Law&Crime Sidebar - Teen Lured Child into Water Park Bathroom and Sexually Assaulted Them: Police

Episode Date: July 17, 2025

A day meant for fun turned nightmarish at Pirates Cove Water Park near Denver. Eighteen-year-old Trenton Moskovita is accused of luring a child into a family changing room and sexually assaulting her. Police acted swiftly after the victim’s mother alerted staff, leading to his arrest on multiple serious charges—including kidnapping and aggravated sexual assault. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber breaks down the allegations, legal stakes, and the impact on community trustPLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW:Check out Odoo to take your manufacturing process to the next level! Get a free 15-day trial today at: https://www.odoo.com/sidebarmanufacturingHOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this law and crimes series ad free right now. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple podcasts or Spotify. One thing water parks are not supposed to be is the scene of an alleged sexual assault of a child. But that is what authorities are dealing with in Colorado as an 18 year old man has been arrested, accused of luring a minor into a bathroom and violating that child in unspeakable ways. We're going to break down the evidence, including the alleged victim's own

statements, right now. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime, I'm Jesse Weber. Water parks are supposed to be a place of fun, right? Excitement, cooling off in the summer, all good and well. Unfortunately, as we've seen time and time again here on Sidebar, the places or people that are supposed to be one thing or representing one thing turn out to be something else entirely. That is exactly what I'm talking about when it comes to Pirates Cove Water Park just outside of Denver. Because according to the Englewood Police Department Department a man is accused of luring a child into a

Family changing room at the park where he allegedly sexually assaulted that child According to police officers were dispatched to the water park at 5 p.m On July 7th where they arrested the suspect and according to a probable cause statement from police and subsequent media release The suspect has been identified as 18-year-old Trenton Moscavita. He was booked on charges of second-degree kidnapping of a minor to sexual assault and sexual assault on a child. And we're going to talk about the details of all this. We're going to talk about the evidence and the charges, but I want to bring in first

Colorado criminal defense lawyer, Jeffrey Wolf. Jeffrey, thanks so much for coming here on Sidebar. Appreciate it. Absolutely, Jesse. My pleasure to be here. So very, very upsetting allegations here. First, I want you to explain the charges a little bit because he was booked on a charge of second degree kidnapping and assuming this is the same charge that he is still facing,

it is defined as a person who knowingly seizes and carries a person from one place to another without the person's consent, without lawful justification, and such movement increases the risk of harm to the person. Any person who takes, entices, or decoys away any child not his own under the age of 18 years with intent to keep or conceal the child from his parent or guardian or with intent to sell, trade, or barter such child. And then it says second degree kidnapping is a class two felony if any of the following circumstances exist. The person kidnapped is a victim of a sexual offense.

What should we be thinking about this charge? Is it relatively straightforward? Well, it's a mouthful, right? It is, yeah. You'd have a ton of legalese when you talk about this charge. But it is a fairly straightforward charge in a case like this, because what we know from reading the probable cause affidavit, if it's to be believed, is that, and obviously these are allegations, is that this child is allegedly taken from one area by this individual into this family restroom.

The door is closed, the door is locked, so concealed and taken from one area by this individual into this family restroom. The door is closed, the door is locked, so concealed and taken from one area to another. Kidnapping in Colorado is fairly straightforward. You don't have to take somebody into another area, into another city, you don't have to travel miles. You can take them as far as a few feet away. I've seen kidnapping charges where somebody takes somebody off a curb and puts them into a car and closes the door.

And so yeah, it can be a fairly straightforward charge. And then the severity of it just ratchets up if the crime that occurs after that taking is serious like a sex assault. Do you happen to know what the punishment could be if you're looking at a conviction on this? Yeah, the punishment because they've charged it as a crime of violence with the sentence enhancer that comes with it because I looked up the charges before coming on today is exceedingly serious. We're talking about a mandatory prison charge on a class two felony. We're talking decades in prison here. Okay. So we're talking about somebody looking at what would normally be on a class two felony. You're looking at eight to 24 years, but when you look at a mandatory prison crime of violence, you're talking 20 to 64 years. Wow.

