms.

I don’t know if the prosecutor was trying to get out in front of the issue or if he genuinely believed that they covered the photos up but the conclusion is the same, the images were shown live during the trial. I don’t fault the prosecutor for that. However, the State appeared to make no Motions after verdict to seal anything, I have seen that occur in other cases; if they did they certainly didn’t seal these types of photos. I think there’s multiple levels of responsibility here and I think all of “this” has highlighted something that - eventually - can hopefully be turned into some possible change for good. Whether that is stricter guidelines for public and media access, whether that’s reform of existing records request exemptions, or whether that’s something else. Hopefully enough attention can be garnered to turn the negativity into something for good.

The Father understandably did not seem like he would be able to or even want to endure any possible legal actions against those who shared the photos, but if he did I imagine some sort of “defense” could be that these photos were already “public” and the Court allowed them to be shared as they were streamed directly from the Court’s own platform. I imagine that could turn more into a headache and causing even more pain if something like that happened….which is why I sincerely hope that something positive can come from all of this.

 

[Teche]

The autopsy was performed by a coroner in Florida. Weren’t the pictures released by Florida?

 

[MassGuy]

I feel so sorry for the family.

I was a bit disappointed when the prosecutor said to Entin that they tried to redact or hide the photos during the trial. I’m pretty confident that the YouTube channels who live-streamed the trial didn’t have their own secret personal camera that could see the images. Anyone on the virtual courtroom could see them, the Court had a camera pointed at the witness stand, the television next to the stand showed all the terrible images live. They’re still up on several YouTube platforms.

I don’t know if the prosecutor was trying to get out in front of the issue or if he genuinely believed that they covered the photos up but the conclusion is the same, the images were shown live during the trial. I don’t fault the prosecutor for that. However, the State appeared to make no Motions after verdict to seal anything, I have seen that occur in other cases; if they did they certainly didn’t seal these types of photos. I think there’s multiple levels of responsibility here and I think all of “this” has highlighted something that - eventually - can hopefully be turned into some possible change for good. Whether that is stricter guidelines for public and media access, whether that’s reform of existing records request exemptions, or whether that’s something else. Hopefully enough attention can be garnered to turn the negativity into something for good.

The Father understandably did not seem like he would be able to or even want to endure any possible legal actions against those who shared the photos, but if he did I imagine some sort of “defense” could be that these photos were already “public” and the Court allowed them to be shared as they were streamed directly from the Court’s own platform. I imagine that could turn more into a headache and causing even more pain if something like that happened….which is why I sincerely hope that something positive can come from all of this.

What this woman did was perfectly legal, as she went through the proper channels (FOIA request).

Its the fact that she tried to turn a profit from this, that is rubbing people the wrong way.

Legal? Absolutely.

Ethical? I’d say absolutely not.

 

[MTW2011]

What this woman did was perfectly legal, as she went through the proper channels (FOIA request).

Its the fact that she tried to turn a profit from this, that is rubbing people the wrong way.

Legal? Absolutely.

Ethical? I’d say absolutely not.

Oh I totally agree not - ethical by my standards either.
But now her Patreon is shut down, and maybe more social channels will be shut down, or she will lose followers due to the reputation going around, but I’m not sure she is “profiting” any longer now.

On the other hand, one of the YouTube channels who streamed the trial that is still live on YouTube is a monetized channel, they raised avoid chuck of money during the “live” via donations and “super chats” & they continue to this day. If anyone is still profiting from this, I would argue it’s the channels that still have the videos up, with ads, soliciting and accepting donations and super chats. And not that it matters, but they just live-streamed via the Court virtual system, they didn’t pay for records so in that view, any money they made is also a “profit”.

 

[Derph]

What this woman did was perfectly legal, as she went through the proper channels (FOIA request).

Its the fact that she tried to turn a profit from this, that is rubbing people the wrong way.

Legal? Absolutely.

Ethical? I’d say absolutely not.

I think the whole thing is disgraceful. Having said that, is the person who posted these trying to make a profit or trying to cover her expenses? If she's just trying to recoup her losses that's one thing ( still a very ghoulish thing to do). If she's trying to make money off of them that's blood money.

 

[iamshadow21]

Oh I totally agree not - ethical by my standards either.
But now her Patreon is shut down, and maybe more social channels will be shut down, or she will lose followers due to the reputation going around, but I’m not sure she is “profiting” any longer now.

