In court today for day one of the first (of several!) damages trials in which a jury will determine how much money Alex Jones owes the Sandy Hook families for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress (which the court previously found he did commit)
The first trial will take nine days. Jones himself is here today, which is kind of a surprise—yesterday, during jury selection, his lawyer cited a medical issue that kept him out of court. Also here are the plaintiffs, whose six-year-old, Jesse Lewis, was killed at Sandy Hook.
I don’t know what medical issue Jones was facing but my new year’s resolution was not to catch Covid from Alex Jones so if it was that, I am glad to know that he is feeling better
also if you would like to see all of this firsthand, plaintiffs attorney Mark Bankston is making his opening remarks on the court’s livestream
Bankston explaining to the jury what DNA Force is, which is one of the many supplements on sale at the infowars shop
Setting the scene now playing a reel of Jones’s greatest hits on Sandy Hook. Most of this wouldn’t be admissible if they were deciding whether defamation occurred, since it falls outside the statute of limitations, but the rules appear to be looser in determining damages
Bankston introduces the jury to clips of Wolfgang Halbig, a character so wild he makes Jones look like he belongs on C-SPAN, who is likely to be mentioned many many many times over the next two weeks
Halbig has a whole lot of bananas theories, my favorite(?) is probably the one that the Sandy Hook kids sang at the Super Bowl after the shooting.
Bankston opines that he feels silly having to explain to the jury that all of Jones’s claims that Sandy Hook didn’t happen are, in fact, false. Every reporter who has ever written about this has been there, buddy
hard to remember how vile some of what infowars put on the air around Sandy Hook! now showing a clip of Dan Bodondi, former pro wrestler and infowars correspondent, screaming at people in Sandy Hook and calling them scumbags for ??? reasons
Bankston’s opening remarks are basically an attempt to explain Jones’s business model, how it incentivized him to spend years lying about Sandy Hook, and a documentation of those lies, now leading to Jones’s specific lie that one of the plaintiffs never held his dead son
it’s kind of a tall order! The infowars network of nonsense is as convoluted and includes as many extraneous side characters as the MCU, and the jury was selected, in part, specifically because they *aren’t* familiar with any of them
just difficult to build a narrative when you have to interrupt yourself to explain who infowars host Owen Shroyer is and why he’s on camera in this clip, like having to tell your mom who each of the Eternals are and why Harry Styles showed up at the end of for some reason
Bankston bringing it home now—many jurors during selection were concerned about the free speech implications of the case, and he is arguing that the reason false speech is not protected by the first amendment is *because* it devalues the free speech rights everyone else has
one argument Jones’s lawyer will rely on is the jury shouldn’t punish his client because they feel bad the parents lost their child, since Jones didn’t do that. Bankston, anticipating that, says the parents haven’t been able to properly grieve because of Jones’s campaign of lies
that’s a tough needle to thread for the jurors, and I’d expect that trying to make threading that needle as hard as possible to be central to Jones’s defense here
Bankston’s pitch to the jury: they have the power to make punishing Jones for his lies a part of the legacy of the six-year-old boy who was murdered.
Plaintiff’s attorney in the Alex Jones damages trial asks the jury for $150,000,000.
That’s $75,000,000 for each American who believes that Sandy Hook was a hoax, according to polling, as punitive damages, and then the same amount as compensation to the parents
On recess now, Jones’s attorney will deliver opening remarks when we come back. During the break Alex went into the hall to rant about how everything happening here is bullshit. Most of what he’s saying here is demonstrably not true
jurors did not say what Jones says they did—he wasn’t even here for jury selection yesterday. his team did not comply with discovery, was fined and warned for that multiple times in the years leading up to this trial. etc, etc.
also weird choice to go off in the hallway and rant about how the court are all nazis since jurors are likely to overhear some of it, but there are cameras around and he would like to be on them. doubt it’s more strategic than that!
we are still on break so here is a writeup of yesterday’s jury selection, with more detail on the stakes and circumstances of how we got here texasmonthly.com/news-politics/…
sorry I meant $1 per American for a total of $75,000,000
during jury selection, Andino Reynal, Jones’s attorney, declared that he is going to ask the jury to award the parents of the child killed at Sandy Hook one dollar in damages
Reynal calls the plaintiff’s opening argument “a conspiracy of lies,” writes “don’t lie to the jury” on a whiteboard
Reynal says he is “honored” to represent Jones, not because he agrees with everything he says, but because he believes in his right to say it. Says that Jones has been “canceled”
being Jones’s attorney is a lot like being the drummer in Spinal Tap. Reynal is at least lawyer #11 here. most of them came out of a clown car, but Reynal (who signed on earlier this year) is a pretty smooth Houston criminal defense attorney, definitely a step up from the rest
Reynal writes “MSM” on the whiteboard, says that Sandy Hook is like every mass shooting, where the media rushes to push gun legislation after a shooting. stresses that here in Austin, Alex Jones was heartbroken for the parents but had a different opinion on that
the tell here is “here in Austin,” appealing to the Texas jury that they don’t agree with the way national media on guns. would not expect the lawyers in the Connecticut cases to attempt a similar strategy
Reynal lists Jim Fetzer, James Tracey, and Wolfgang Halbig as the really out-there Sandy Hook truthers. Says Jones put Halbig on the show because he wasn’t honest about his credentials, which we only know in hindsight, because the news cycle meant he didn’t have time to check
the only reason I can think of that a defense attorney in a case about Sandy Hook would want to talk about Wolfgang Halbig to a jury is if he thinks he can make his client look better by comparison, which might be true if only be default
Reynal now giving his opening in front of a whiteboard that reads “2016 | HILLARY”
as difficult as it is for the plaintiffs’ side to explain who all of the infowars characters are, the defense’s role of having to explain that zero hedge is different from infowars but that an infowars host who is not Alex Jones read one of their articles on the air is harder
big part of Jones’s defense seems to be arguing that the show is small potatoes and not at all influential. during depositions, plaintiffs lawyer asked Jones about the size of his audience—he claimed it was as much as 10 percent of the English-speaking world
(notable that Reynal was not part of the defense at that time)
Reynal says that Jones has been punished enough, every time someone runs up to him on the street and says “you killed the kids at Sandy Hook” and throws a cup of coffee at him
Three references in the last five minutes to the plaintiffs’ attorneys as “personal injury lawyers”
And we are at lunch. Witnesses start at 1:30pm texas time
Jury is coming back in. During break, lawyers argued over things said during opening remarks. Judge will read a statement instructing jury to disregard defense claims that Jones apologized to the families
Additionally, after defense claimed that infowars “lost everything” after being deplatformed, rules preventing plaintiffs from talking about Jones’s net worth during this part of the trial have been loosened (but not lifted entirely)
Two witnesses testifying this afternoon. First is a retired Connecticut state police detective, former lead investigator in Sandy Hook. Second will be Infowars’s Daria Karpova, whose testimony is likely to be… interesting
here’s Daria under deposition last December, to give you an idea of what to expect
also Alex Jones is no longer in the courtroom. (he’s probably on the air?) did not return after lunch, which was the same place I went, but I don’t have a five-person security detail
CT police detective Dan Jewiss says that they had different “boxes” they put Sandy Hook truthers in—says Jones (and Bidondi, his pro wrestler correspondent) was in the box of people who knew Sandy Hook happened, but acted as though they didn’t, and they were the most dangerous
Jewiss now being asked if the clear lies Jones put on the air (that the school was closed for years, that the death certificates were sealed, etc) are true or not. weird shit to have to go to the trouble of saying under oath but here we are
now explaining that parents not being allowed to enter the fresh crime scene to see their childrens’ bodies in the school is not the same as the families never being allowed to collect the remains of their kids, which Jones had claimed as proof that Heslin never held his dead son
Jones’s defense lawyer cross-examining the state police detective who investigated Sandy Hook. Focusing right now on how the evidence on the scene was handled, which seems like a risky play
what Reynal is trying to do is show that the evidence in Sandy Hook was handled in such an unusual way that Jones was reasonable in asking questions about whether the massacre happened. sounds a lot like asking that question yourself, though, which might not play well to the jury
actually, this is an interesting line of questioning- he’s asking if it’s reasonable to question the official law enforcement story in a mass casualty event, which is worth suggesting in front of a Texas jury so soon after Uvalde
Reynal specifically mentions Uvalde, which gets an objection from the plaintiffs’ attorney. Judge sustains the objection, but the connection is already drawn.
After a short break we are back. This judge likes to give jurors a chance to ask written questions of witnesses, which is an interesting chance to get insight as to what they’re thinking as the trial is ongoing
most of these questions are fairly thoughtful and curious (“what, if anything, brings a grieving family the most solace?” “do you know how the other families are dealing with their loss?”), which is a good sign if you want thoughtful and curious people to be serving on a jury
Detective Jewiss released; he hugs the plaintiffs on his way out of the courtroom. Now Daria Karpova testifying.
Bankston immediately asking Daria about her prior deposition, where she served as the corporate representative for Free Speech Systems, LLC (which is Jones’s company, and what you probably think of when you hear someone refer to Infowars as a business)
Daria says she does not know how many radio stations infowars is on, or if the company collects web analytics to analyze the performance of its web traffic
Having previously served as the corporate representative, she is supposed to have all of this information, that is what the job of corporate representative in a deposition entails
During his opening, Jones’s attorney claimed that infowars had “lost its access to the internet.” Bankston is going after that here—infowars still has its own websites, still has social media accounts on truth social and other right-wing social media platforms
Daria does not want to answer “yes” to any question she is asked. “During your time at infowars, you have worked on multiple shows, correct?” (Uncomfortable five second pause) “yes”
Bankston asking Daria if she agrees with his definition of “false flag,” which means that a casualty event was staged or faked. she says she does not
Bankston plays a clip where Jones calls the shooter a “patsy,” asks Daria to define it. “It’s a person being used.” Asks her who Adam Lanza was being used by; she says she does not know
another clip, where Jones holds up a magazine with a picture of Obama on the cover; Bankston asks about the magazine. Daria says she does not know who is on the cover or what he is asking her about.
will admit to being curious about what exactly her trial prep before this testimony looked like
Normal question in court happening now
Bankston: “why don’t you tell us who the Illuminati is.”
Bankston: “why don’t you tell us who the Illuminati is.”
Now we are onto “predictive programming,” which is the theory that the Illuminati inserts secret messages into media to reveal their plans before they happen; in this case, that there was a nod to Sandy Hook in the Dark Knight Rises, which came out before the shooting
Daria says that Infowars’ reporters found, five days after the Sandy Hook shooting, that the Illuminati did indeed insert that message into the film
the Infowars/Sandy Hook damages trial is spending a LOT of time talking about The Dark Knight Rises in court today
minutes, not hours, but significantly more time than the average court case spends talking about Batman
back in court for the Alex Jones/Sandy Hook damages trial. Smaller crowd today than opening day. Witnesses today include the second half of Daria Karpova’s testimony, as well as Infowars host Owen Shroyer and perhaps Infowars editor Rob Dew, but who knows for sure
Dew is interesting because he avoided being served by a subpoena for months, missed a scheduled meeting with a process server, and then informed the plaintiffs’ side that he was going to be out of town for an extended period that coincided with the trial
However, during Infowars failed bid at bankruptcy, Dew signed a document on behalf of the company, which means that he can also be served through the company and its counsel, so he’s supposed to be here
breaking: Infowars’s attorney pops over to the plaintiffs’ counsel to ask if they’ve seen Daria yet, which is not a good sign!
update: Reynal says she’s coming, which is good of her. Unclear if Batman is involved in her delay, but he was a surprisingly big part of her testimony yesterday
Judge is giving us historical facts about the courthouse while we wait for Daria. Smooth start to the day!
Judge Gamble now produces her desk calendar, considers reading the daily Far Side cartoon on it aloud, but decides against it
(The time we all spend waiting for Daria to get here does count against the amount of total time Infowars’s attorney gets to present his case)
To be clear, all references to “Daria” in this thread are about Infowars producer Daria Karpova and not about the 90’s animated Beavis and Butthead character, but given the prominence of Batman in her testimony, I understand why you might be confused
If the cartoon Daria does become relevant to this case, which I suppose is not outside the realm of possibility, I will be clear in that distinction!
update: Daria is now in the courtroom but Judge Gamble got tired of waiting and let the jurors go back to their room and she went to her office to work on another case. Really highlights the challenge that comes with being Infowars’s lawyer!