Now, by the way, according to the Inglewood Herald, his charges have been upgraded. So aside from kidnapping, he apparently is facing five other charges. Enticement of a child, bodily injury, sexual assault on a child, aggravated, sexual contact, coercing a child, violent crime, sex offense, and aggravated sex offense. If we're correct about this reporting, are they all different? Are they all the same? Because it is about one encounter. It is about one incident. Would it make sense to charge him with all of these different violations?

Well, what they're doing is they're giving essentially, at this case where to go to trial, they're giving a jury options like we see so many times in trials where they're saying, these are all the things that we're alleging that this person did and you can choose to convict him on all of these or some of these or one of these. And obviously the jury always has the option of none of them as well. But what they're doing is looking at all the conduct and looking at all the statutes that fit it. And if he were to be convicted of more than one of them,

they would merge for purposes of sentencing. But the punishment for these is severe and the punishment is fairly similar for most of them. Most of them are class three felony crime of violence sex offenses, which is mandatory prison under the Colorado Indeterminate Sentencing Act, which is 10 to life prison. And indeterminate sentencing means the lowest number you can get is 10 years up to your natural life.

So it's really 10 to 32 to life. And so a judge picks a number between 10 to 32. And then the parole board decides after that initial 10 to 32 year term that the judge gave you, whether you get out on a regular basis at parole hearings for the rest of your life. Hey, real quick, I want to thank Odoo for sponsoring this episode of Sidebar because Odoo is a powerful all-in-one business software that helps you manage everything from sales to accounting and yes, manufacturing.

Schedule your production, manage your assembly line, fine tune your work orders with Odoo, all in one easy to use platform. Do you need fully assembled manufacturing software that will put your business ahead of schedule? Odoo has you covered. Plus, Odoo's manufacturing app syncs seamlessly with your sales inventory and purchasing modules,

so everything stays connected and running smoothly. Check out Odoo to take your manufacturing process to the next level and get a free 15-day trial today at odoo.com slash sidebar manufacturing. Needless to say, the consequences couldn't be more serious. Okay, I think that's quite clear with what we're talking about. So now let's lay out what it states allegedly happened in this probable cause document from police.

And to be clear, the gender and the name and the age of the alleged victim are not identified in this statement. Can understand that given the sensitivities of these allegations. But this is what it says, quote, while en route, dispatch advised the suspect was a white male that was now wearing a blue and white tie dye shirt. On arrival, an employee walked Officer Mulder to the men's locker room where he pointed out the male wearing a blue and white tie-dye shirt and blue jeans. When Officer Mulder went to detain him, he pulled his right arm away saying he had triplet

siblings there with him. Officer Mulder was able to detain the male in handcuffs and told him why he was detained. Officer Mulder asked for his name, to which he said no three times and that, quote, he didn't have to do bleep when Officer Mulder told him he had to give her his name. He then identified himself as Trenton Joseph Moscavita, later confirmed via Wyoming DMV dossier. Before we go any further into what else was alleged, what else was apparently said, what are you taking away from this?

Is it problematic for the defense that you're seeing an alleged level of resistance? Absolutely not. You have a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and you should. And so I am always pleased when I see a client keep their mouth shut and that's exactly what you should do. It can't be used against you in court. Quite frankly, it shouldn't even be mentioned if you get to trial. It may upset the DA in plea negotiations, but quite frankly, the DA is going to be upset

in plea negotiations on a case like this regardless. So absolutely, keep your mouth shut. You did the right thing. Okay. Well, let's continue. Well, he shouldn't physically resist the officer, right? No, no, no, no. No, that's its own crime.

