I'm not this evil, heartless person like many are saying.
But I'm also doing a lot of self reflecting and
I'm looking into sensitivity training.
I did not want to add to the family's loss with anything I said or
shared about this case.
It will be a long time before I ever trust myself or my decisions again.
>> Speaker 2: That was Zav Girl, who happens to be a true crime YouTuber, and
she's apologizing after she decided to sell access to an 11-year
old murder victim's autopsy photos through her Patreon.
So it was put behind a paywall and the murder is obviously terrible,
tragic, and seems like there wasn't a lot of thought in regard to what
the family would feel in having these photos out there for the public to see.
Now, let's talk about the murder itself and
then the backlash that Zav Girl is now dealing with.
So Zav Girl was investigating the tragic case of this 11-year old boy who
was murdered by his own stepmother in 2020.
His name was Gannon Stauch, and apparently the YouTuber here,
Zav Girl, decided to file a public records request into his death, mostly
because she wanted to find interviews of the 11-year old boy's stepmother.
And so when she did that, she actually ended up receiving a large batch
of documents, and it was basically the case file.
And in that case file were photos of what had happened to him.
She then put together a video about the case which was only
accessible to her patrons on Patreon.
And the autopsy photos were included in that video.
So, before she offered the apology that we showed you all,
she kind of issued a bit of a half apology.
So I'm wanna read that too right now.
The reality of the situation is that different people feel differently
about this.
Some people genuinely think making a video including the autopsy photos is bad,
and I respect their opinion and feelings.
Other people, like myself, think of autopsy photos and
the coroner discussing and explaining them as interesting and
informative and are able to view it all in a more scientific, detached way.
It's just one of those things where it depends on the person.
And then she continues, I understand some of you have issues
with me charging money on my Patreon for the video.
If I was charging money for the autopsy files alone or something like that,
I think I'd see your point.
But in this case I spent a lot of time and
worked hard putting together a video, lining up the coroner's audio and
descriptions along with the appropriate part of the photos she is describing and
editing it together to try to make it as informative as possible for the viewer.
Okay, and then the young boy's father talked about this publicly.
We're gonna get to his video in just a moment, but so
far what do you think, Cenk?
>> Speaker 3: I'm actually split on it.
So, you might be surprised by that.
So, I'm not split on showing the picture.
She should not have done that.
It was definitely wrong.
And this is not one of those things that's newsworthy enough.
For example, we didn't show the caskets of dead US soldiers returning from Iraq,
because the government wanted to keep that from the American people.
So they didn't realize the true cost of the war.
This is not one of those situations.
This is not some sort of attempt at journalism in that sense.
She is monetizing it.
This is how she makes money in doing these videos.
Now, having said all that, to me, intent matters.
I know some people say intent shouldn't matter.
I don't agree with that at all.
Did she do it like, yeah, I'm going to put this behind the paywall and
make some cash out of it?
If she did that, I'd hate it, right?
Or does she do it as she describes there?
I tend to, given the full context of it,
I tend to kind of believe her that this is what she does and she screwed up here.
She shouldn't have put an 11-year old kid's dead picture there.
But now, as we always do online, it's overkill.
So now she's the most evil, satanic person in the world and we should all hate her.
I'm not as convinced about that.
Sorry. >> Speaker 2: Okay, so
I'll chime in after we watch the video featuring the 11-year old's father.
>> Speaker 4: It is retraumatizing.
We just finished the trial just over two months ago, Brian, and now we're having
to kind of relive some of this stuff and not being able to put it behind us.
>> Speaker 4: Yeah, and I think for
what really pushed it over the edge was the charging the money.
Obviously posting it alone would be disgusting, but
then charging money to see those photos, it's really just awful.
>> Speaker 4: The word I use describing is evil, Brian.
I don't know how well you followed it, but the only day I chose not to come to
the trial was the day that they showed the autopsy photos.
Now I feel like I can't even go on YouTube without the possibility of
accidentally coming across these photos.
>> Speaker 2: Look, I think that the photos, that's definitely the worst part.
And in her mind, she's putting together a video, she's putting together the case,
and she is detached from the human component of it, right?
And you just have to consider that there's a victim here.
There's a little boy who died as a result of a terrible murder, and
that little boy's family is still very much alive.
And they shouldn't have to deal with knowing that that image is
floating around.
And once it's on the internet,
look, it's behind a paywall in the context of this video.
But once it's out there, it's out there.
Who's to say someone won't screenshot it and put it out there for the public?
>> Speaker 3: There's a lot of terrible people online.
>> Speaker 1: Yeah. >> Speaker 3: Look, guys,
my heart goes out to the dad.
And as much as humanly possible, Jesus, that's an 11-year old boy, and
he was stabbed to death by his stepmom.
It's just an awful story.
And so when he says that it's evil, he can say anything he wants about it.
He's got every right to speak out.
But I make a huge distinction between him and the news anchors.
It feels like everyone, as in,
whether they're writing an article about it or talking about it on air,
is sensationalizing it with, she was making money from selling these pictures.
Wait a minute, she wasn't just selling,
that makes it seem like she's selling the pictures for three bucks per picture.
That's not what she was doing.
So that mischaracterizes it as kind of clickbait to get you to hate her more.
>> Speaker 2: Right.
>> Speaker 3: And since everybody does this now in all forms of media,
we all wind up hating each other to a maximum degree.
So I got it.
She's did something awful.
At some point, we got to let up.
That's my take on it.