Okay we are back, Infowars producer Daria Karpova is on the stand.
Bankston opens with a recap of yesterday’s testimony. Batman’s name once more invoked.
One reference to Gotham and to the Dark Knight. This is because of articles Infowars published after the shooting that claimed that part of Gotham was named “Sandy Hook” in The Dark Knight Rises as part of an Illuminati plot to torment us all with their advance knowledge
Karpova now testifying about a source Infowars put on the show because he said he was a former CIA agent who knew all about false flags. did not verify any credentials.
Bankston lays out the thrust of his case re: Karpova, which is that Jones spent a lot of time after Sandy Hook claiming that the thing was a false flag and crisis actors were used in the attack. Jones’s defense is that he was but a humble investigator attempting to find the truth
Bankston: “If a person claims in this court that Jones did not say that crisis actors were used in Sandy Hook, that person would be lying, correct?”
Karpova says that they might not be lying because he didn’t know if they were or not, and his headlines were intended as clickbait
Karpova says that they might not be lying because he didn’t know if they were or not, and his headlines were intended as clickbait
Now on to the extreme Sandy Hook truther Wolfgang Halbig, which is a part of Karpova’s testimony during the deposition that went severely off the rails
During depo, Karpova said that Jones chose to believe Halbig was an expert after his claim that the Sandy Hook children sang at the Super Bowl after the shooting because he was so big-hearted that he preferred to believe that the children were still alive
I apologize if all of this is confusing or makes no sense or is hard to follow, but also that is part of the point of the ecosystem and it does not translate well to court
We are deep in the Wolfgang Halbig weeds now, so here is some background on him. He went from denying Sandy Hook happened to sending the parents threats, and photos of what he claimed were their children grown up, years after they were murdered independent.co.uk/news/world/ame…
During the opening, Infowars’s lawyer sought to distance the real fringe characters like Halbig from Alex Jones, who he’d prefer the jury to think was just asking questions. Bankston is using Karpova’s testimony to try to tie Halbig to Infowars as an unofficial correspondent
Tweeting less now because it’s all the same deal: Bankston is getting Karpova to confirm that, yes, Infowars put a bunch of fringe Sandy Hook truthers on the show, promoted their theories, did no diligence to check if anything they said was true, and felt no obligation to do so
occasionally they would get a letter from staffers, contributors, fans, etc, saying that the guests Infowars was putting on were detached from all reality and put them at legal risk and spreading disinformation, which did not change anyone’s behavior
Bankston reads a letter from Rob Dew in response to a contributor who was friendly with the parent of a Sandy Hook victim, where he disputes the idea that it’s irresponsible for Infowars to claim Sandy Hook was a hoax because he wouldn’t put anything past the government
Karpova agrees that Bankston read the words in the letter, but insists that his tone is all wrong; she volunteers to read it aloud for the jury “in Rob Dew’s voice.” Bankston says that he does not need her to do a Rob Dew impression
Judge Gamble is not impressed when Karpova says that she doesn’t know the answer to a question she was ordered to prepare for during her December 2021 deposition, lays into her in front of the jury; Infowars’s lawyer objects, Gamble overrules. Not going great here!
Bankston now reads one of the more vile letters Halbig sent to a Sandy Hook parent whose child was murdered. “She needed you to protect her from all the serious health risks at that school,” based on a wild theory he had the Sandy Hook was contaminated with toxic waste
Jury has occasionally been bored during the testimony, which is normal, but everybody sitting forward in their seats while Bankston reads Halbig’s letter (which was in Infowars’s possession in 2014, well before they stopped citing Halbig as an expert)
and with that we go on break
we’re back. Karpova is being asked about the letter Halbig sent to a Sandy Hook parent accusing her of failing her child. Bankston asks her if the letter is an example of harassment. She says that she doesn’t think so.
Bankston cites an Infowars claim that Mike Bloomberg gave his gun control orgs advance notice that Sandy Hook was coming so they could capitalize on it, asks Karpova if she thinks that claim is “ridiculous.” She says she can not agree with that statement.
Judge again admonishes Karpova. “Listen to the question and answer the question asked.” Says that after Bankston asks questions, Infowars lawyer will question her, but for now, she has to answer the questions she is being asked.
we will get a better sense of how Karpova’s testimony plays with the jury when they ask her written questions after the lawyers are finished, but I have to assume that her hesitance answering basic questions, admonishments from the judge, and bad answers are not good for her side
I will be very curious how Infowars’s attorney handles cross-examination with a witness who is struggling as much as Karpova has been
Bankston has shown clips of Alex Jones posting a Sandy Hook parent’s name and email address, now showed one of Jones putting maps to the parent’s mailbox. Karpova says that she “assumes” the address was public, Bankston clarified that she doesn’t know
one of Bankston’s tactics with Karpova seems to be showing a clip where Alex Jones says something like “I might have to go down to Florida to investigate this guy” and then ask, “is he saying he’s going to go down to Florida?” and then she says “I don’t know if I agree with that”
Bankston asks Karpova if she believes that the plaintiffs, sitting in the courtroom, faked having a child. She says no, then adds that she thinks they’re being used and lied to that Alex is their enemy, when he just wants them to get the truth
Karpova has been extremely reserved and soft spoken through most of her testimony, but was animated in addressing the parents who have sued her company for $150,000,000 that they were being misled
we are on to Halbig’s “choir of schoolchildren at the Super Bowl” theory as part of the testimony in front of the jury
https://twitter.com/dansolomon/status/1552300969828007936
this is not a place I would want to be if I were Karpova or her lawyer
Bankston points out the photo Halbig sent to Infowars in which he identifies a random kid as Jesse Lewis, the child of the plaintiffs who was murdered. Asks if the photo is, in her mind, the product of a sane human being. Asks her to go back to her deposition on it.
Reading from her deposition:
“Will you admit that this was not created by a rational, sane human being, or will you tell this jury that it is a sane human being?”
“I do not have an opinion on that.” Karpova adds that since the deposition, she has formed a personal opinion.
“Will you admit that this was not created by a rational, sane human being, or will you tell this jury that it is a sane human being?”
“I do not have an opinion on that.” Karpova adds that since the deposition, she has formed a personal opinion.
Bankston asks the question again. Karpova now does not want to respond even though she volunteered that she had formed a new opinion. Finally answers. “I think this photo is by someone who is deeply disturbed by what happened. So the answer is no.”
Bankston asks her about her deposition testimony that she would be hopeful if she saw the photo because it meant that the children were alive. Asks her what she thinks those kids would be going through if they were being trotted out by satanic globalists to taunt us.
Karpova stand by her position that she would be hopeful upon seeing a photo that purported that the children were alive and singing at the super bowl, says she does not agree with the rest of Bankston’s premise
Bankston attempts to introduce an email Halbig sent to Scarlett Lewis, one of the plaintiffs today. Defense objects, judge seems to take pleasure in overruling him before he finishes talking.
Bankston asks if the email, in which Halbig claims that Lewis is a monster for buying a cup of coffee, is harassment. She declines to answer, and we are off for lunch for 90 minutes.
Jury isn’t back in yet but Alex Jones is in court again after missing yesterday afternoon and this morning
Reynal rises to reiterate his running objection to a certain line of questioning, which has already been overruled, maybe just so the client sees him working
Jones isn’t expected to testify today. One reason he’s here might be that his lawyers in Connecticut are trying to have next week’s jury selection delayed on the grounds that Jones is currently a defendant in a courtroom in Texas. Hard to make that argument if he’s not in court.
Karpova, asked if Infowars enjoyed sending former pro wrestler Dan Bidondi to Sandy Hook to call people “scum bags,” which she disagreed with. We are about to watch a video of an Infowars host celebrate Bidondi’s behavior on air
The host in the video, Rob Dew, says “he seemed to be afraid of you” to Bidondi, asks Karpova if that means the company knew that Bidondi might be frightening people. In a rare move, Karpova agrees with that assertion
I am very conscious of who is coughing in the courtroom and that loud one you may have heard on the livestream was indeed Alex
Now we get a clip of Rob Dew anchoring an Infowars broadcast where he talks about the Super Bowl choir like it was a real thing, yet again
Jury has left the room while the lawyers discuss with the judge whether Daria Karpova can be questioned as a corporate representative, a role she was designated to perform during a deposition in December, but which she was not asked to prepare before the trial
Judge seems inclined to allow her to act as a corporate representative (a person who can testify on behalf of the company) on questions she was briefed for when she fulfilled that role in December, but they’re still discussing
Reynal argues that Karpova didn’t even work at infowars for some of the time periods she’s being asked about. Judge reminds him that she didn’t designate her to serve as corporate rep, his client chose to do that
this is all kind of legalistic minutia, but it’s also important, because it speaks to how infowars failed to take orders like “prepare your corporate rep to answer questions” seriously, which is the reason they lost the case before the jury ever got here
Reynal argues that infowars has already been sanctioned for not preparing its corporate reps, which is true, and that this is effectively another sanction, which is also kinda true (it illustrates how infowars failed to prep), but judge is not interested in that argument
Jury is back. Bankston asks her if she even talked to Alex Jones before serving as corporate rep in deposition. She says she did not.
Karpova agrees that on these topics, she will be speaking in the corporation’s voice, so that is settled until the next time it is not
have to admit that I am surprised by how much time Bankston is spending with Karpova. Nearly an entire court day solely on her so far. Reynal hasn’t even done cross examination yet.
we are taking a thirty minute break before we continue with Karpova’s testimony. Judge extended the break by ten minutes because “we need it”
initial plan was that we might get 2-3 additional witnesses today, but looks like we are All Daria, All Day today, making her more central to this case than I’d have guessed—but she is perhaps a unique witness, so I guess they want to get all they can from her
We are back but Alex is gone. Just a brief appearance today, apparently.
Bankston reading another email from Wolfgang Halbig sent to Infowars where he writes that he went to the house of somebody in Florida who he thinks are Sandy Hook parents who changed their names. Karpova says she doesn’t think anyone read it
now asking her about her deposition testimony, where she said she thought it was a letter from “an impassioned man who is doing an investigation of something he believes in.” She stands by it.
Karpova is doing a lot less stonewalling, giving resigned “yes” answers to questions like “they’re just repeating the same stuff they got from Wolfgang Halbig, right?” She seems exhausted at this point, and obviously miserable (who wouldn’t be).
Karpova testifies under oath that she is confident that Rob Dew had watched a video that didn’t exist, because he would not talk about it if he hadn’t seen it. Bankston refers back to Dew’s on-air reference to the video as “supposed dashcam video”
again, we won’t get a sense of what the jury thinks of all of this until they ask Karpova written questions, but this just seems like it is going about as poorly as it can go at this point
now watching a compilation of Jones shilling Super Male Vitality and other supplements. Bankston seems to finally be bringing this home—Jones does his whole act, including the Sandy Hook stuff, to sell supplements
Bankston wraps on Karpova. Now Infowars’s lawyer, Andino Reynal, does cross examination
Reynal asks when Karpova started at Infowars, which was late 2015. Asking about her history with the company and the show. Reynal has already mentioned in his objections, many times, that Karpova was not at Infowars at the time many of the videos she was asked about were made
There are 40 minutes left in the trial day. We will see how many of them Reynal uses! So far he’s asking her about her interest in music.
Reynal asking her about how often Jones talked about Sandy Hook, Karpova repeats a number that the defense has focused on a lot, which is that it’s less than one percent of the material that’s been on infowars
Reynal asks Karpova about the “turning the frogs gay” stuff, but says it’s about the “breeding habits of frogs,” which is weird to me! Point of this line of questioning is to indicate that sometimes Alex does silly things for fun on the show, is occasionally in character
This has been a thing for Jones in court since his 2016 custody trial, where his lawyers try to convince a jury he doesn’t mean what he says, except when he does, and his audience picks and chooses which parts are which (but he isn’t liable for anything, since it could be either)
(Sorry, it was 2017, time is a flat circle!) Here’s more on that if you’re curious texasmonthly.com/articles/alex-…
Another reference from Reynal to Bankston and the other plaintiffs’ lawyers as “the personal injury attorneys.” Could probably make a drinking game of that one (but only water is allowed in court, so save it for the livestream)
There’s a disagreement about whether the defense can show a video so jury is being released for the day. They’ll settle that for now and Karpova will start the day on the stand again tomorrow to continue cross, then more Q’s from Bankston, Reynal, and the jury. Long week for her.