Okay. So now let's talk about what's going on here. It says, quote, on field interview, Trenton said he went into this bathroom pointing to the family bathroom adjacent to the men's locker room. He then said he couldn't go to jail. Officer Mulder told him what was alleged and asked for a reasonable explanation for what they were told, and he stated the following. Now, a fair warning here. The identities of the victim are blacked out, they're redacted, so it's kind of hard to

follow. We're going to try to make sense of it all. For example, it says there was a redacted who said redacted, wanted redacted parents. He said, okay, and then redacted, said redacted, had to use the bathroom first. So it seems, it seems what's being alleged is that Moscavita took this minor into the bathroom because the child needed help, but at one point seemingly admitted, quote, he could see how he shouldn't have gone in there regardless. Now it also seems he claims that he went to the bathroom because he had to go, but made

sure that the minor left first, watched the minor walk out the door, then locked the deadbolt, used the bathroom and came out. Before we go any further, Jeffrey, it seems what's being said initially is this was all some sort of misunderstanding, right? It seems to be the explanation where he's now giving these statements. I didn't hear anywhere that he was advised in Miranda after being handcuffed. That may end up being a problem for the prosecution on this statement. But now he's giving a statement and he's giving an explanation that quite frankly is not so

great who in their right mind would take somebody else's child into the bathroom to help them go to the bathroom. You find their parent and you say your child needs help going to the bathroom. Okay. So let's continue on with the statement, which explains how Officer Mulder spoke with the water park employee who called police, this was after the victim's mother came up to him, and saw the victim, was quote, visibly upset, was crying so hard the victim couldn't talk, this was the observation.

So the victim's mother said how her child came and told her that this man pulled the child into the bathroom, pulled his pants down, covered the child's mouth so the child couldn't scream, and then the report says, quote, this is when he called police and how the employee said the child, quote, pointed out the man to him and he was visibly frantic and started immediately packing his things up and ushered his siblings to the locker room to get changed when Officer Mulder arrived. Now, the report continues that officers looked at the surveillance footage and it apparently

shows Moscavita motioning for the victim to come over to him, even though the child looked quote reluctant, allegedly grabbed the child by the hand and they go into the bathroom. And they remained in there according to the footage for nine minutes until the child quote ran out of the bathroom. Jeffrey, lot there. You have the take from the mother, you have the take from the employee, you have the surveillance, you have what the child allegedly said. What do you want to start with first?

Well, I would say the biggest thing to start with is the fact that what's being said by the suspect is not matching what the evidence in front start with is the fact that what's being said by the suspect is not matching what the evidence in front of them is showing. It's not matching what the young victim is saying. It's not matching what the security footage is showing the officers. And it is not matching what the description that the alleged victim is giving to his mother and to the park employee directly after the fact either. So now for officers, they're starting to develop what we would call probable cause for arrest at this point. And if the surveillance footage,

so they can't deny that he can't deny he wasn't in the bathroom. And if they see the child literally running out of the bathroom, sure, there's not a camera in there. It is going to be maybe see the child literally running out of the bathroom, sure, there's not a camera in there. It is going to be maybe what the child says and what the defendant says. But the surveillance footage is key, and nine minutes is key as well. Yeah, nine minutes is key.

It's not the longest period of time, but it's certainly a longer amount of time than something as innocent as a child had to use the restroom to, you know, go quote unquote number one, and then you let them out. And the child running out is also not a great fact. But I think the biggest problem here is when you're giving a story to the police that the child approached you and asked to be taken to the bathroom, but the footage is showing you beckoning the child to you and then you grabbing the child's hand

and taking the child to the bathroom. That I think is the bigger issue. And allegedly consciousness of guilt, if you are, you know, hurriedly trying to gather your things and leave. Now I wonder if a defense, and we're gonna, there's more, there's a lot more to get into.

I wonder if a defense could be, while he knew he was gonna be falsely accused, something happened, he's like, let me just get out of here. It doesn't mean he did anything. Having said that, it doesn't look great, and the prosecution can use that to show consciousness of guilt, right? Yeah, absolutely. They can do that. You can show who would have done that if they didn't have anything to hide. That's something prosecutors love to do and something that they do very successfully in many cases. Okay.

