USCG vs. Stinziano: Trial Testimony of “Deck Cadet 1” RE: Maersk Engaging in a Coverup of Stinziano’s Shipboard Sex Crimes and Sexual Misconduct and Maersk Extracting Forced False Statements From 2 USMMA Cadets:
In this trial testimony taken from the trial transcripts of USCG vs. Stinziano, we see how Maersk covers up the mistreatment and sexual abuse of cadets aboard their vessels. According to the trial transcript, 2nd Mate J. Ryan Melogy gave Captain Paul Willers, master of the Maersk Idaho, a Report on the day he departed the vessel in Genova, Italy on February 3, 2015. That Report said that Stinziano had sexually assaulted the 2nd Mate in a lifeboat by groping him. It also included numerous specific instances in which he had seen Stinziano sexually harass and sexually assault “Deck Cadet 1,” and included the allegation that Melogy had witnessed Stinziano abusing and essentially torturing “Deck Cadet 1” by forcing him to work more than 24 hours at a time and subjecting him to a pattern of “sexual abuse.”
After the 2nd Mate left the vessel, the 2 USMMA cadets were still onboard the Maersk Idaho.
Captain Paul Willers initiated an investigation, which was directed by Gary English, Maersk’s in-house coverup lawyer at Maersk headquarters in Virginia. While the “investigation” was being conducted, Stinziano, who had been accused of numerous federal sex crimes by the 2nd Mate, was allowed to remain on the vessel with the Cadets he was alleged to have assaulted and abused. The 2 cadets told Captain Willers the truth about Stinziano’s behavior, but they were both subsequently intimidated and threatened into giving false written statements denying the harassment, abuse, and assaults. These written statements had to be overcome at trial by the prosecution. Here is part of the trial testimony from Deck Cadet 1:
Q (USCG Prosecutor Jennifer Mehaffey): Okay. Okay, do you – what was your working environment, as far as how—if I may rephrase. You testified Chief Mate Stinziano was in charge of your hours and setting how, what type of work you did on the Idaho. What was that environment like with that?
A (“Deck Cadet 1”): At times the work hours could be rather egregious, I would say. On several occasions he had me working for over 24 hours. There was one occasion I remember, I believe there was a valve broken in the bow of the vessel, and I can’t remember exactly what we were doing. But we had been working on it, it had been like fifteen hours and we, and I requested some lunch. Chief Mate responded that he hasn’t eaten lunch yet, we shouldn’t have lunch. Eventually we were granted like ten minutes to eat and then we had to go back to work.
Q. And how, how did that make you feel?
A. I mean, a little demeaning, I didn’t make me feel great about myself. I felt I had been working rather hard. I just wanted to eat something before we got back to work.
Q. How did you deal personally with the work environment that you described here today in your testimony? How, how did you deal with that?
A. Could you be more specific, please?
Q. Emotionally, how were you able to get up in the morning, or in the afternoon, or in the evening, or whenever it was and show up and do your job?
A. I believe I just compressed my feelings and went throughout the day without thinking much of it, just trying to get through the vessel.
Q. And is this something that you learned somewhere? Is that, as part of, you know, your understanding of the culture of being cadet?
A. The culture is not to make much of an issue of anything because if you leave the vessel, odds are you won’t get a new vessel for a while. Then you’d be short sea days and you won’t be able to sit for your license, and you won’t be able to graduate. So [as a cadet] you just want to make it as seamless for the time as sea as possible so there’s no issues. You want to be as quiet as possible.
Q. And is that something that you were told? Did you see other people experiencing?
A. I was never officially told that by anyone of an official capacity. But it was passed on that you don’t make much of a noise about anything, just get it over with.
Q. To that point about not raising waves, and being the culture of just kind of getting through. I want to talk a little bit about the investigation that occurred from, we had heard testimony earlier and you are aware that Second Mate had filed a Complaint.
A. Um-hrm.
Q. And can you tell me a little bit about how that occurred and what was your involvement in that?
A. In terms of the whole day, or?
Q. Yes, well let me start out with a simpler question. When did you first learn that the 2nd Mate had filed a complaint?
A. I believe it was the captain that told me that there was a Complaint filed. I can’t recall the exact time of day, it may have been mid-day, early mid-day.
Q. Okay. And that captain, who was that?
A. Captain Paul Willers
Q. okay. And he came to you, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you speak with the second mate about what the content of that, his comments?