On the other hand, one of the YouTube channels who streamed the trial that is still live on YouTube is a monetized channel, they raised avoid chuck of money during the “live” via donations and “super chats” & they continue to this day. If anyone is still profiting from this, I would argue it’s the channels that still have the videos up, with ads, soliciting and accepting donations and super chats. And not that it matters, but they just live-streamed via the Court virtual system, they didn’t pay for records so in that view, any money they made is also a “profit”.

There were several reasons why I watched the trial directly through Webex, and this whole debacle is making me so much more deeply grateful that I didn't just watch it through some youtube channel. The main reason at the time was because I knew from others that some of the rebroadcasters were commenting over the feed, and I didn't want their chat, I wanted to hear the actual trial, all of it. Now, I realise that if I'd gone to Youtube I might have supported someone who unbeknownst to me was making a buck off it, and I feel sick just thinking that I could have easily done that if I hadn't figured Webex out straight from the off and been able to use it consistently. I so, so easily could have done harm and not known about it until this moment.

MOO

 

[MTW2011]

I think the whole thing is disgraceful. Having said that, is the person who posted these trying to make a profit or trying to cover her expenses? If she's just trying to recoup her losses that's one thing ( still a very ghoulish thing to do). If she's trying to make money off of them that's blood money.

Without knowing / hearing what she paid, and totally guessing, I would think she was trying to cover her costs. Others who purchased them said it costs them approx $400 for the case files. By the time her Patreon was shut down, just looking at the numbers who joined, she absolutely did not recoup a $400 cost, if that was indeed the fees associated with the records. Not defending her actions, just looking at the numbers for sake of your question.

Others who just shared the livestream from Court - who weren’t having to purchase records because the very nature of it was shared in real-time, I would think any money made from those videos with ads, or with donations, is more in line with “making a profit” but that’s JMOO. There wasn’t a fee associated with, that I’m aware of, to watch via the Court virtual platform. Please correct me if i am mistaken. There were and are fees to obtain records from the Court though.

 

[ChatteringBirds]

I tell my kiddo who wants to be a YouTuber that he should think carefully about the content. Are you putting something positive or meaningful into the world? Could you be causing harm?

He doesn't want to hear it. So this is like the mentality of a preteen. I'll do what I want; I don't have to truly think deeply about it; others are doing the same or worse; it's not my fault if someone says they're hurt by it...

It's riding the wave of clicks, likes, and subs, without stopping to think or care if that temporary high is worth the damage you are indeed causing.

 

[iamshadow21]

I tell my kiddo who wants to be a YouTuber that he should think carefully about the content. Are you putting something positive or meaningful into the world? Could you be causing harm?

He doesn't want to hear it. So this is like the mentality of a preteen. I'll do what I want; I don't have to truly think deeply about it; others are doing the same or worse; it's not my fault if someone says they're hurt by it...

It's riding the wave of clicks, likes, and subs, without stopping to think or care if that temporary high is worth the damage you are indeed causing.

But you expect it from a preteen or teenager; their brains haven't finished growing yet and they think all adults know nothing about what it's like to be them. It's developmentally appropriate, if, at times, frustrating to live with.

These people, the girl in the articles and the rest, are all full adults who are, as we Aussies say, 'big enough and ugly enough to know better'.

MOO

 

[Inthedetails]

What this woman did was perfectly legal, as she went through the proper channels (FOIA request).

Its the fact that she tried to turn a profit from this, that is rubbing people the wrong way.

Legal? Absolutely.

Ethical? I’d say absolutely not.

I don't think it's legal. Florida law seems to explicitly state that autopsy photos are not to be released. Certain people like immediate family may obtain them or a court order might release them. In this case, they should not have been released under FOIA.

And they certainly should not have been distributed online!

Here's the FL law for people to read to double check this. I'm not a legal expert, just a googler, so see what you think:

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

jmo

 

[MTW2011]

I don't think it's legal. Florida law seems to explicitly state that autopsy photos are not to be released. Certain people like immediate family may obtain them or a court order might release them. In this case, they should not have been released under FOIA.

And they certainly should not have been distributed online!

Here's the FL law for people to read to double check this. I'm not a legal expert, just a googler, so see what you think:

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

jmo

But the same photos were and still are literally on some of YT channels that streamed the hearing live.

The Court’s virtual courtroom system had a multiple camera setup, one of the cameras was focused pointed on witness stand and monitor beside it. When the coroner testified, she referenced many of these same photos, all of which were shown live in real-time to anyone watching via the Court’s official stream. The State did not seal these records after the trial.

The Court’s official live feed - intentionally or not I don’t know - was the first “source” to broadcast these to anyone who was watching the trial.

This popular creator streamed the trial, this video shows the same exact photos shared by the women being referenced in this thread.

