A University of Alabama student who was found dead in Barcelona after going missing while vacationing evidently fell into the sea by accident in view of surveillance cameras – and an autopsy revealed injuries on his body that were consistent with having repeatedly struck a breakwater’s rocks.

Such details about James “Jimmy” Gracey surfaced in the Spanish media as a spokesperson for police in Barcelona told the Associated Press that “all signs point” to the 20-year-old’s death as having been inadvertent.

Gracey was last seen outside the Shoko nightclub at about 3am on Tuesday. The native of suburban Chicago raised alarm when he did not return to a short-term rental where he was staying with friends who accompanied him on their spring break to the Catalan region’s capital.

And, in a development that generated international news headlines, his corpse ultimately was recovered Thursday afternoon in 13ft deep waters off a beach near the Shoko club.

Spain’s El País newspaper, citing police sources, reported on Friday that local surveillance cameras captured video of Gracey walking by himself toward a dock and falling into the water “without third-party involvement”.

El Periódico, another outlet, added on Friday that a preliminary autopsy report filed in court in Barcelona “rules out foul play and supports the police hypothesis that [Gracey] accidentally fell into the sea and drowned”. Furthermore, the autopsy report documented “several injuries consistent with hitting the rocks of a breakwater”, according to Barcelona-based El Periódico, which also wrote that toxicology test results were pending.

The outlets’ reports contained details about the two-day search for Gracey. At one point, El País reported, Barcelona police found Gracey’s cellphone in the possession of a thief known to officers. But it was unclear whether Gracey lost the device or if it was stolen from him, and investigators ruled out its having anything to do with the subsequent fall into the sea, according to El País.

Meanwhile, El Periódico reported that police narrowed their search for Gracey after finding his wallet and some clothes. The outlet also reported that Gracey’s parents had traveled to Barcelona, and his body would be released to his family for repatriation and burial after the completion of the toxicology tests.

A statement from Gracey’s family members asked for prayers and privacy as they struggle “to come to terms with this unimaginable loss”.

“Our family is heartbroken,” the statement also said. “Jimmy was a deeply loved son, grandson, brother, nephew, cousin and friend.”

Barcelona draws millions of foreign tourists annually. It is considered generally safe, especially compared with major cities in the US, which has significantly higher rates of deadly gun violence than other high-income nations.

The Mediterranean beaches in Barcelona are within walking distance of its bustling city center and frequently draw young visitors. When he went missing, Gracey had gone out to a stretch of beach lined with restaurants and nightclubs that are popular with both locals and visitors.

Before police confirmed Gracey’s death, his aunt described him in an interview with the AP as “just a great kid, a good Catholic boy” from the US’s midwest.

A statement from the University of Alabama said its community was “heartbroken” upon learning of Gracey’s death.

“Jimmy’s loss is deeply felt across our campus,” the university’s statement said. “Our condolences are with the Gracey family during this devastating time.”

Associated Press contributed reporting

Case 1:25-cv-04218-PLF Document 35 Filed 03/20/26

Page 11 of 40

disrupt Pentagon operations.” SUMF at 11 (¶ 61). The Appendix also states that “actions other than convictions may be deemed to pose a security or safety risk, such as discussed in the [In- Brief].” Id. (¶ 62). In addition, Appendix A, Part B sets forth “[p]rocedures for [d]enial, [r]evocation, or [n]on-[r]enewal” of a PFAC. Id. (¶ 63). Those procedures allow for an appeal following the “immediate suspension” of a reporter’s PFAC and authorize the Department to “conduct [an] inquiry as deemed appropriate” after receiving a reporter’s “written or oral response to the proposed denial, revocation, or non-renewal.” Id. at 12 (¶¶ 64-65). Finally, the Policy includes the following “Acknowledgement”:

Id. (67).

I have received, read, and understand the “Pentagon Reservation In- brief for Media Members,” with Appendices A-E, including Appendix A, which addresses the standard and procedures for denying, revoking, or not renewing a PFAC. The in-brief describes [Department] policies and procedures. My signature represents my acknowledgement and understanding of such [Department] policies and procedures, even if I do not necessarily agree with such policies and procedures. Signing this acknowledgment does not waive any rights I may have under law.

After the Policy was issued, PFAC holders were informed that their PFACs would
be revoked if they did not sign the Acknowledgement by October 15, 2025. SUMF at 12 (¶ 68). Seven journalists with The Times, including Mr. Barnes, as well as most other journalists who held PFACs at the time, refused to sign the Acknowledgement. Id. (¶ 69). Mr. Barnes and his colleagues at The Times turned in their PFACs on or around October 15, 2025. Id. (¶ 70). Mr. Barnes has not been back to the Pentagon since that date. Id. at 13 (¶ 71).