While jury is out, judge tells Reynal not to refer to plaintiffs’ counsel as personal injury lawyers anymore. He agrees, then says they are personal injury lawyers (which they have been) and then accuses them of being dishonest, which is a potential violation of Texas rules
Judge won’t be punishing anyone for the rule violation today but things are on thin ice
Reynal and Bankston get into each other’s faces! Reynal calls him a liar again (which is allowed if it’s not in the presence of the judge). Bankston’s co-counsel suggests they stop arguing and talk on the phone when things are calmer. Quite an end to the day.
apparently the TV news cameras were rolling during the confrontation so I’d expect you’ll be able to see it later today
this might be an unprofessional opinion but honestly, I find it really affirming that the lawyers in a trial between Alex Jones and two Sandy Hook parents want to smack the shit out of each other
I’m not in court this morning because I have a doctor’s appointment in a couple hours, so following on the livestream till after the lunch break. @salihabayrak_, who is part of @TexasMonthly’s intern program, is in the room covering the morning. Will tweet what I am to follow
Judge Gamble admonishes the lawyers to fight somewhere else next time they want to get into it. Reynal asks if he may address the court; judge says nope
Jury is still not in the room but Judge Gamble finally read today’s Far Side cartoon on her desk calendar (it’s the one where dogs can talk but all they say is “hey”)
Reynal currently playing a part of an Infowars segment; notable that while the defense has argued that other media was as irresponsible as Infowars because it initially reported the shooter was Ryan Lanza, not Adam, a caller made the same misidentification while talking to Jones
Reynal still showing long chunks of Infowars; am currently being redpilled
WAIT jet fuel can’t melt steel beams????
looks like lunch break, presumably will be back at 1:30. I’ll be in court by then, and we will get even more Daria Karpova: the rest of Reynal’s cross, Bankston’s re-examination, more Reynal, plus jury questions
back in court now and Karpova is still being cross-examined by the defense. courtroom is crowded today! looks like it is mostly curious parties, not people here in a professional capacity (source: the guy who works at my bike shop is one of them, another is wearing leather pants)
Karpova was clearly instructed to address the jury instead of the lawyer for cross, seems much more comfortable today (which is normal for anyone when they’re with the friendly lawyer). Reynal invokes Hillary Clinton again, something he has worked to do a few times
Important clarification for those watching at home, they were actually discussing the Howard Stern Beetlejuice and not the Michael Keaton one
https://twitter.com/nuggsb/status/1552727878755811329
Karpova says that Infowars employs 50-80 people, paid for with the supplements money, which is a lot more than I would have thought
Brief bench conference before Bankston questions Karpova on re-examination. Still very surprised that we are at almost two full days of Daria Karpova in this trial!
She initially took the stand at 4pm Tuesday. Entire trial duration is nine days.
Karpova testified that Alex Jones has suffered because people believe that he was the Sandy Hook shooter, that it’s had an impact on his life and health. Bankston asks her if she understands how that might play as hypocritical in this courtroom given why the plaintiffs are here.
Now we are watching 17 minutes of Megyn Kelly’s broadcast with Jones
Video is over. Karpova had testified that the entire segment was about Sandy Hook; Bankston, with a timer, says it was only four minutes of the clip. Karpova stands by her statement, even though the jury just watched the whole video too
Alex gets up to take a leak or whatever, always weird how he is accompanied everywhere by bodyguards. we ended up eating lunch at the same diner a couple days ago and he had a five-member detail. Today there are three in the courtroom and at least one downstairs with Owen Shroyer
afternoon break coming, back in 30 minutes. Jurors will write questions for Karpova, lawyers will discuss which ones to ask, then jury will return and judge will ask Daria their questions
We are back now, jury is still out, questions are in. Reynal isn’t in the courtroom and judge is annoyed.
Q’s:
“What is average annual revenue of FSS circa 2014-2016?”
“Who are the globalists?”
“Does Sandy Hook Vampires Exposed refer to actual vampires?”
“Why did Rob Dew leave?”
“Who vets guests prior to their appearance?”
“How many stories was Wolfgang Halbig interviewed on?”
“What is average annual revenue of FSS circa 2014-2016?”
“Who are the globalists?”
“Does Sandy Hook Vampires Exposed refer to actual vampires?”
“Why did Rob Dew leave?”
“Who vets guests prior to their appearance?”
“How many stories was Wolfgang Halbig interviewed on?”
“Is it your opinion that Infowars is a trustworthy news organization or an infotainments organization that only purports to be a news organization for money?” (Paraphrase, it’s a long one. Not a great one for the defense!)
There are more, all will be asked- seems clear that Daria’s two days of testimony did not endear her or the company to the jury based on the tenor of the questions, which come off as largely accusatory
Going to take another moment just to appreciate that a juror felt the need to ask if the Infowars segment called “Sandy Hook Vampires Exposed” refers to actual vampires
Answer to vampires Q: “it is definitely metaphorical. It is meant to compare those who exploit the tragedy to someone who would feast on their blood”
Karpova testifies that her annual salary is $125,000, not sure if that’s what most employees make. Doesn’t know why she was the corporate representative in this case. Doesn’t know what 2021 revenue or most recent quarter in 2022.
“How many viewers of the show watch it on the website?” “Millions.” Doesn’t know radio numbers.
How many times was Halbig on the show question: Karpova starts to answer an entirely different question, judge interrupts her; Karpova resumes answering the question she wishes she was asked, judge interrupts again. Karpova says “I don’t know”
Karpova says that Alex is “100% his true self” on the show.
“How would you compare the anguish Jones has suffered to the anguish he caused the parents?” “The grief of the parents could not be compared to the effects that Alex has suffered from the lies that have been told about him. It’s hard to compare the two.”
“Do you believe that this whole trial is a staged event?” “You’d have to define staged, please.” “I think you did that earlier.” Karpova begins an answer with “because” and judge interrupts, says it’s a yes or no question. “To a large extent, yes.”
Karpova dismissed as a witness. Next up is Infowars host Owen Shroyer. Shroyer swears in and sits down.
Bankston is off for the examination of Shroyer, Kyle Farrar will lead this one
Farrar asks if Infowars has lost all access to the internet, which Reynal claimed in opening. Shroyer says no. Farrar asks if he’s heard “lawyers who lie should lose,” which Reynal also said in opening. “I have not.” Farrar: “I hadn’t till Tuesday, thought it was interesting.”
Farrar asks if a third of Infowars broadcasts are advertising supplements. Shroyer says it’s more like 10-15%.
Too early to say if Shroyer is a good witness or not but hearing someone answer yes or no questions promptly with a yes or no is a reminder of what a disaster of a witness Daria Karpova was
Farrar: “there are links to products on your website, right? ‘InstaHard,’ that’s a product you sell?” “Yes.” Asks if they test the products, Shroyer says he takes them himself.
They are looking at the Infowars website during the examination so believe it or not, Farrar didn’t pick InstaHard just to embarrass Shroyer, it was the largest banner ad at the top of the page
Shroyer says he “sometimes” considers himself a journalist, “sometimes” considers himself a conspiracy theorist. Then somebody’s phone in the gallery starts playing “Yellow” by Coldplay and Farrar asks again, this time Shroyer says he is not a conspiracy theorist.
Farrar is focused right now on discrepancy between Shroyer’s deposition and his current testimony, of which there have been several.
we are watching a clip of Shroyer reading a zerohedge article, which Shroyer just testified he did not vet in any way and did not know who wrote it or what research they did. Story is about the plaintiff Heslin, video includes footage of Heslin, says he did not hold his dead son
I’m sure this is all well-tread territory for Heslin and Lewis, but I imagine watching these infowars clips accusing them of being liars yet again can’t be pleasant for them.
clip ends and an ad of Jones shilling “Z-Shield” supplements immediately starts. Tech person pauses the video, Farrar says to let the ad play in full.
Farrar puts up a PowerPoint confirming details of the report: Shroyer never heard of Heslin, did nothing to fact check the zerohedge article, didn’t watch the video clips that ran with the broadcast, may not have even read the article, didn’t know who wrote it. Shroyer agrees.
Hard to say if Shroyer is coming off better here because he’s in contrast to Karpova, who refused to answer questions or admit to anything, but on its face the facts of what he is testifying to are pretty awful
we are still on Farrar questioning Shroyer. Thrust of what’s happening here is Farrar is getting Shroyer to engage with the clip of him suggesting that Neil Heslin lied when he held his son. Shroyer has tried to deny that was his intent with the clip, but don’t think it matters
this is the major challenge that the infowars side faces: they can admit that they tried to defame Heslin or they can dissemble, but their testimony doesn’t really matter because the clip shows what the clip shows, and it looks real bad either way
Farrar asks Shroyer if he understands that his rush to put the clip on before the supplement commercial hurt real people, gestures to Heslin; Shroyer tries really hard not to engage but says he is sorry if he caused anyone pain. Says being in court must hurt them too.
arguing now over the definition of “unaltered.” Shroyer insists that the brief, out of context clip from the coroner that is cut off mid-sentence is unaltered because he didn’t dub over it
Shroyer watches a clip of Wolfgang Halbig on Infowars where he says “support Infowars, because if we don’t have your voice, nobody’s going to hear the truth.” Farrar has argued Infowars was Halbig’s platform, Shroyer is trying to argue that he was maybe referring to the audience
Shroyer compares Infowars to PBS, suggests that Infowars is better for its audience because it sends them brain pills when they give them money instead of just accepting donations. Farrar has no further questions.
Reynal begins cross examination of Shroyer, focused on his bio. This will wrap in a few minutes because Judge Gamble draws firm boundaries around the 9-5 workday
Judge has some questions for Shroyer after the jury leaves. Asks if he talked about the trial on the air with Alex. He says he doesn’t remember if they talked about what happened in the courtroom. He tries to respond like he’s talking to a lawyer, Gamble makes clear he is not
Shroyer says that Reynal had not informed him that he was not to talk about the trial because he was subject to The Rule restricting witnesses from discussing it. 😬😬😬
Reynal clarifies the time Shroyer was on the air. Both of them really need to hope that the videos from Tuesday do not contradict what they just said, especially Reynal
Gamble addresses Reynal, re-reads instructions on The Rule, asks Reynal if he followed them. He says that he misunderstood. “Cuz you’re just a brand new lawyer, right? Enough with the aw-shucks”
I bet Reynal wishes he had remembered to spit out his gum all of those times Gamble admonished him for chewing gum in her courtroom now
if you’ve been following the Infowars trial, you may be confused as to why Jones’s employees, who work for a company literally called “Free Speech Systems,” haven’t been citing the first amendment in court. there is a reason for that. I wrote about it here texasmonthly.com/news-politics/…
and we're back in court for day four of the damages trial to determine how much money Alex Jones will have to pay to the first of three Sandy Hook families who successfully sued him for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress
today's first witness is Infowars host Owen Shroyer, who will continue his cross-examination by Andino Reynal, the attorney who represents Jones in this case
after Shroyer, we should see longtime Austin American-Statesman editor Fred Zipp, testifying as an expert witness, as well as a disinformation expert from the East Coast whose name I can not recall at the moment
today will be the last day of zany Infowars characters for a while. next week's witnesses for the plaintiffs will be much more—mostly doctors, mental health experts, and others who can testify to the emotional and mental anguish the parents suffered because of Infowars' actions
(also it's still not clear if Jones himself will be testifying in this case yet! lawyers seem to prefer that it be a suspenseful twist right now. fwiw, he's not in the courtroom today yet.)