Now, apparently a forensic interview was conducted with this child. And real quick, Jeffrey, forensic interviews are very, very sensitive interviews. They're different kind of police interviews. They're different investigative interviews. What are those interviews? So police would say that they're not police interviews. That's what they would say. They would say that they are completely impartial interviews

done by social workers that are, they are meant to be open-ended to just let the kid tell their story. They are done here in Colorado. They are done at a few very specific locations in our state. And what happens is the kid goes in usually with their parent. They're not supposed to be prepared for the interview, meaning the parent

isn't supposed to discuss it with them. They're brought in, they're put into a room with a social worker. The social worker builds rapport with the child to basically be, you know, friendly with the child. And then from there, they establish the difference between a truth and a lie with the child. Sometimes that goes well, sometimes it doesn't. Either way, the interview goes forward.

And from there, the forensic interview tries to find out if the child knows why they're there, if they've been prepared for the interview or not. Again, either way, the interview goes forward. And then from there, the social worker who is being watched on a closed circuit TV by the detective, then will go forward with getting the story out of the child as much as possible from that child depending on age and sophistication of the child and

hopefully getting the child to use age appropriate terminology for everything that occurred. And then at that point the social worker will always take a break and then go back, meet with the detective, see if there's anything that was left out that the detective needs and go back in and ask follow up questions from there. Because even though again they are saying this is not a police interview, it 100% is from the defense perspective because the detective is there and making sure that everything is proper and in the story that they need in the story. Now, apparently that forensic interview was conducted. And according to the report, the child claimed that after bringing the child to the bathroom,

Moscavita asked if this child could do him a favor, and then covered the child's mouth so the child couldn't scream. Moscavita allegedly proceeds to pull down his pants, pull down the child's pants. I'm not going to go into more detail, but he is accused of sexually assaulting this child and even allegedly explaining what private parts are by pointing to this diagram that maybe was in the bathroom, even reportedly mentioning how he wanted to urinate in the child's mouth. That didn't happen, thankfully.

But the child explained how they covered their eyes, were scared, tried to get away, but Moscavita wouldn't let the child go. And Moscavita then allegedly told this child to, quote, keep it a secret and to lie. Okay, Jeffrey, now we go into this forensic interview. We're hearing these allegations. This child is, in a legal context, a witness, a key witness. How, you know, on one hand you say, could a child be making all this up? How does a defense attorney try to poke holes in a story like this or attack credibility

when the allegations are so heinous and they're coming from a minor? Well, it's hard to know, right? We don't know the age of this child at this point, right? Because we're looking at it from a public-facing view. So we don't know the age of this child. We don't know anything about the upbringing of this child. We don't know anything about, you know, what could be any skeletons

in the closet there. Those are things that the defense attorney on this case is going to know. We, and then we have a extremely good public defender system here in Colorado, which is who is on this case at this point. And so they are going to do their diligence there to figure that stuff out. It is very hard to imagine in a stranger interaction case where the motivation could come from to make an allegation like this up, but it is not impossible. We don't know if there were interactions in the park between these families prior to this alleged incident. We do not know that at this point. We have a small snapshot of this case at this point, at this point. We have a small snapshot of this case at this point. But taking everything at face value right now, it's going to be very hard to imagine poking holes in this particular story.