A. No. I was approached by the second mate the night prior, he didn’t allude to any details. He just said he was going to be dropping off some documents with the captain upon his departure from the vessel. And he just wanted me to be as honest as possible with the conversation about it.
Q. Okay. And did you have any other comments with the second mate about his comments on the performance evaluation prior to his disembarking in Genoa?
A. Not that I can recall.
Q. Okay. Okay, did you have any interaction with the chief mate about what was stated in the performance evaluation?
A. I believe, yes, there were several interactions with the chief mate about the document. I, are you, do you want me — on that day or the —
Q. Yeah, well the, let’s start on that day.
A. So the chief mate found out that he had these complaints placed against him. And then he was looking for crewmembers to vouch for his character so the prior, so the Captain would not dismiss him from the vessel. That’s —
Q. He — go ahead.
A. That’s the only event I recall from that specific day. In later days, the chief mate and I had a conversation where he said the statements that [my Sea Partner] gave were going to get him fired. Those are the two main interactions I can remember from the Complaint.
Q. And when you say the statements that [your Sea Partner] made, what statements were those?
A. I don’t know why, I don’t remember why, but somehow he gave a statement by himself prior to our double discussion with the captain. I don’t recall the exact circumstances that [my Sea Partner] gave an original statement to I don’t know if it was written or not, it may have been a verbal conversation.
Q. Okay, and did he tell you this directly, or you heard it from someone?
A. Yes, we, when we found out about the Complaint we had a discussion between ourselves about the circumstances.
Q. Okay. And did you yourself give a statement?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay, and do you recollect was that a typef statement, was that a written statement?
A. There was a verbal interview with the captain. And then we were asked to provide a written statement as well.
Q. And who was at that verbal interview?
A. It was the chief engineer and the captain.
Q. Okay, okay. And, okay. If I may, Your Honor, and SO — okay, apologize, let me rephrase. At that time, in the verbal interview, and this was prior to any written interviews, correct? What was that discussion?
A. In terms of the official discussion or the private discussion prior?
Q. The private and the official.
A. We, essentially, I don’t remember the exact words, but we were told this, there could be some consequences for our statements, and we should be careful about what we say. And that —
Q. And who said that to you?
A. I, it was, I believe it was the chief engineer, |but I, I don’t know for sure.
Q. Okay, and that was informal?
A. That was informal. And then we began the verbal interview in which essentially we went through the statement, and they asked us, did each of these things occur.
Q. Okay.
A. To which we were to respond, yes or no.
Q. Okay. And who was present? That was still the same people, the chief engineer and the captain for that?
A. I don’t remember if the chief engineer left.
Q. Okay.
A. Before that happened or not.
Q. Okay.
A. I believe he did.
Q. Okay.
A. I believe it was just the captain.
Q. Just you and the captain?
A. Yes.
Q. And were there written responses to that, or was that just verbal?
A. I believe — the captain, yes, the captain was recording the details of the conversation on a form.
Q. Okay. Okay.
MS. MEHAFFEY: If I may, Your Honor, the Coast Guard would ask to approach with what’s been marked previously as Coast Guard Exhibit 8, but will be entered into evidence as Coast Guard Exhibit 15 if accepted. THE COURT: All right.
MS. MEHAFFEY: Let me make sure this is the statement to You have it? May the record reflect that I am approaching the witness with the exhibit? THE COURT: You may. (Coast Guard Exhibit #15 was then marked for identification.) BY MS. MEHAFFEY:
Q. And if you could just take a moment then to look through that and when you are ready and comfortable, please look up and I’ll ask you a few questions. (Bricf pause while witness reviews exhibit.)
A. Okay.
Q. You ready?
A. Yup.
Q. Okay, great. So if you could, we, the Respondent’s counsel and myself and Your Honor had agreed to the authenticity of these exhibits. However, if you could talk about what this document if, you don’t have to read it. Do you recognize this document?
A. This must have been what was recording during our conversation, but I don’t recognize it.
Q. Have you ever seen this document before?
A. I have not seen this document.
Q. Okay, is that your name at the top there?
A. Yup
Q. And the responses, does this look like an accurate reflection of what your responses were?
A. These were the responses, I gave, yes.
Q. Okay. And I guess knowing that you haven’t seen this before, but as far as the responses, have they been altered, to the best of your knowledge?