Shroyer is currently testifying about what a chill environment Infowars is to work in. He's allowed to wear jeans at work.
while Shroyer enjoys a break of friendly cross-examination, here's a quick recap of what you might want to know:
Alex Jones, who—despite a conspiracy theory about the conspiracy theorist—is definitely NOT long-dead 90's underground Texas comedian Bill Hicks repurposed as part of a CIA psyop, lost by default a series of defamation lawsuits from Sandy Hook families texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post…
this is not Jones's first time facing a Travis County jury, although the circumstances of the last one—a 2017 custody trial against his ex-wife—were different, as was the demeanor of the judge (who was much more sympathetic toward Jones generally) texasmonthly.com/articles/alex-…
Jones has been through lots of lawyers in the Sandy Hook cases. most of them have, uh, struggled. in 2018, one argued that "no reasonable person" would think he was serious (an unreasonable person was jailed for threatening to kill the families he defamed) texasmonthly.com/news-politics/…
the stakes in the trial have been clear for years—Jones's empire is in trouble, as either this case or one of the others is pretty likely to send him into insolvency. lawyers here are asking for $150,000,000. the other cases will probably seek the same. texasmonthly.com/news-politics/…
Jones tried an end-run around to get out of the heavy financial implications of the trial by declaring a very narrow bankruptcy on behalf of several shell companies. this was a last-ditch effort earlier this summer. it didn't work. texasmonthly.com/news-politics/…
on Monday, the jury was selected in this case. this is not a jury who has never heard of Alex Jones, since those people largely don't exist—only 10 of the 110+ member jury pool didn't know who he was—but it excludes both people who love and hate the guy texasmonthly.com/news-politics/…
finally, while the case may seem like it is fundamentally about the First Amendment and freedom of speech, you won't hear either phrase uttered much in the courtroom, because Jones—in failing to mount a proper defense—lost access to those arguments texasmonthly.com/news-politics/…
to that end, Reynal attempts during re-cross to ask Shroyer about "deplatforming." Plaintiffs' attorney objects, which is sustained. both lawyers are done with Shroyer now, and the jury is now writing down their questions for the witness. they'll be back in 5-10 minutes.
judge is reading jury Q's for the lawyers right now. highlight so far: "in your opinion is the judge a hired actor? are any members of the jury hired actors? if so, how many?"
this is similar to a question Daria got, but even more pointed and revealing. it is, uh, not great for the defense that this is the sort of thing anyone on the jury is worried about.
no objections from either attorney to these questions, will do my best to get his answers here but this part moves real fast
i would hazard a guess that the "convince the jury that infowars is irresponsible to the point of maliciousness" part of the plaintiffs' case has been made, which explains why we will be moving on to the impact on the family soon
"How often are audience callers or guests advised to fact-check their claims?"
"sometimes"
"sometimes"
"Did your producer vet the sources you used prior to airing?"
"I can not say."
"Should your producer vet the sources you used prior to airing?"
"Yes."
"I can not say."
"Should your producer vet the sources you used prior to airing?"
"Yes."
"Is there anything you would recant about the Sandy Hook story? If so, why?"
"I would have not covered it at all. It was not subject material i was familiar with at all, and those four minutes had serious negative effects on my career and livelihood."
"I would have not covered it at all. It was not subject material i was familiar with at all, and those four minutes had serious negative effects on my career and livelihood."
HIRED ACTOR Q: No and no from Shroyer, sorry y'all
asked his definition of a conspiracy theorist, he gives a heroic definition, is then asked why he thinks CNN is a conspiracy theorist—cites Russian collusion and Jussie Smollett, which he intends to be less heroic than his previous answer!
Shroyer is off the stand, but is still under subpoena and still bound by The Rule, which means he can't talk about this case with anyone but the lawyers (which includes on the air, obviously).
Plaintiffs call former 13-year infowars employee Rob Jacobson by deposition, which means we are watching video of a depo he gave earlier in the case. Jacobson came to the plaintiffs “to right a wrong” in what he did at Infowars
last thought on Owen, re: this response—this was a real missed opportunity for him to express remorse for how those four minutes affected the parents, instead of just himself, and it is baffling that he wasn’t prepped to do that
https://twitter.com/dansolomon/status/1553032751821062147
Jacobson testifies that one of his colleagues wanted to print t-shirts that said “Wolfgang Halbig was right.”
Jacobson video concludes, now we are going to watch Dan Bidondi’s deposition
Bidondi says he was inspired by the founding fathers to become a “journalist”. says he thinks the government did 9/11. uses racial slur for Muslims explaining why he thought that, and says that led him to Alex Jones. First “jet fuel doesn’t melt steel beams” for your bingo card
attorney reminds him that the question was if 9/11 was how he found Alex Jones. Strong “sir, this is a Wendy’s” energy
asked if he received training on journalism when he went to work for infowars. Bidondi says he was briefed on “operation cover your ass,” which was a term he was specifically taught by Rob Dew
Bidondi discussing his relationship with Wolfgang Halbig, and the trip he took to Newtown for a board of education meeting where the former pro wrestler chased people around calling them “scumbags”
Bidondi’s deposition is such a disaster that I’m surprised they didn’t get him in the courtroom to perform live. He says Halbig was “a hero” to him for “standing up and asking questions”
Bidondi says (in September 2021) that he hadn’t talked to Alex Jones in over a year. says Jones told him after his own deposition to tell him that he didn’t “sell him down the river” no matter how the depo may have made it sound
we are done with Bidondi. Plaintiffs’ attorney Bill Ogden tells court that he meant to tell the court that his depo contained “racially charged” language.
Former Austin newspaper editor Fred Zipp now testifying in person as an expert witness.
mostly just establishing Zipp’s credentials as an expert on journalism right now, which are substantial as a 67-year-old newsroom veteran with decades of experience
Zipp testifies that being right is the paramount objective, ahead of being first. Infowars employees have explained that moving quickly to be in the news cycle is how their operation works.
Zipp walks through how journalism works: first, come up with story idea. Read the news to find a story to follow up on. “The best story is the answer to a question.” Find sources who can help you get the answer- credible experts who are willing to talk, documentary evidence, etc
Honestly after Daria Karpova and Owen Shroyer, it is refreshing to hear someone talk soberly about journalism and how it is practiced
Zipp: “when Owen Shroyer is handed a document he’s never seen before by an anonymous author, that’s a recipe for disaster.”
“If one of your students was in that position, what would you say to them?”
“Don’t take the piece of paper.”
“If one of your students was in that position, what would you say to them?”
“Don’t take the piece of paper.”
Zipp explaining how he fact-checked the claims in this case. He read the Connecticut state police report in full, which was online. Would expect Reynal to come back to this and try to conjure Uvalde, and the holes in the police story, which he’s done previously this week.
Zipp testifies that Jones presents himself as a newscaster, from the studio set to the way he frames what he says, and that opinion shows typically make clear that they are opinion shows and don’t try to confuse the two
Zipp is going through a journalistic ethics document from an outlet he worked at (probably the Statesman but I missed that part), and explaining how Infowars has violated them in its Sandy Hook reporting. Not going point-by-point here because it is all what you’d expect
source of the doc Zipp is going through now
https://twitter.com/jamez_white/status/1553052173247909889
Zipp testifying about the code of ethics and why public figures are different from private individuals. Talks about how there is a spectrum, but that people who avoid public roles are owed more privacy.
Infowars has argued previously in this case that the Sandy Hook families made themselves public figures by speaking about what happened to them. Not sure if that argument will even be available to them now that there is a default judgment against them.
Plaintiffs are finished with Zipp. Reynal begins cross examination by asking if he’d agree that people should be free to watch or what not to watch, and read or not read, or listen to or not listen to. Zipp agrees on all points
Reynal does like to ask the same question over and over again with minute differences, it’s just part of his style.
Reynal asks if being a journalist is limited to someone who gathers and reports information, Zipp says yes. Reynal asks if a person who comments on the news is a journalist, Zipp says not really. Reynal asks if they do “journalistic commentary,” Zipp says “sure.”
Reynal asks if Jones was acting as a talk show host in the very long clip that he showed yesterday. Zipp says he was “free associating in front of a microphone.” Reynal asks if that was journalism, Zipp says it was presenting propositions as facts
Reynal is trying to establish that according to Zipp’s own standards of what a journalist is, Alex Jones is not a journalist, which is also an argument we have heard him make when convenient (and be outraged by when it’s not)
Reynal asks if Zipp, as an expert on the ethics of journalism, if the rules of ethics change if someone is hurt. Zipp says that ethics are ethics and don’t change whether someone is harmed by violating them
Reynal asks if Jones is a journalist on his show. Zipp says he “adopts the guise of a journalist while engaging in activists that are contrary to the norms of journalism.”
Reynal asks about “citizen journalism,” and if they’ve been responsible for breaking some of the most important stories of the last decade. Zipp says he would not agree. Reynal asks about George Floyd, Zipp agrees that it was important and captured by citizen journalists.
Reynal asks if a radio host is responsible for what callers say on a call-in show, and if it’s ethical to have one. Zipp says it could be—that it depends how the assertions of the callers are handled by the hosts.
This line of questioning is not going the way Reynal wanted it to. Zipp would have a good answer to the question that I think Reynal just hadn’t thought of—if a caller says something wrong, the host has a responsibility to correct them to avoid misinforming the audience
accordingly, Reynal switches topics to whether it’s ethical to interview people with controversial views. Reynal asks if they have to put a disclaimer on those interviews. Plaintiffs lawyer asks to approach, but I suspect Zipp has a good answer to this question too
Reynal asks if a documentarian could be a journalist. Zipp says yes. Reynal asks if a journalist’s job is to inject themselves into the narrative they’re reporting on, or to let the person speak (by interjecting that the subject’s ideas aren’t in line with popular beliefs)
Zipp says there’s not a specific best practice. Reynal suggests the choice is either A) give Wolfgang Halbig the platform to say whatever or B) run a banner on screen that says “this guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” which i hope gets pushback cuz I wanna die hearing it
(You contextualize what they say so that the reader/viewer understands that it is not true, while also providing enough context so that they understand why the existence of their viewpoint is relevant to the world we live in)
Breaking for lunch now, see y’all at 1:30
Actually we are getting a motion from Reynal for a mistrial because Shroyer was questioned about evidence for both compensatory and punitive damages, which he makes after every infowars witness, and which continues to be denied
back from lunch. Reynal is questioning Zipp about how much he’s been paid for testifying, then moves on to say that the ethical standards they discussed are not legal or binding
Reynal thinks he has something here: “you put the code out without bothering to check if it’s legally binding?” Zipp: “it’s not particularly relevant to me if it is.”
(This is likely to be a painful bit of questioning for anyone familiar with how journalism is practiced.)
To be clear, whether ethics are legally binding or not isn’t the point, and it’s not something Zipp needs to care about.
Reynal asks how many hours Zipp has spent watching infowars, he says 25 or more. Reynal asks if Zipp is seriously contending that infowars doesn’t exist to hold the powerful accountable, which… gosh
Reynal is trying to impeach Zipp’s credibility by showing evidence that Infowars has had people on the show who have different viewpoints from Wolfgang Halbig. Asks him to read a video titled “the ultimate Sandy Hook debate as second anniversary looms”
Bench conference leads to jury being led out. We will see what they have to discuss.
Dispute is over evidence Reynal wants to show; defense argues that they have not had a chance to authenticate the video. Gamble is going to let him play a little of it and see what answers Zipp has.
Reynal is playing the video; it’s an Infowars segment where Wolfgang Halbig debates Sandy Hook with a conspiracy theorist who says he doesn’t dispute that the kids were killed. Asks Zipp if he has seen it; Zipp says he doesn’t think so. Jury is still not present.
Judge won’t allow the video to be played in front of the jury, says that it’s because of decisions Reynal’s client made years ago, referring to the lack of production during discovery (which is also a big part of why Jones got defaulted)
This continues to speak to one of the enormous challenges Reynal faces, which is that he is legally responsible for everything the 9+ lawyers who preceded him in this case screwed up.
Jury is back. Reynal asks if video title means that they had multiple points of view. Zipp says sure. Reynal asks if he’d revise his previous testimony. Zipp says not without watching the video. Reynal asks if he had the opportunity to watch, which he did, then passes witness.