Coroner Witness & AUDIO Letecia Stauch MURDER TRIAL DAY 5 | Gannon Stauch CASE | WARNING GRAPHIC

Coroner Witness, Letecia Stauch MURDER TRIAL DAY 5 | Gannon Stauch CASE #truecrime #trial #crime ⚠ TRIGGER WARNING ⚠ content may not be suitable for all vie...

www.youtube.com

You can even see comments from months ago, where some thanked him for showing the photos (as other channels chose to hide/redact/obscure the images when they live-streamed on their channels) and the video has 45K views currently. Judging by some of the comments, some people following this case have seen these before. I predict this is way there’s been some small social media chatter about how they weren’t “the first” and how their paying platforms have been taken down while others, like this example, is still public. Anyone with an internet access can go and find this and not even get the YT content warning before they see the autopsy of the child

Please, please know I am NOT defending what the woman mentioned did, I am only trying to explain that the images were available months before this. And they weren’t behind any paywall, anyone could go to YouTube and see it. I don’t even get the “content restricted” type message & requires signing in like I see in many other trial videos. The optics of their situation and paywalls and all of that, terrible choices, looks and is very insensitive but they were not the only ones to share the images.

This is also not to single any creator out, but this is a popular channel who has been referenced many times on WS so I hope it was OK to post. If not obviously please remove and let me know. I checked first if his content was shared here before & that’s why I thought it may be okay to share.

WARNING - if you watch the first hour and half of the video you may very well see the horrific images of the poor victim.

 

[cujenn81]

I tell my kiddo who wants to be a YouTuber that he should think carefully about the content. Are you putting something positive or meaningful into the world? Could you be causing harm?

He doesn't want to hear it. So this is like the mentality of a preteen. I'll do what I want; I don't have to truly think deeply about it; others are doing the same or worse; it's not my fault if someone says they're hurt by it...

It's riding the wave of clicks, likes, and subs, without stopping to think or care if that temporary high is worth the damage you are indeed causing.

Is it true?
Is it kind?
Is it necessary?

These are the three questions I always try to ask myself before I post something on the Internet.

 

[twall]

But the same photos were and still are literally on some of YT channels that streamed the hearing live.

The Court’s virtual courtroom system had a multiple camera setup, one of the cameras was focused pointed on witness stand and monitor beside it. When the coroner testified, she referenced many of these same photos, all of which were shown live in real-time to anyone watching via the Court’s official stream. The State did not seal these records after the trial.

The Court’s official live feed - intentionally or not I don’t know - was the first “source” to broadcast these to anyone who was watching the trial.

This popular creator streamed the trial, this video shows the same exact photos shared by the women being referenced in this thread.

Coroner Witness & AUDIO Letecia Stauch MURDER TRIAL DAY 5 | Gannon Stauch CASE | WARNING GRAPHIC

Coroner Witness, Letecia Stauch MURDER TRIAL DAY 5 | Gannon Stauch CASE #truecrime #trial #crime ⚠ TRIGGER WARNING ⚠ content may not be suitable for all vie...

www.youtube.com

You can even see comments from months ago, where some thanked him for showing the photos (as other channels chose to hide/redact/obscure the images when they live-streamed on their channels) and the video has 45K views currently. Judging by some of the comments, some people following this case have seen these before. I predict this is way there’s been some small social media chatter about how they weren’t “the first” and how their paying platforms have been taken down while others, like this example, is still public. Anyone with an internet access can go and find this and not even get the YT content warning before they see the autopsy of the child

Please, please know I am NOT defending what the woman mentioned did, I am only trying to explain that the images were available months before this. And they weren’t behind any paywall, anyone could go to YouTube and see it. I don’t even get the “content restricted” type message & requires signing in like I see in many other trial videos. The optics of their situation and paywalls and all of that, terrible choices, looks and is very insensitive but they were not the only ones to share the images.

This is also not to single any creator out, but this is a popular channel who has been referenced many times on WS so I hope it was OK to post. If not obviously please remove and let me know. I checked first if his content was shared here before & that’s why I thought it may be okay to share.

WARNING - if you watch the first hour and half of the video you may very well see the horrific images of the poor victim.

You are correct, I watched the trial in real time and was shocked when the judge (who controlled the camera/web broadcast) left the camera on the monitor as the ME was describing the injuries. IIRC the genital area and area of the face where he was shot was blurred. FL did not release them to anyone via FOIA, CO did as they are part of Gannon's case file.

 

[Inthedetails]

But the same photos were and still are literally on some of YT channels that streamed the hearing live.