Also, you know, you want to talk to your client and get their perspective on what happened in that room, which could provide some insight on how to do that. By the way, if this is, if these allegations are true, it is truly amazing that the child actually told their mother right away. Because how many cases have you seen, Jeffrey, where minor victims keep it a secret for years? They don't say what happened. And either they're told to keep it a secret or told not to keep it a secret. The fact that if these allegations are true, the child immediately comes forward is,

it could sometimes be an outlier. Yeah, immediate disclosure is not super common. I think that flies in the face of what people think about these types of cases, but delayed disclosure is more common. I think it might, the percentages of it are a little bit, I think, fuzzy for people to know because we don't know all the cases that exist out there

that don't end up in a courtroom. But immediate disclosure is rare, especially, again, we don't know the age of this kid to know how savvy or how aware of the situation the kid may have been. If the kid was super young, it may have been something where it was as simple as, just not being able to contain tears. And then we have a good parent who was able to penetrate, why are you crying? Or it could have been an older kid who is old enough to have gone

through training at their school because we have, again, a very good public school system here in Colorado as well, that trains kids on what is not okay, and what you have to tell your parents. And so that may have occurred in this kid's schooling system as well, if the kid was old trains kids on what is not okay and what you have to tell your parents. And so that may have occurred in this kid's schooling system as well if the kid was old enough to have gone through that. So we don't know enough about the age of the kid is very important here to know why that occurred. Now you mentioned Miranda rights, okay?

So I want to move on to the next part of this probable cause statement where the officer explains how they brought Moscavita out of a holding cell to conduct an interview read him as Miranda writes and could tell this was interesting could tell his teeth were chattering he was breathing heavily allegedly saying he was scared didn't know why he was in trouble for just escorting the child to the bathroom and apparently he requested a lawyer and didn't want to speak. Jeffrey right decision? to the bathroom, and apparently he requested a lawyer and didn't want to speak. Jeffrey, right decision?

Absolutely, yeah. I mean, I'm a defense attorney, so the only answer to an officer trying to question you in a criminal case is I want a lawyer on choosing not to speak. That is the only correct answer. No matter what, 100% of the time, you will never hear another answer out of me. As far as the teeth chattering and everything else that are written down as observations

in there to prejudice why he may have done that, if you've ever spent any time in a jail anywhere in our country and seen how people are dressed and what the temperature is in there, there's many, many, many reasons that that may have been occurring. And even if he was nervous, even if he was nervous, right, you could chalk it off to, yeah, he's guilty, he got caught, or he's falsely accused and he's scared. I don't think that's going to make or break the case about why his teeth were chattering. But now here's the thing, he's being held in jail on a $200,000 bond. First of all, do you think that's the appropriate amount for the allegations in this case?

I have a tough time with my bonds because I think it impedes somebody's ability to assist First of all, do you think that's the appropriate amount for the allegations in this case? I have a tough time with my bonds, because I think it impedes somebody's ability to assist in their own defense when they're sitting in a jail cell. It impedes their ability to meet with their lawyer on a consistent basis in an environment that allows them to speak freely with their attorney instead

of sitting in a jail cell. For somebody who's charged with something like this, it also puts them in danger because if the other inmates find out what they're charged with, they are realistically in physical danger for what's gonna happen to them. This is also an 18-year-old kid.

I know he's an adult, he's charged as an adult, and he's charged with something extremely serious. I get that. But this is an 18-year-old kid, and I firmly believe that if he did this, evil is not born, it is bred. Something probably happened is an 18-year-old kid, and I firmly believe that if he did this, evil is not born at his bread. Something probably happened for an 18-year-old to do something like this. Something probably happened to this kid.

And a $200,000 bond probably ensures he's going to remain in custody for the duration of this case. Just based on my brief perusal of social media and finding his Facebook page, I'm guessing he's not going to post a $200,000 bond. So I think it's excessive because the purpose of bond is not to keep somebody in custody. The purpose of bond is to ensure that they appear at court dates

and to ensure public safety and to ensure the safety of the victim. This kid is from Wyoming. He's not going to necessarily have contact with this child victim in Colorado. And so, you know, as long as we can ensure that he's gonna appear in court through GPS monitors necessarily have contact victim in Colorado. And s we can ensure that he's g through GPS monitors and

that are at the disposal a reason to just lock him hearing is scheduled for case. What can we expect 11th is pretty quick on a case this serious. I anticipate that likely you will see a continuance with a waiver of Colorado's 35-day rule. You have a right to a preliminary hearing in 35 days

from when you were charged. And that is especially important when you're in custody, because you can't be held in custody without having probable cause determined, which is what a preliminary hearing is designed to do. But when you have a case this serious and the decision of whether to waive that right to a preliminary hearing,

to continue the plea negotiations in the case, or whether to go to preliminary hearing to determine probable cause, a lot of times an attorney is going to waive that 35-day rule to have more time to review evidence, to negotiate with the DA's office on a preliminary hearing offer, things like with the DA's office on a preliminary hearing offer, things like that.