Bill Ogden, for the plaintiffs, asks if Alex Jones presents himself as someone offering opinion. Produces an affidavit from Jones, which Zipp reads. It cites journalistic privilege, says that in sworn affidavit that he and his employees were “acting as journalists”
would assume that Reynal would prefer to be just about anywhere other than this courtroom, representing anyone other than his clients. watching him throughout this trial is like watching the Scott’s Tots episode of The Office for eight hours a day
We are watching another clip of Alex talking about Sandy Hook. Heslin leaves the courtroom again, which he has done a couple of times when Infowars hosts talk cavalierly about his dead son.
From where I am sitting, Heslin and Lewis’s presence in this courtroom through all the difficult discussion makes Jones’s frequent absences especially glaring. Who knows what it looks like from the jury box, though.
Reynal doing re-cross of Zipp. Asks him if he knows the definition of a journalist under texas law, and how SCOTUS defines a citizen journalist. Zipp says no. Reynal asks if it had occurred to him that Jones may have been using a different definition of the word. (It had not.)
Brief-ish break while the jury writes their questions for Zipp. We will see if they found him as curious a figure as Daria and Owen Shroyer!
we're back for jury questions for Zipp, which Judge Gamble is reading for the lawyers. One Q is whether he thinks the Megyn Kelly interview was edited to make Jones look bad. Another juror knows what "semiotics" is (which Zipp studied) and wants to know if InfoWars uses them
One q is whether he thinks lawsuits like this are the only way to hold irresponsible media accountable; another is if he thinks Infowars journalists would be fired if they acted like they did in a traditional newsroom. neither seems like a good Q for the defense
some questions for Zipp will not be asked. one wants to know if Jones saying "I'm sorry that I hurt the family but I have the right to say what I said" is analogous to Adam Lanza saying "I'm sorry I killed those kids but I have the right to own a gun." not gonna make it in!
Nothing terribly insightful in Zipp's responses to the Q's that were asked, and he's done. Now a deposition from Infowars employee Christopher Daniels.
Deposition was taped on November 10, 2021. Says he considers himself a journalist. Is asked if they have policies around vetting sources, journalistic background, journalistic standards, or training. He says "I don't recall" in response to each question.
asked if there are some contexts more than others where accuracy is important, Daniels says over and over again that he doesn’t understand the question. Asked if there are any words in particular he doesn’t understand, he repeats and says “I don’t understand the question."
attorney asks which stories require more vetting to determine their accuracy, Daniels reiterates that he doesn’t understand, says that the question “sounds like a riddle"
The infowars depositions in this case have all been pretty rough, but this dude’s “I don’t recall” and “I don’t understand” approach is wildly unsympathetic in a totally different way
Expert witness Becca Lewis currently on the stand, testifying about disinformation. Some background on the witness here: datasociety.net/people/lewis-b…
Lewis currently being questioned about her credentials by Bankston. Her credentials are very impressive. Asks her if the universities she’s studied at or been affiliated with (Columbia, Oxford, Stanford) have good reputations
also I have no idea how the sound quality is on the livestream at this point, but apparently the issues today have involved witnesses bumping into the cables for the microphones. Guerra has said they are doing their best but aren’t putting new resources into improving the quality
Anybody watching on the livestream who can tell me how the sound quality is, lmk? will be more diligent on the details if it’s still hard to hear
Lewis says that it’s impossible to have a career in disinformation and not know who Alex Jones is
Reynal objects, is overruled, and asks for a running objection, which is granted. Has done this for, I think, every witness in this trial.
I wish I loved anything as much as Alex Jones’s lawyer loves objecting, getting overruled, and asking for a running objection
Bankston asks why our media environment allowed Jones to become so popular. Lewis says that she teaches classes on this so she’ll try to be brief. Talks about attention economy and clickbait headlines, and also media bubbles and opportunists who seek them out to stoke their fears
we are on to Lewis explaining what peer review is and affirming that media studies is a credible field
Lewis reads from a journal article about Jones’s rise, and about how his profile and audience blew up in 2009, and Obama got elected. Makes specific reference to his statements on Sandy Hook.
Lewis talks about how Jones’s politics have changed over time, but has generally accused both republicans and democrats of being behind conspiracies. that changed under Trump, but doesn’t necessarily exempt other republicans from being part of his theories
Sharing this from an interview I did with longtime Alex Jones pal Kevin Booth back in 2017, which has always been on my mind when talking about Jones’s relationship to Trump 
and now we are off for a fifteen minute break
back now. Lewis testifies that Infowars has received 3 billion pageviews, which doesn’t include audience reached through social media (when they were on it) or from reshares, which likely represents another very significant number
Lewis reads a media studies article from a law review journal. says that disinfo spreads 6x as fast as true news within conspiracy communities. says it’s consistent with her own research and work
Lewis reads an MIT Technology Review article about Jones’s reach—asserts the “three degrees of Alex Jones” and how when he was on YouTube, it only ever took three clicks from any video to get to Jones (which the article suggests is a shorthand and not necessarily literally true)
Bankston asks Lewis if Sandy Hook truthers Jim Fetzer or Jim Tracy had the same reach as Alex Jones, she says no, almost nobody has the same reach as Jones
same deal with Wolfgang Halbig. refers to Daria’s testimony that “Mr. Jones loves to help the little guy” in describing how Jones boosted Halbig’s profile. “Anyone can post anything, but virtually no one has the sizable audience that Mr. Jones has.”
also Lewis is being very respectful in referring to him as “Mr. Jones” throughout her testimony but I will not tolerate any Counting Crows jokes, that’s a good song
Bankston asks if an Infowars employee could have been the anonymous author of the ZeroHedge article Shroyer aired, Lewis says that she would not be able to tell. Notes that it only had three shares when they ran it, which is unusual, as it had virtually no exposure before Shroyer
this will come up again in a later trial, for damages owed to (the estate of) Marcel Fontaine, who was wrongly identified by Infowars as the Parkland shooter based on a 4chan post
Bankston passes witness. Reynal asks Lewis what she’s being paid to testify. She says $3k. He asks if she hates Alex Jones. She says she has come to be very disturbed by him, but she began her research with no opinion. He objects as non-responsive.
he’s gonna read tweets from her @beccalew account which is everybody's nightmare. asks her if she recalls tweeting that the entire GOP is a white supremacist organization. she doesn’t remember but says it seems like something she would have tweeted tho
Reynal reads the tweet aloud, judge says that’s not in evidence and orders the jury to strike it. he asks if she believes that the GOP has been a white supremacist organization since the 1960’s. she says, broadly, yeah
Reynal names Eisenhower and Ford and asks if they were white supremacists, objects as nonresponsive when she says that Eisenhower was president in the ‘50s. overruled, but exhausting
Lewis explains what a shitpost is to the jury, gosh bless her
Reynal is suggesting that Lewis is biased because she did her research into Jones and came to her conclusions before she was hired as an expert in this case, unclear why she would have been hired if she hadn’t done the research until she came into the case
Reynal asks her about Joe Rogan, Ben Shapiro, Stefan Molyneux, if she thinks they’re white supremacists. Bankston objects on relevance, judge sustains.
Reynal asks Lewis about the poll that says 24% of Americans think Sandy Hook was a hoax, asks about the sample size. she is explaining how statistically significant samples work in polling, and that a poll of fewer than 1000 can be significant
this is Reynal’s best line of questioning in the trial. convincing the jury that Infowars is a good news org standing up for the little guy by telling people truths, based on the jury q's, doesn’t seem to be working, convincing them damages are not worth $150m is more plausible
Bankston resurfaces the “lawyers who lie should lose” line Reynal used in his opening after confirming that the poll in question did indeed have more than 1,000 participants
Reynal now attempts to impeach the poll because it was done over the phone, not in person. Lewis says that’s not considered relevant in polling.
got our first “Mr. Reynal, what are you doing” of the day from the judge
Lewis explains how polling works to the jury, and Reynal has no further questions. normally we would end wrap for the day, but judge wants the jury to write their questions so Lewis can get back on a plane before the weekend
this is a good point—clearly a pretty sophisticated jury here, so trying to make polling and statistics look like pseudoscience the way Reynal is attempting would probably play better in another courtroom
https://twitter.com/5DollarFeminist/status/1553136678818066432
Reynal informs Judge Guerra that he just got an email that says that Free Speech Systems filed for bankruptcy this afternoon, but that it will not interfere with this trial
Reynal: “I’ve been told that it is absolutely the desire of the company to finish the trial, to put this odyssey behind us so that we have some numbers."
jury q’s: “I just invented a conspiracy theory! On a reputable poll, a representative sample of people are asked to respond to a theory. there is no way for them to have heard of the theory because i just made it up. how many will say that they’ve heard of it?”
actual jury question: “After hearing all of your academic accomplishments, will you state for the record that you are not a lizard person who works for the globalists.”
“could extremists target members of this jury after the trial?” which gets to a question a few prospective jurors had before the trial began (and Gamble let all of those jurors go home)
we are not gonna get the lizard people question asked, alas, but the juror who is having a fun time is still enjoying themself
it is possible that one juror will be released for safety concerns; there are several alternates if that happens
also going back to this one (which the judge won’t ask because it’s not directly Lewis’s expertise), this is such a smart question, really impressed with how thoughtful these jurors are
https://twitter.com/dansolomon/status/1553141412685926400
what a clever construction of the question, “how many people just say yes to questions in a poll because they like saying yes to things”
we have heard the word “globalists” A LOT in the questions from the jury, wish i could see the handwriting to find out if they are from the same person or if we have a bunch of jokers in the crowd
Reynal, exhausted, asks for another mistrial, which is denied again
(all of this is about preserving arguments for a potential appeal, although it is really unlikely there will be an appeal in this case)
most interesting question actually asked is whether Lewis considers Jones part of the mainstream media given the size of his audience. she says that she wouldn’t, but given that he has a bigger platform than many mainstream sources, it speaks to the meaninglessness of the term
quick programming note today: I’ll be in court a little late, have to take my dog to the vet (she’s fine, just need to confirm she’s recovered from her ear infection)
note that if you’ve been following for schadenfreude, today is not gonna be much fun for you: we have moved from the “plaintiffs try to show that infowars are a bunch of clowns” part of the trial to the ”show that the clown show did real harm to these grieving parents” part
Back in court now- came in during a break. When the jury returns, Reynal will cross-examine the expert witness, a mental health professional who worked with the plaintiffs.
(Also I’m happy to report that Ozzy is in good health and her ears are recovering nicely)
we’re back and the plaintiffs’ side is still examining the expert witness. the thrust of his testimony is that people heal from trauma—any trauma, even the death of a child (albeit with scarring)—if they are able to do so, and Alex Jones and InfoWars prevented them from healing
key to the rest of the plaintiffs' case: that psychological trauma is A) real, B) caused by InfoWars, C) different from the trauma caused by the shooting, D) inflicted maliciously, E) very different for these parents from what they should be able to expect from their community
plaintiffs had a very good week last week, as evinced by jury questions about lizard people and the illuminati and crisis actors in the courtroom. at least some jurors clearly believe that InfoWars are full of shit. but that doesn't necessarily translate to $150m in damages.
today's testimony is all about bringing that home. no matter how well last week went for the plaintiffs, it is no guarantee that the jury will conclude that InfoWars should pay $150,000,000 in damages.
expert testifies that Heslin and Lewis have hired a "significant" security presence while they are in Austin for the trial. I believe him, but haven't identified them in the courtroom. Jones's security detail has been very ostentatious, with earpieces and coordinated movements
not sure how important having a security presence in the courtroom itself is all that important, given the screening before you enter the building and the presence of multiple deputies inside the courtroom itself
talking about the trial itself now: testifies that the plaintiffs are here, specifically, because they want to ensure that no other family has to go through this. this speaks to punitive damages, which i suspect will be an easier bar to clear than compensatory in this case
another thing going on is a focus on Lewis's work (she wrote a book, and has a foundation), and how it's an expression of both her PTSD and an attempt to heal by turning her son's death into something meaningful. suspect this is an attempt to preempt a line of defense questioning
Karpova, last week, brought up Lewis's book, and suggested that Lewis has made money off of this. using this expert witness to say "actually this is an expression of PTSD, and she works so much specifically to distance herself from the trauma inflicted by InfoWars" addresses that
plaintiffs pass witness. Reynal begins cross, asks witness again about his history working as an expert witness. Reynal asks about the ethics guidelines of American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, hands him a laptop to read them aloud to the jury
Ogden objects, says that he hasn't seen the document Reynal is asking the witness to read. Judge sustains, says that this is usually covered in year one of law school
witness says that providing ethics guidelines for forensic psychiatrists inherently means that the organization finds the field of forensic psychiatry inherently ethical
Reynal continues to challenge the idea that Jones's reach is as significant as it is; witness talked about the possibility that "billions" of people believe Sandy Hook was a hoax, Reynal asks if Jones's influence is so great that people who don't speak English believe him
witness says that he is not concerned about people outside the country, is more focused on the 75 million Americans who believe that. generally seems like a bad thing for a forensic psychologist to be talking about, as it's not his area of expertise
Reynal brings up that the witness ran for congress as a Democrat to represent Newtown. asks if he's aware that Alex Jones is a notorious target for the Democratic party. "I'm not aware of that." "Did you live the 2016 election?"
my sense here is that 2016 and the mainstream attention Jones received during that election was the biggest thing that ever happened inside InfoWars at that point, and they may believe that it was the core of the entire election because of how big it was for them
I also lived the 2016 election and Alex Jones was not, to my recollection, the central figure in the campaign, I recall Donald Trump being a bigger factor
breaking for lunch now, back at 1:30, when Reynal will continue his cross examination of the doctor
Back on now, Reynal continues cross examination. Witness is trying to get away from the question about the poll and back to his expertise. Reynal asks if the parents heard about the poll from Alex Jones or [glances to plaintiffs’ lawyers] “someone else”
this has been a theme on and off, too, that the plaintiffs’ attorneys are actually the ones inflicting trauma on the parents by getting them to participate in this litigation. Daria Karpova directly accused Bankston of it during her testimony last week.