The Court’s virtual courtroom system had a multiple camera setup, one of the cameras was focused pointed on witness stand and monitor beside it. When the coroner testified, she referenced many of these same photos, all of which were shown live in real-time to anyone watching via the Court’s official stream. The State did not seal these records after the trial.

The Court’s official live feed - intentionally or not I don’t know - was the first “source” to broadcast these to anyone who was watching the trial.

This popular creator streamed the trial, this video shows the same exact photos shared by the women being referenced in this thread.

Coroner Witness & AUDIO Letecia Stauch MURDER TRIAL DAY 5 | Gannon Stauch CASE | WARNING GRAPHIC

Coroner Witness, Letecia Stauch MURDER TRIAL DAY 5 | Gannon Stauch CASE #truecrime #trial #crime ⚠ TRIGGER WARNING ⚠ content may not be suitable for all vie...

www.youtube.com

You can even see comments from months ago, where some thanked him for showing the photos (as other channels chose to hide/redact/obscure the images when they live-streamed on their channels) and the video has 45K views currently. Judging by some of the comments, some people following this case have seen these before. I predict this is way there’s been some small social media chatter about how they weren’t “the first” and how their paying platforms have been taken down while others, like this example, is still public. Anyone with an internet access can go and find this and not even get the YT content warning before they see the autopsy of the child

Please, please know I am NOT defending what the woman mentioned did, I am only trying to explain that the images were available months before this. And they weren’t behind any paywall, anyone could go to YouTube and see it. I don’t even get the “content restricted” type message & requires signing in like I see in many other trial videos. The optics of their situation and paywalls and all of that, terrible choices, looks and is very insensitive but they were not the only ones to share the images.

This is also not to single any creator out, but this is a popular channel who has been referenced many times on WS so I hope it was OK to post. If not obviously please remove and let me know. I checked first if his content was shared here before & that’s why I thought it may be okay to share.

WARNING - if you watch the first hour and half of the video you may very well see the horrific images of the poor victim.

When determining if something is legal or not, I'm thinking we should look at the law.

Florida has specific laws about what can be released to whom under FOIA, and autopsy photos are not to be released except under very specific and tight circumstances. I'm under the impression the youtubers obtained the photos from Florida, using FOIA. They should not have been sent those photos.

Looks like someone made a legal mistake when sending the photos, but that doesn't make it okay legally to then distribute them on youtube, whether they've been used in public court or not.

Florida law about autopsy photos under FOIA: Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

jmo

 

[MTW2011]

You are correct, I watched the trial in real time and was shocked when the judge (who controlled the camera/web broadcast) left the camera on the monitor as the ME was describing the injuries. IIRC the genital area and area of the face where he was shot was blurred. FL did not release them to anyone via FOIA, CO did as they are part of Gannon's case file.

So sad.
The Prosecutor argued they blurred portions - they certainly did. They blurred his face from some photos.

Is someone watching the trial and any of these videos not going to know the images being pointed at and discussed aren’t the victim? Not sure that’s likely

I don’t know but could they Motion to Seal them now? If they could, that would be great to help curtail the release of these in the future. But I’m not an attorney I don’t know if that’s possible at this point.

 

[Turkeytrot]

I watched the trial as well and saw the photos as they were shown on those court streams. But it should be noted that they didn't even show all of them in court..

 

[FrostedGlass]

Indiana courts live stream with a strong caution against re-broadcasting the trial in any form.

We recently had a gang-related murder trial and the court allowed the autopsy photos. Some of the rival gang members took screen caps and posted them on FB with hurtful comments. The family of the victim was really upset and the prosecutor asked the judge to cut the stream. He asked her if she still planned on showing them again and she said she did. Neither one of the defense attys objected so no one got to see the end of the trial.

If the courts decide to show the gruesome photos (instead of diagrams) to the world, then one can expect them to be viewed.

IMO if the State has a strong case, in most incidences they don't need to show horrid photos to get a conviction.

 

[Starsinshadows]

Sending my thoughts to the family that these photos are being sold. This is so disgusting.

 

[megs1477]

As a YTer who covers court cases, there are those who are trying to make a buck at someone’s expense, and those of us who are analyzing the case, clarifying the motions, etc. and breaking it down throughout entire trials. We are trying to educate people and help the public understand our complicated legal system. We are performing a service and there is a ton of work that goes into it. That is what we are being paid for, not the subject. But again, with everything, there are good and bad. Just please don’t let one bad taint your impression of all. I work incredibly hard and have the utmost respect for victims rights.