6. The New “Pentagon Press Corps”

On October 22, 2025, in a post on his official X account, Mr. Parnell

“announce [d] the next generation of the Pentagon press corps.” SUMF at 13 (¶ 73). In that post,

11

SAN FRANCISCO — A jury has found Elon Musk liable for misleading investors by deliberately driving down Twitter’s stock price in the tumultuous months leading up to his 2022 acquisition of the social media company for $44 billion. But it absolved him of some fraud allegations, finding that he did not “scheme” to mislead investors.

The civil trial in San Francisco centered on a class-action lawsuit filed just before Musk took control of Twitter, which he later renamed X. Jurors were asked to decide if two tweets and comments Musk made on a podcast in May 2022 amounted to him intentionally defrauding Twitter shareholders, who sold their shares based on Musk’s statements.

The nine-person jury returned the verdict after nearly four days of deliberation, nearly three weeks after the trial began on March 2. They said that while Musk was liable for misleading investors with two tweets — including one said the Twitter deal was “temporarily on hold,” he did not do so with a statement he made on a podcast and that he did not intentionally “scheme” to defraud investors.

The jury awarded shareholders between about $3 and $8 per stock per day as damages, which the plaintiffs’ lawyers said amounts to about $2.1 billion. Musk’s fortune is currently estimated at about $814 billion, much of it tied up in Tesla shares.

“It’s an important victory, not just for investors of Twitter, but for the public markets,” said Joseph Cotchett, an attorney for the plaintiffs. “I think the jury’s verdict sends a strong message that just because you’re a rich and powerful person, you still have to obey the law, and no man is above the law.”

Musk’s lawyers said they had no comment as they walked out of the courtroom.

Much of the trial focused on Musk’s claims about the number of bots on Twitter. Musk testified that Twitter had a much higher number of fake and spam accounts than the 5% it disclosed in regulatory filings. He used what he called Twitter’s misrepresentation of the number of fake accounts on its service as a reason to retreat from the purchase.

After Musk tried to back out, Twitter went to court in Delaware to force him to honor his original deal. Just before that case was scheduled to go to trial, Musk reversed course again and agreed to pay what he had originally promised.

Members of Elon Musk’s legal team, including attorney Michael Lifrak (left), exit the Phillip Burton Federal Building in San Francisco on March 4.

Dan Hernandez/San Francisco Chronicle/AP

hide caption

toggle caption

Dan Hernandez/San Francisco Chronicle/AP

Advertisement

The central question of the case was whether Musk sent out tweets — including one on May 13, 2022, that said the Twitter deal was “temporarily on hold” while he sought information on the number of fake accounts on the service — as a deliberate scheme to tank Twitter’s shares. The jury found that while Musk did mislead investors with two tweets, he did not do so with a statement he made on a podcast because it was an opinion. The jurors also absolved him of scheming to drive down the stock.

The nearly three-week trial in San Francisco federal court for the Northern District of California saw testimony from former Twitter executives including CEO Parag Agrawal and CFO Ned Segal, as well as Musk, who was on the stand for more than a day.

In his testimony, Musk maintained that Twitter’s leadership lied about the amount of bots on the platform and withheld information from him about how the number of fake accounts was calculated. He repeatedly described the information that Twitter’s board provided with an abbreviation for a bull’s scatology. “I did make it clear that I thought it was BS,” Musk said of Twitter’s calculations asserting that only about 5% of its accounts were bots.

Musk also asserted that his decision to follow through on the deal at the original sales price provided a huge windfall for most Twitter shareholders.

But Twitter’s shares fell below $33, or about 40% below Musk’s original purchase price, while the deal was hanging in limbo. That downturn cost shareholders who sold their stock during the uncertainty caused by what the lawsuit alleges was Musk’s deceitful behavior.

“I can’t control whether people sell their stock, but everyone who held the stock fared extremely well,” Musk said.

The plaintiffs argued that, as Tesla’s stock price declined and buying Twitter became too expensive for Musk, he tweeted statements that drove down the stock price in the hopes he could renegotiate the deal for a lower price or get out of it altogether.

Musk’s tweets, the plaintiffs’ lawyer argued, were not some “innocent mistake” or a “stupid tweet” off the top of his head, but carefully calculated to drive down’s Twitter’s stock price.

In closing arguments, Mark Molumphy, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, asked jurors to hold Musk accountable and compensate thousands of investors who lost money because of tweets Musk sent, including one from May 13, 2022, that said the deal was “on hold.”

“He knew what he was doing,” Molumphy said.

Musk’s lawyers motioned for a mistrial several times during the contentious trial, contending that the billionaire Tesla CEO can’t get a fair trial in San Francisco because of animosity toward him from the public.

This isn’t the first time that Musk has been dragged into court to defend himself against allegations of duping investors with his social media posts. Three years ago, Musk spent about eight hours testifying in a San Francisco federal trial about his plans to buy Tesla — the electric automaker that he still runs as a publicly traded company — for $420 per share in a proposed 2018 deal that never materialized. A nine-member jury absolved Musk of wrongdoing in that case.