Reynal asks if someone watching the livestream goes after Alex Jones based on the witness testimony means the witness is responsible for their actions, because he didn't interview police to substantiate what the plaintiffs told him. Witness says that is not standard practice.
who the heck knows what the jury thinks of all of this, at least until we get their questions, but my read on it is that cross-examination is going better for the defense with this witness than with any of the prior witnesses
remember, the entire jury thinking that Alex Jones is a destructive clown and they never want to see his face again, but that damages are like $50k compensatory and $1 million punitive, would be a huge win for the defense
Reynal asks the witness about whether stalking or harassment are crimes; Ogden objects, starts to say that it's because it's outside his area of expertise. Judge Gamble cuts him off—"There are a million things you could object to, and they're all sustained"
another objection, Gamble sustains it before he even says what it is. Turns to Reynal. "The question assumes facts not in evidence and is a misrepresentation."
Reynal: "It is not."
Gamble: "EXCUSE me?"
Reynal: "Should I move on, your honor?"
Gamble: "You had better."
Reynal: "It is not."
Gamble: "EXCUSE me?"
Reynal: "Should I move on, your honor?"
Gamble: "You had better."
1980's David Mamet writing the dialogue in the courtroom today
Reynal asks if part of how the plaintiffs seek to make meaning of their son's death is to destroy Alex Jones. Witness says that he doesn't believe that Alex Jones meant anything to the plaintiffs until he went after that. Reynal passes witness.
Ogden stares directly at Reynal, asks about important speech. "How important is it for someone to lie about the murder of a bunch of six-year-olds. How important is it?"
Ogden: "Mr. Reynal asked you if three billion people saw the content that Alex Jones spewed. When @beccalew testified about that, did she says three billion people, or three billion views?" Witness says it was three billion views. Attempt to rehab the roughest part of cross
witness wraps, on to a break for jury questions. should be back in about 15-20 mins, maybe shorter if they don’t have many questions
Reynal moves for a mistrial, denied. Bankston doesn’t move for a mistrial, but objects to a series of things Reynal did during his cross-examination: “It is our perspective that Mr. Reynal is actively trying for a mistrial” based on things he’s done throughout the trial
Judge Gamble: “I’m not being asked to do anything other than to tell you to follow the rules, which I have done, and I know you know.”
Says they will not take up sanctions during the trial, if Bankston wants to bring them up after trial they’ll deal with that then.
Says they will not take up sanctions during the trial, if Bankston wants to bring them up after trial they’ll deal with that then.
Gamble says that she is not currently considering contempt of court charges but if she had been in the room when he gave Bankston the finger, she would have
back in March, Reynal and Jones’s previous attorney tried to get Gamble to allow Norm Pattis to serve as co-counsel. Bankston opposed the motion, saying that his top priority in the case was to avoid a mistrial because of defense attorney antics. Gamble sided with him.
Gamble reads jury questions. “How many years have you been treating Mr. Heslin and Ms. Lewis?” Doctor Kraft, the next witness sitting in the gallery, begins to answer, Bankston and Ogden explain what’s happening.
The joker on the jury asks about the irony of Alex Jones claiming that Sandy Hook was a hoax to take away people’s guns, yet it lead to Scarlett Lewis buying a gun. That question won’t be asked.
one juror wants to know how “campaigns of lies” affect society at large
interesting question: “Would an apology help the healing process more than a dollar amount?” Judge strikes it; court can’t order an apology, dollars are the only thing that the court deals in. That’s the sort of question that might make the plaintiffs’ side nervous.
Reynal objects to the “campaign of lies” question, won’t be asked
“if the statements from Infowars stopped today, how long would the healing process take?” will be asked, is an interesting question
onto questions from the jury:
“Did Heslin/Lewis feel as if a quarter of the population distrusted them?” “I believe so, especially Neil, who talked about how many people didn’t believe him. Scarlett worried how many friends thought she was a fake or fraud, too."
“Did Heslin/Lewis feel as if a quarter of the population distrusted them?” “I believe so, especially Neil, who talked about how many people didn’t believe him. Scarlett worried how many friends thought she was a fake or fraud, too."
the forensic psychiatrist is not following the informal “jury q’s get very short answers” rule
“If the statements from Infowars stopped today, how long would it take for the healing to occur?”
“It takes more than just for the statements to stop. If someone stops doing something hurtful, we need vindication—statements that this should not have happened. That would help.”
“It takes more than just for the statements to stop. If someone stops doing something hurtful, we need vindication—statements that this should not have happened. That would help.”
says that with complex trauma like this, healing might not ever really heal. “It’s much harder to heal than single-instance trauma.”
just going to say again how impressed i am with the thoughtfulness of this jury—given how random the selection process is (and how it favors people who are disinclined to speak up), that is not a guarantee by any means
witness is dismissed, and we will hear from Michael Crouch, the mental health professional who personally treated the plaintiffs as a clinician
Farrar is the plaintiffs’ attorney handling the examination of Crouch. Basic stuff so far, establishing his credentials.
discussing compensation Crouch is receiving—says it’s just the amount he would have made had he been practicing on the days he’s been in court. Didn’t get paid by the plaintiffs for being here over the weekend, since he wouldn’t have been working anyway.
Crouch says that 90 percent of his notes from his early session with Heslin involved Alex Jones
Farrar asks why Heslin went on Megyn Kelly. "He had hoped that if he pleaded, Alex Jones would stop. He said, 'You have children, enjoy Father's Day. I can't. I don't have a son anymore.'" Crouch says that both Heslin and Lewis are good people.
Crouch testifies that Jesse Heslin, six years old, saved lives by yelling "run" to the other kids. "There are kids today who are turning sixteen who wouldn't be alive if he hadn't said run."
Farrar: "When Alex Jones says he didn't exist, he's stealing that from Neil."
Farrar: "When Alex Jones says he didn't exist, he's stealing that from Neil."
Crouch's testimony is extremely emotional as he talks about Heslin, how he didn't understand why people went after him. Says he learned that they were using his name on Infowars. Farrar plays clip of Owen Shroyer talking about Heslin, casting doubt on whether he ever held his son
we've seen Shroyer's clip at least once, feels like more, during the trial. in this context, it comes off even worse.
Farrar asks about the line from the clip, "You would remember if you held your dead kid, that's not something you'd misspeak on?" Crouch testifies that he's calling Heslin a liar and saying Jesse didn't really exist. "I watched this video and thought, 'This guy has no feelings.'"
Dr. Crouch says that after this video, he could see Neil Heslin change. He wanted to right the wrong. "How did he try to right that wrong?" "We're here today." Says he went on Megyn Kelly before suing to try to resolve it directly, but it didn't work.
Farrar asks if Jones's damage was different from the loss of Jesse. "The new injury is the loss of his own personal safety, and that there are people that believe Sandy Hook was a hoax."
Farrar: "What do you think Neil's life would look like if Alex had never been in it?"
Crouch: "I think he'd have more of a life. He'd have let people in. He'd have more balance in his life."
Crouch: "I think he'd have more of a life. He'd have let people in. He'd have more balance in his life."
Crouch, emotional. "They need to let the world know that their son lived. That he mattered. They were good parents. They wouldn't be so scared. They wouldn't have to fight the belief that Sandy Hook was a hoax. They're still protecting Jesse."
Farrar passes witness to Reynal. Reynal is soft-spoken. "Thank you for appearing here, Dr. Crouch." Suspect he will try his best to play this very carefully, Crouch is an extremely strong witness so far.
Reynal asks if Crouch has YouTube videos. Crouch says he has a Ted Talk. Reynal disagrees, says that there's also a speech. Crouch says he doesn't know, it's possible someone put a video of him speaking on YouTube.
Reynal asking Crouch about EMDR therapy, which is often used to treat PTSD. Crouch says in people who find it helpful, it can be effective very quickly. Reynal asks if PTSD can be seen in the brain through imaging, Crouch says it can, explains what it looks like and why.
Reynal brings up the DSM-5, asks if Crouch believes its definition of PTSD includes emotional assault as well as physical or sexual assault. Crouch says he thinks it does, Reynal asks if it would be helpful to look at it. Reynal now pulling something up on his laptop.
This time, Reynal remembers to show the opposing attorney the document. Farrar says he doesn't know for sure it's the DSM-5, but he'll allow it. Crouch says he doesn't know if it's the DSM either, says that this appears to be about children.
Crouch says that he thinks he's looking at a brief explanation of the DSM-5, not the DSM-5 itself. This is a baffling choice from Reynal! He could have just bought a copy on Amazon
aaaaand we're done with that part of the cross-examination. yikes. yikes yikes yikes.
Reynal asks how often Crouch has seen Heslin. Crouch says as often as once a week. Not more often than that. Asks how much he charges—$195 per session. Reynal asks what intervention he recommends, Crouch says they are doing talk therapy, did EMDR in the past
Reynal asks if Heslin can eventually heal. Crouch says he believes so, describes Alex Jones as a "logjam" preventing Heslin from healing. Reynal asks when that started. Crouch says he became an issue in 2013, and became more of one in 2018, when he started being directly attacked
Crouch says that between 2013-2018, Heslin found a way to avoid ruminating on Alex Jones, but that he hadn't moved down. Reynal says, "He had found a way to shut that down." Crouch says, "That's a symptom of trauma." Reynal says, "Isn't that healthy?" "I would suggest no."
Reynal better hope that none of the jurors have done a lot of therapy because as someone who has done a lot of therapy, this line of questioning isn't playing well for me!
Reynal: "Can you tell this jury within a reasonable degree of medical certainty how much of their emotional pain was caused by the murderer of their son, Adam Lanza, versus the talk show host Alex Jones?"
Dr. Crouch: "I think those are separate questions. The loss of a child causes grief and pain I don't think you ever get over. But when I talk about logjams—when in 2018, Heslin realized he was being targeted, that's a new injury."
Crouch says that being targeted directly is also different from the pain caused by people claiming that the shooting didn't happen at all.
Reynal passes witness back to Farrar. brief reexamination, then jury goes out for questions.
we will see what the jury thinks of that, but from my seat in the gallery, Crouch was the most effective witness of the trial so far.
Jury q's: Do you think Neil & Scarlett are interested in the money? What other ways besides this lawsuit have you suggested to help Neil cope? Did Mr. Heslin receive a PETscan to determine PTSD? Are you still treating families from Newtown from this tragedy?
Does the duration and quantity of instances impact the severity of trauma inflicted? What would matter more to Neil & Scarlett: Public/private apology or monetary compensation? How much difference has Scarlett's foundation made in the lives of other children/families?