A. No.
Q. Okay.
MS. MEHAFFEY: At this time, Your Honor, the Coast Guard would ask to have Coast Guard Exhibit 15 moved into evidence.
MR. HEWIG: No objection.
THE COURT: There being no objection, Coast Guard Exhibit 15 is admitted into evidence.
MS. MEHAFFEY: Thank you. (Coast Guard Exhibit #15 was then admitted into evidence.)
THE COURT: What is the signature at the back end? All I see it’s kind of a squiggle. Is that, is your signature on the back end of that, or..
THE WITNESS: No, I believe that’s the captain’s signature. Oh, yup, sorry.
THE COURT: It’s got the master’s signature, but it also says, “Witness signature.”
THE WITNESS: Yup, that’s my signature.
THE COURT: Okay.
Q. Now, it’s your testimony that this was, this written statement was taken subsequent to a verbal discussion with the captain, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it, what was your intent in writing, in giving these answers?
A. I just wanted to keep everything as easy as possible for my, so the rest of my time of the vessel. I didn’t want to stir, stir up anything. I figured it’d be easiest just to say nothing happened and make it go away than make any noise about it.
MR. HEWIG: Your Honor, I didn’t hear the first part of his testimony I wonder if it could be, the answer could please be re-read?
THE COURT: I think he said he wanted to make it as easy as possible.
MR. HEWIG: Easy right, that’s the word I —
THE COURT: Is what you said?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. HEWIG: All right, thank you.
THE COURT: Okay.
Q. Thank you. And is this an accurate portrayal of what happened?
A. No.
Q. And is your testimony here today, earlier today an accurate statement of what happened?
A. Yes.
Q. And why the difference?
A. Between the two documents?
Q. No, between your testimony here today and what was said to Captain Willers.
A. The difference is I, there’s no reason for me to not tell the truth, I don’t have any reason not to. I’m not on the vessel anymore going to the Middle East. I’m here, so it’s a safer environment, I would say.
Q. When you say, “Going to the Middle East,” can you, what did you mean by that? That you’re not going to the Middle East, I just want to clarify what it is that you meant.
A. That the vessel was going to the Middle East after we finished in the Mediterranean. I didn’t, right, so I was nineteen years old and I had never even left the states without my parents, and I was just pretty nervous about going there on a vessel with a bunch of people I didn’t know. So I figured it would be best to just make everything as cohesive as possible and be as agreeable as possible.
Q. So you were going to be going to the Middle East after this statement?
A. I don’t recall the exact vessel rotation.
Q. That’s fine, that’s fine. Did you ever submit a typed statement?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
A. We were asked to type an official statement and we gave it to the captain.
Q. Okay. And what was, and who asked you to do that?
A. The captain asked us to do that.
Q. Okay. And what was the circumstances surrounding asking, them asking you? Did they take you in a room, did they, you know, ask you —
A. It was in this same discussion, with the verbal |responses, that we were asked to give the written statement.
Q. Okay. And was there anybody on the phone at any time during that statement?
A. Yes, there was a lawyer for Maersk that was listening in.
Q. That was listening.
A. I didn’t hear any comments, but they were listening in to the conversation.
Q. Okay. And you were made aware of that?
A. Yes, we were told that the lawyer would be on the phone.
A. Yes. and I sat in the computer lounge and typed our statements together.
Q. Okay. And is that your signature at the bottom?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Okay. And to the best of your knowledge, has this been altered in any way?
A. No, it has not.
MS. MEHAFFEY: Okay, at this time, Your Honor, the Coast Guard would ask that Coast Guard Exhibit 16 be entered.
MR. HEWIG: No objection.
THE COURT: There being no objection Coast Guard Exhibit 16 is admitted into evidence. (Coast Guard Exhibit #16 was then admitted into evidence.)
MS. MEHAFFEY: Okay, thank you.
MS. MEHAFFEY: Q. And just to clarify again, is what’s stated in here ar. accurate reflection of what happened on the Maersk Idaho?