So I would anticipate a waiver of that. The public defender's office a lot of times will do things differently with the anticipation of the time their client is spending in custody being a little bit more up there, you know, importance level than the private bar may do. But you know, I think a continuance would probably be appropriate given the severity. You mentioned before a possible plea deal. Do you think that's something that might happen in a case like this and what could it look like?

It's hard to know what it would look like at this early stage, but I think that when somebody is facing a potential life sentence, which is really what an indeterminate sentence looks like at this stage, working out a plea deal is always a possibility if the evidence against your client is exceptional. Because if you go to trial and you risk that life sentence, you're rolling the dice on the rest of your client's life at 18 years old. And so if there is extreme mitigation as to why this

occurred, it's something that could be presented to the DA's office to show that treatment would be in your client's best interest. And so in Colorado, when we're looking at those, we have a lot of options as to what we can do treatment wise. And there are, we can do combination deals under a case, people V. Manaus that my office actually argued in front of the Supreme Court here in Colorado, that allows for an upfront smaller prison sentence followed by treatment so that there can be what feels like justice for the victim family where they get a prison sentence upfront but then there's treatment so that it's not that super long prison sentence or lifetime prison.

We can also at 18 years old say hey you know we just need to get this kid treatment and lower the level of the sex offense down to something that's eligible for a determinant probation sentence instead of a lifetime probation sentence or a lifetime prison sentence. So there's a lot of options in front of his lawyers. Before I let you go, I got to ask, does anyone else face any kind of legal liability here? Why do I say that? So the city of Englewood Park's Recreation Library and Golf Director, Christina Underhill, said,

She went on to leave, so I'm really proud of them for being as vigilant as they were. It's unfortunate that it happened, but we will take all precautions and make sure everyone feels safe when they come into Pirates Cove. The city of Englewood said in a statement, what happened was, serious and deeply troubling. While incidents like this are incredibly rare, we know that one is too many. We've committed to ensuring Pirates Cove remains a secure and welcoming place for everyone who visits. Now, there's nothing that I see that suggested there was a lapse here, particularly the quick response, but I do have to ask this. These allegations are serious. If they are true, happening at tr water park. Does the water

who operated it? The city here? Well, Pirates Cove i that is one thing I'm awa resident. It's been around out here. And so if they' going to be suing Englewo department, there are cap entity here. And so a seriously litigious family may find a, you know, sympathetic civil to civil plaintiffs firm that may decide to take a lawsuit like that on. But because

of the caps, there may not be a civil firm willing to take the lawsuit on because there just isn't enough bang for the buck there. But at the same time, you know, it is a serious situation and there may be a civil firm looking to, you know, make a splash in the newspaper and take on the case, but it's not going to be some multimillion dollar lawsuit just because of the caps that we have out here in Colorado on suing public entities. I can tell you that, you know, when I talk to plaintiff's lawyers about things that happen and trying to find a lawyer for my client when it's a public entity, it can be a problem. And so it's one of those things where I think, like you said, I think everybody did what

they could here. This happened in a bathroom where there couldn't have been a camera, where there couldn't have been a security guard sitting around. They acted swiftly. I think that this is something for law enforcement to deal with, not a civil court, but it just depends on if the family is litigious and can get a eager civil attorney. All right. We'll wait and see. Jeffrey Wolf, thank you so much.

Appreciate you taking the time. My pleasure, Jesse. And that's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time.