"As a member of the trauma recovery network are you familiar with other families or first responders who have been faced with threats by people who say that Sandy Hook is a hoax?" Judge Gamble adds "or judges."
Plaintiffs’ lawyers want to let the jury go home early today rather than call a family witness. Judge Gamble says there are jury things they need to discuss anyway. Lawyer also says they won’t be calling Scarlett Lewis’s son tomorrow, only the plaintiffs, and that’ll wrap by noon
Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis will be the last witnesses for the plaintiffs. Defense will not be calling any witnesses except—perhaps—Alex Jones. Reynal says he hasn’t decided yet. Judge says he’s got till five o’clock. So this may all be over tomorrow.
witness is excused and jury is released.
judge shares a proposal with the attorneys about jury instructions. Bankston says his side loves it. Wants an instruction that even if the lawsuit inflicted damage on the family, it’s still Alex Jones’s fault because those damages were foreseeable to him because he defamed them
Judge says that if Alex Jones is called to testify tomorrow, we probably won’t close until Wednesday. Reynal has 22 minutes to decide if he will call Jones.
Alex Jones will be testifying tomorrow
tomorrow is going to be a real mess, tonally—Heslin and Lewis will give devastating testimony about their dead six year old son, and the harm they’ve suffered as a result of Alex Jones’s Sandy Hook campaign, and then Alex Jones will testify about who knows
there is at least one juror whose questions for the doctors today were along the lines of “wouldn’t an apology be more meaningful than money?”
If Jones were a different person, using his testimony to humbly apologize and express his sincere regret would be a really strong move
If Jones were a different person, using his testimony to humbly apologize and express his sincere regret would be a really strong move
I, uh, don’t foresee him actually doing that. I expect he will be somewhat charming during the examination by Reynal, and then have to make a lot of charisma saving throws under cross as Bankston tries to get under his skin
we are back in court now. Gamble notes that today is likely to be emotional and warns that if she believes a witness is performing for an audience outside the courtroom, she may cut the livestream and kick out news media (not sure if that means me or just the TV cameras)
jury is back in now and Neil Heslin, father of Jesse Lewis who was killed at age six while he was in school at Sandy Hook, takes the stand.
Heslin: "Today is very important to me. It's been a long time coming. It's the day I can face Alex Jones and hold him accountable for what he did to me. He tarnished the honor and legacy of my son."
Ball asks how Heslin feels that Jones isn't here right now. "I think it's disrespect and a cowardly act of Alex Jones not to be facing me here in this courtroom. I've been here for a week and a half and for my final testimony, Mr. Alex Jones does not have the courage to face me."
Heslin is very quiet, not sure how it plays on the stream but he's hard to hear from my seat.
Heslin: "I can't even begin to describe the last nine and a half years of hell I've had to endure because of the negligence of Alex Jones, and what he chose to peddle for his own profit and success."
Heslin: "I wish that it was true. I wish that Jesse was alive. That's not the case. He's not here with us." Heslin tearful. "I became aware of the remarks that it didn't happen, that Jesse didn't die, in 2013."
I confess that until right now it hadn't occurred to me how awful it might feel to know that some people actually believe that your son is still alive while you are grieving his loss, and how much you might wish to live in their reality instead of your own.
Heslin is closer to the jury than he is to my spot in the courtroom (and definitely to the livestream camera); I suspect they can hear him well enough
Heslin: "When it's stated that Jesse's death was faked, it's an indication that he didn't exist. He did. For six and a half years." He's tearful. Says that being here "reopens the wounds that have never really closed." "After this trial, I hope to put this behind me."
Ball puts a photo of Jesse on the monitors. Heslin says it was the last picture of him ever taken. "Jesse was six and a half years old when he was brutally murdered. He was an energetic child, happy, always willing to help people. He was a force when he came into the room."
He's talking about Jesse now, what he liked. Not gonna tweet it all, it feels too intimate. Courts are weird, that he has to perform this for the jury.
Ball asks Heslin about the Megyn Kelly interview. Asks him why he did it. "I did that interview for a couple of reasons. In hopes of reaching Alex Jones and trying to get him to stop what he was saying."
Heslin talks about how Alex is blessed to have his children. Jones's absence in the courtroom today is so glaring right now.
Ball plays the Owen Shroyer clip now. "You would remember if you held your 'dead kid,' right?" First time he's seen the clip in this courtroom—previous times it was played, he left the room.
Heslin testifies in response to the question of “will there be a clarification from Heslin.” Not gonna transcribe. He is describing the moment he held his dead son in vivid detail, what he saw when he did it.
i know the audio is bad on the stream—Heslin is a soft-spoken man. Most of the jury can hear him, and everyone in the room can understand what sentiments he is expressing. i don't think the word detail matters too much.
Ball asks Heslin if every time the lie is pushed, he has to relive everything he just told the jury—basically daring Reynal to object for leading the witness, who doesn't take the bait
Heslin says that Reynal, in his opening statement, said, "Lie to the jury, lose the jury." "I've never lied about any of this."
Heslin says that people drove by his home and he heard what sounded like gunfire in April, after the trial was put on stay because of the sham bankruptcy
Reynal objects to testimony about whether other Sandy Hook families have been threatened. Gamble says he has to state his objection, she won't make it for him. He says relevance; overruled.
Ball asks if an apology is worth more than money: "Alex Jones's apologies are worthless. Any apology is insincere, and comes too late. He continued to recklessly do his carnival-barker act to peddle his propaganda and lies. I don't know if he's even capable of a sincere apology."
(the quote is Heslin's answer, not Ball's question)
Heslin says the money has to be "a strong deterrent to get him to stop peddling these lies." This part of the case has been difficult for the plaintiffs' side to make, Heslin certainly provides the most credible testimony as to why a $150,000,000 judgment is appropriate.
Ball passes witness. Reynal begins by saying that as a father of a six-year-old, he's very very sorry. Heslin: "Thank you, god bless you and your son or your daughter." Reynal says he won't keep Heslin on the stand very long.
Reynal asks if the first time he saw Alex Jones on screen was when the Owen Shroyer report was brought to his attention in 2018. Heslin says that's correct.
Reynal: "Have you chosen to watch the rest of the broadcasts that we have in evidence, or have you chosen not to watch them?" Heslin asks him to clarify. no idea how this leads the defense anywhere good.
Heslin says he watched more Alex Jones clips on Sandy Hook after he learned of the Shroyer broadcast.
My read on this line of questioning is that he's trying to persuade the jury that, because Heslin didn't know much about Alex Jones prior to the Shroyer interview, the distress he experienced from the conspiracy theories wasn't inflicted by Jones.
Not sure that will play, given that the plaintiffs' side has focused so much on establishing that Jones was the source of the conspiracy theories, and one needn't be aware of him for his words to have caused the harm that the conspiracy theories inflicted.
Reynal asks if Heslin learned about Jones's role in the conspiracy network from another Sandy Hook parent. Heslin says "that's not true," explains where he came to understand that.
Reynal's attempting to argue that the Alex Jones-related pain he suffered began in 2017, not 2013. I just don't know how splitting those hairs will make a difference for the jury.
Reynal: "Would you accept the possibility that the hoax theory of Sandy Hook didn't originate with Alex Jones?"
Heslin: "I'm not accepting or not-accepting anything. I heard it repeated on InfoWars. It was broadcast and republicized through Alex and InfoWars."
Heslin: "I'm not accepting or not-accepting anything. I heard it repeated on InfoWars. It was broadcast and republicized through Alex and InfoWars."
Reynal says that Heslin said he had a vendetta against Alex Jones. Heslin says he never said that, and he doesn't. "Alex started this fight, I'll finish this fight." Reynal wants to play a deposition Heslin gave in January.
I get that if you have an inconsistency between a deposition and live testimony, you tend to think that you've got a place you can impeach your witness, but not sure what good that actually does with this particular witness.
Heslin did indeed use the word "vendetta" in the depo. Reynal says "a vendetta is a blood feud, right?" Heslin says he doesn't know what the word means exactly, but he doesn't have a blood feud with Alex Jones.
Reynal asks if InfoWars used his name prior to the Owen Shroyer report; Ball objects, says they didn't get all the videos they asked for so how could they know? Sustained. Reynal asks if he is aware of it happening before that, Heslin says he doesn't know.
Reynal: "Do you find it disrespectful when politicians or media pundits descend upon a mass tragedy and immediately use it to further political goals?"
Ball: "Objection, relevance, speculation, disgusting." Judge sustains on relevance, says she won't address the rest.
Ball: "Objection, relevance, speculation, disgusting." Judge sustains on relevance, says she won't address the rest.
Reynal asks Heslin if he went back on Megyn Kelly after filing the lawsuit; he says yes. Asks if he told Megyn Kelly what he wanted from it, Heslin says he probably did. Reynal asks if he recalls that he never mentioned money.
now he's asking about Heslin's therapy work. have no idea why he is keeping him on the stand with questions that are obviously fishing for something he can use. seems like the more the jury hears from Heslin, the worse it is for his case.
Heslin says, in response to a question, that he never intended to become a gun control advocate, but that he spoke and told Jesse's story. He wanted to prevent future school shootings.
Reynal now questioning him about his testimony in congress. This line of questioning might make sense if the jury could consider the argument that Heslin made himself a public figure by taking on a political role, but they can't because Jones already lost the case
maybe Reynal just wants to keep Heslin on the stand long enough that Jones doesn't get called till after lunch
Reynal passes witness. Ball goes after a line of questioning from Reynal, suggesting that Heslin was never actually harrassed because the detective who testified on day one didn't file a police report. Ball says "Detective Dan Jewiss RETIRED A YEAR AGO, is that correct?" it is.
And Heslin is done, we are on break. Jury goes off to write down questions. Gamble has things to discuss with the attorneys.
Jury Q’s: “is the amount of $$ meant to prevent Alex being in business, or do you hope he can still operate having learned a lesson?”
“The defense attempted to put the words ‘blood feud’ in your mouth. Is this reckless given your history with the defense?”
“The defense attempted to put the words ‘blood feud’ in your mouth. Is this reckless given your history with the defense?”
Q’s about forgiveness for Lanza and Jones, won’t be asked. Q’s about money won’t be asked because Heslin is not allowed to talk about his plans to donate the money to charity.
On if the dollar amount is meant to drive Jones off the air: “i hope he can still operate. I hope he takes this as a learning experience.”
Jury Q: did you ever try to contact Mr. Jones directly?
Heslin: no I did not
Q: is gun control different from taking away guns, as an argument?
Heslin: that’s a very good question. I believe that’s a true statement.
Heslin: no I did not
Q: is gun control different from taking away guns, as an argument?
Heslin: that’s a very good question. I believe that’s a true statement.
Q: on “blood feud” (typed above)
Heslin: I think it was a poor choice of words in my deposition. I should have had a better choice of words. I apologize for that. It was a particularly long night. My only business is to settle this with Alex Jones through legal proceedings.
Heslin: I think it was a poor choice of words in my deposition. I should have had a better choice of words. I apologize for that. It was a particularly long night. My only business is to settle this with Alex Jones through legal proceedings.
Notable that Heslin, when asked if he thought the defense put him at risk by attempting to read a word he used in depo literally, took responsibility for using the wrong word instead.
Q: have you saved any copies of written threats shared with you?
Heslin: I’m not a big email person or computer person. I probably should have categorized them but the easiest thing to do when you get them is to push them away and ignore them.
Heslin: I’m not a big email person or computer person. I probably should have categorized them but the easiest thing to do when you get them is to push them away and ignore them.
The door is open a crack so the AC in the hall is louder right now, makes hearing Heslin from the side of the courtroom I’m on hard to hear
Q: is there a dollar amount that would bring closure?
A: It’s not about closure. The monetary amount is about preventing Alex Jones and people in the future from doing what was done to me and my family, it can’t be a slap on the wrist. It can’t be like a speeding ticket
A: It’s not about closure. The monetary amount is about preventing Alex Jones and people in the future from doing what was done to me and my family, it can’t be a slap on the wrist. It can’t be like a speeding ticket
Scarlett Lewis, Jesse’s mom, takes the stand.