A. No, it is not.
Q. Okay, thank you. So I want to talk about, a little bit abcut how you became involved in this case, okay?
A. Okay.
Q. Now, did anybody reach out to you about —
Q. Okay. Okay, and why did you agree to talk with the Coast Guard?
A. Well, I was slightly intimidated, it was a Special Agent that called me. So felt I had to go. I also felt the behavior on the vessel should be corrected, I should probably correct my statements. Because I, at the time, I had kind of suppressed the reaction to everything so that I didn’t think of it as a huge deal. But as I, as it went on, the effect of it was kind of wearing on me. It was just, I don’t know, it was an odd feeling, it just made me feel like less of a person I would say, the treatment I received on the vessel. And I just felt it was pretty tough, I didn’t want other cadets to experience it.
Q. And the treatment, when you say, “The treatment you received,” the treatment from Chief Mate Stinziano?
A. Yup.
Q. Okay, And when you talk about how it made you feel like less of a person, how else has it affected you in your daily life after the Maersk Idaho?
A. I well, when I left the vessel I wasn’t sure I wanted to continue with that career path. I was pretty sure I wanted to leave the school. I didn’t, it just didn’t – because, it made me feel like I wasn’t strong enough, I guess, for the industry. Because I had assumed that was kind of how all vessels operated. So I felt like maybe I wasn’t cut out for it. So I just didn’t like the way it felt. I was pretty worn out, depressed, so I considered dropping out of school but I didn’t, I don’t know why I didn’t, but I didn’t. So I figured I’d give it another swing on the other two vessels. The other two vessels were okay. But then, when I graduated, I sought out employment on vessels because I, I mean, I had to, because of the [service] obligation. So I got enough applications in to [get] a waiver from the government to not to work on seagoing vessels.
Q. Okay, and why, what was the reason that you wanted to be a mariner?
A. I mean, it’s because I grew up on the water, my dad and I raced sailboats together, I always saw the ships, I loved the water, and I thought it would be a great career.
Q. And was the effect of your experience on the Maersk Idaho, what effect did that have on your dream to be a mariner?
A. It may be [that] I determined it probably wasn’t my ideal career path.
Trial Testimony About More Disgusting Things Stinziano Did to “Deck Cadet 1”
Q: Ok, were there any situations involving movies?
A: Sometimes we would go to his room to watch movies and there was one movie I would consider slightly inappropriate I would say. I can’t remember the title of the film but It involved I believe cutting a baby out of a woman and then the baby was raped, that’s what I remember from the film.
Q: Ok, and what was the situation? How did it come about that you were watching this movie?
A: I can’t remember the circumstances why the film was played, But it wasn’t introduced as a film of that nature.
Q: Ok, so it was just the Chief Mate and the cadets in the room. And do you remember anything else about that film?
A: I think it started out as a sort of normal film, and then turned into this scene, it was pretty graphic of the woman getting cut open and the baby being raped.
Q: The baby was?
A: The unborn child, I believe was raped, I think I remember that detail.
Q: Ok. Ok. Do you remember a situation that occurred on the vessel that involved any kind of pen, or writing instrument?
A: Yes…
Q. Okay. Okay. Okay, do you remember a situation that occurred on the vessel that involved any kind of pen, or writing instruments?
A. Yes. There was an instance where someone was chewing pens on the bridge of the vessel. The chief mate was upset that somebody was chewing pens on the bridge of the vessel so he wanted to teach them a lesson. So he unzipped his coveralls, rubbed the pen in his buttocks region so it would smell like his buttocks. And then he asked me to smell the pen to confirm rubbed on his buttocks region and that way the suspect chewing the pens would at one point chew on the pen that smelled like his buttocks.
Q. So are you testifying that he physically, was there any physical contact, or did just get close to your person with this pen?
A. He, he, presented, he reached his arm out and presented it.
Q. Um-hmm. And you actually saw him –
A. Yes.
Q. – do the actions?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
A. He wanted to display that the pen was –
Q. And, sorry, go ahead.
A. Yes, he wanted it to be clear that the pen was being inserted into his buttocks.
Q. And was this interaction discussed elsewhere with other members of the either the cadet or other members of the crew? Did Chief Mate Stinziano mention this occurrence to other people?
A. I don’t remember to whom, but I remember there was another conversation regarding the pen.
Q. Okay. Was there ever any written notes put anywhere about the pen?
A. I think there, there were sticky notes, but I can’t remember if it was that incident or if it was prior, it was a prior attempt to dissuade the pen chewer.
Q. Okay. Okay. I just want to circle back a little bit, when we first started talking about the actual physical touching. And again, I apologize, I know this is difficult. But if you could explain to the Court how that situation occurred, where the touching occurred…