Lewis testifies that she became aware of Sandy Hook conspiracy theories right after her son had been murdered
Lewis is shown the Wolfgang Halbig photo of kids at the Super Bowl that identifies another child as her dead son Jesse. “It was deeply unsettling. What people were saying about the shooting, that these children were actually the victims alive and older.”
Lewis: “We had a wake for Jesse at a local funeral home. I remember looking up and seeing the Hell’s Angels there. I was in shock. Then I found out that they were there to keep the peace, which was surreal to me, to make sure there wasn’t a disturbance at the wake.”
Ball suggests that the Hell’s Angels were there to confront Sandy Hook truthers. I believe they may have been there to stop Fred Phelps’ funeral protests, which wasn’t about truther-ism but more general hatred and attention-seeking
more about Phelps’s protests around Sandy Hook washingtonpost.com/national/on-fa…
Ball reads an email from Wolfgang Halbig insisting that Neil Heslin wasn’t Jesse’s dad, demanding a birth certificate. Very personal and unsettling stuff in the email, she says.
Ball asks how this email makes Lewis feel about her own safety. "It makes me feel compromised. You can look at this email and see that they have done research on me. They have people they've dragged out from my past. It's deeply unsettling to your very core."
Lewis says that the email from Halbig claims that she attended a concert in 1984, when she was in high school. It doesn't give her name, it gives her brothers' names. Says it makes her feel victimized. "It's not just me, it's not just my son. It's interesting, the ripple effect."
Halbig sent Lewis an email with 51 questions in it. She testifies that she received questions like that from Halbig frequently. Says it made her feel unsafe. “Does it make you relive the moments surrounding his murder?” “Yes.”
Lewis: “Losing a child is like losing a limb. I’ve heard of phantom pain, because you should have it. That’s how I compare losing a child—he should be here but he’s not. But it’s something you can process. The continuous element of fear [from the letters] keeps me from healing."
Ball: “We’ve heard briefly that you own a gun at your house. Is that because of the safety fears that you have?”
Lewis: “Yes. I’m a single mother and responsible for the safety of both of my boys. And I just want to keep them safe. I’m going to keep my surviving son safe.”
Lewis: “Yes. I’m a single mother and responsible for the safety of both of my boys. And I just want to keep them safe. I’m going to keep my surviving son safe.”
Ball wants to introduce audio of one of the death threats into the record. Reynal objects, Ball responds that it’s for demonstrative purposes. Judge asks how long it is. “Four to eight seconds.” Judge allows it, with conditions.
the death threat is directed at a different family, but says that the recipient will rot in hell, that death is coming soon, that she is going to die. Lewis says that she understood the threats to be against all of the Sandy Hook families.
Judge calls a lunch break. Back at 130.
Alex is at the courthouse now, says that this is all the democrats’ fault. Playing to the local crowd, invokes Rick Perry and Tom Delay as previous victims. otherwise you’ve probably heard most of this before from him
Did my best to understand the attorneys in this case texasmonthly.com/news-politics/…
also just to be clear, while Jones is in the courtroom now, when we return from break it will still be direct examination of Scarlett Lewis, followed by cross, re, and jury questions before Jones testifies. Hard to ETA but would guess maybe 3-3:30CT for him
We are back. Jury not here. Ball informs the judge that during Heslin’s testimony, Jones was on the air “defaming” Heslin. Playing the clip for judge to review now, as Ball wants the jury to see it.
Gamble tells Jones to spit out his gum; Jones says he isn’t chewing gum, he had a tooth pulled last week and it hurts. Offers to show it to the judge. “I don’t need to see the inside of your mouth.” Jones opens his mouth to show it to her anyway. “Sit down,” she tells him.
Reynal objects on the grounds that he didn’t have time to review it. Gamble overrules, since the clip was just recorded, says that’s as much notice as possible in this situation.
If Alex is showing his big open mouth to the judge within a few minutes of being in the courtroom it is probably safe to say his testimony is gonna be a show
don’t be surprised if the livestream is cut while he’s on the stand.
Lewis back on the stand. Ball asks if she’s pleased that she finally gets to look Alex Jones in the eye. She says yes.
Lewis testifies about Jesse as a baby. Talks about his personality. There's a photo of Jesse on the monitors, including the one on the defense table. It's maybe two feet from Jones's face.
Lewis talks about Jesse's heroism saving his classmates' lives. Ball: "How does it feel to tell this man to his face Jesse's story?"
Lewis directly addresses Jones. "You're saying that I'm an actress, that I'm deep state, this week." Jones shakes his head. "You are. This week."
Lewis directly addresses Jones. "You're saying that I'm an actress, that I'm deep state, this week." Jones shakes his head. "You are. This week."
Lewis: "Jesse was real. I am a real mom. There are records of Jesse's birth. There's nothing you could have found that I'm deep state. I know you know that—that's the problem. And you keep saying it. Why? For money? Because you've made a lot of money while you've said it."
Lewis: "I know you believe me. And you're going to leave this courthouse and do it again." Jones shakes his head. "You're saying no, but you just did it."
Ball asks Lewis how it affects her when Jones attacks Heslin. "He's the father of my son. We're bonded forever through Jesse's spirit." Turns to Jones. "Do you have empathy? I was looking for some caring. I did not see it. Do you?"
Ball asks if it hurts her to hear that she's being controlled, that she's an actor. Lewis is not really interested in the specific question—she wants to talk to Alex Jones right now.
Ball introduces the clip from today's show. Reynal objects again, Gamble overrules. Instructs Ball to establish more about this video. He asks if she's aware that it was recorded after Heslin's testimony. Gamble admits.
Jury is watching Alex Jones attack Heslin on his show this morning, an hour ago. Hard to read the jury's faces, but they are all paying close attention to the clip.
Ball asks how it makes her feel that this was happening during Jesse's father's testimony. "It's horrific. Horrific. Horrific." she stares at Jones, Ball lets the moment linger.
Ball asks Lewis how Jones's actions have affected her memories of Jesse. She addresses him. "To come on again and say that Jesse never existed, that it was a hoax—that it was a hoax—I know there are hoaxes that are out there. But this was an incredible real event. I lived it."
"Having a six-year-old son shot in the forehead in his classroom is unbearable. You don't think you're going to survive. But there are people who have. And then to have someone on top of that perpetuate a lie that it was a hoax, that it didnt happen. Do you think I'm an actress?"
Jones answers the question ("No, I don't think you're an actress") and Gamble shuts him down, tells him it's not his turn to speak.
my understanding from covering this case over the past few years is that Scarlett Lewis has wanted the opportunity to make Alex Jones listen to her for a very long time. I can't imagine how meaningful this moment is to her right now.
Lewis remembers a lot of Jones's specific comments on his show over the years, even remembers his intonation in delivering some of the lines. Very compelling when reminding him (and the jury) things that he said and how they affected her.
Lewis says Jesse wrote words on a kitchen chalkboard. "Alex, I want you to hear this too. 'Nurturing, Healing, Love,'" she says he wrote phonetically, since he was six years old and was just learning to write. Says she believes Jesse left it as a message of comfort before he died
Lewis says that if Adam Lanza were solely responsible for what happened, it wouldn’t have happened to other people before, and it wouldn’t have happened since. She’s explaining what her foundation does. Occasionally addresses Jones directly, occasionally addresses the jury
Lewis says that the safety of our children is “our responsibility,” addresses Reynal, says “including your six-year-old”
Ball plays a video about what Lewis’s organization does; Reynal objects, which he has done previously without the jury present, to this video. It’s overruled.
Lewis: “I believe we can get out of any situation by choosing love. You are spreading lies. There is a truth, and I believe you know it. I feel like we are at odds with our missions. I’m trying to save lives. You’re trying to say it didn’t happen.”
Lewis: “Alex has been asked to stop. He’s still doing it. When you should be in here, you’ve been on your show. You’re not going to stop. I don’t think my pleading with you up here is going to get you to stop. And all of the damaged you’ve caused, there has to be accountability.”
Lewis: “it seems so incredible to me that we have to punish you to get you to stop lying. It’s surreal what’s happened.”
Lewis: “in some way, you’ve impacted nearly every day of my life almost since Jesse’s murder. I’m so relieved this day is here. I’m grateful I got to say all this to you. That I got to speak my truth. I’m really looking forward to this being over so I can get back to healing.”
Reynal begins cross, says he hopes she can see the good in the questions he’s about to ask.
Reynal asks Lewis about EMDR therapy, Lewis asks if they should explain what that is, he does. He says she saw a tunnel of light, she says she doesn’t remember, can he read it in her book. He says she saw children ascend to heaven, and a dark figure. Was that Adam Lanza? “Yes”
Now we are on to Obama coming to town, about Lewis meeting the Dalai Lama. Mentions that both of them hugged her. Mostly just narrating pieces of her book to her.
Lewis’s book was published in October 2013. “Would you agree with me in the book you didn’t discuss Alex Jones?” She says no, clarified that she means she didn’t discuss him, not that she wouldn’t agree.
same basic line of question from Heslin, about whether it was worse after the Megyn Kelly interview, whether she watched all of the exhibits in the case. She says she hasn’t. He asks if watching them would have been a good way to heal. Ball objects.
Gamble strikes. Reynal switches gears: “you testified about a picture of the super bowl with the names of victims on top of the photo. Is your basis for saying that Infowars pushed that picture that someone told you?”
Lewis: “I know infowars promoted the person who shared it.”
Lewis: “I know infowars promoted the person who shared it.”
Reynal asks if she saw the full show from this morning that the clip came from. She says she saw just the clip when her son showed it to her. Reynal doesn’t go anywhere else with this, at least not yet.
Fairly scattershot cross examination by Reynal. Not tweeting every Q because he seems like he’s fishing again. Currently asking her how much she’s spent on therapy since Sandy Hook, presumably because he wants the jury to hear her say a number smaller than $150,000,000
She guesses $50,000. He would love for the jury to be thinking about these costs and only these costs when awarding compensatory damages. this is about as good a play from Reynal as he has available to him
Reynal asks her about speaking fees and media presence. She clarifies that 100 percent of her fees collected for speaking and her books go directly to the organization. Reynal says “the organization does pay you,” Lewis says she is a human being and needs to make a living.
Reynal passes witness. Ball says “it wouldn’t make a lot of sense to put that man in your book, would it?” “No.” “A book about healing.” “Yes.” “I hope that can begin today.”
Breaking for jury to write their questions.
Back in now. Jury Q’s being read
Reynal objects to Q about whether Lewis believes infowars has a first amendment right to say whatever it wants about Sandy Hook. Gamble notices he is chewing gum again, goes on a rant about how courts are serious and our society is too casual. Decides to think more about the Q
gamble is inclined to allow the first amendment question but hasn’t decided; notes that the objection coming from Reynal is less persuasive, finally decides not to ask it
Jury and Lewis to return to courtroom
Q: would you include Alex Jones and his family in the choose love movement if he was inclined to join?
A: absolutely. Absolutely.
A: absolutely. Absolutely.
Q: would you forgive Alex Jones if he apologized, compensated, and stopped?
A: I’m so glad you asked. I’ve said I forgive Alex. And Adam Lanza. But forgiveness becomes a process. Doesn’t mean everything is okay. Depending who you are, you might have to do it every day
A: I’m so glad you asked. I’ve said I forgive Alex. And Adam Lanza. But forgiveness becomes a process. Doesn’t mean everything is okay. Depending who you are, you might have to do it every day
Lewis has interesting things to say about forgiveness and accountability, and how the former does not preclude the latter
She is a genuinely remarkable witness in this case, very impressive all day from her.
Jury excused while Reynal makes a motion. Defendants present a motion for directed verdict. “It is our position that plaintiffs IIED claim fails as a matter of law.” Says its predicated by statements made by Jones on the air, and under texas law shouldn’t go forth.
Says that the statements from Owen Shroyer were not defamatory. Says there is no evidence Heslin suffered from his reputation damage. Bankston responds, says that the appellate court weighed this already. A lawyer can probably explain the rest better than I can
Judge Gamble denies the motion.
Now debating whether Reynal can show more of the clip from this morning’s show, which he says was cut to be misleading. Judge says the lawyers didn’t mislead the jury, and Lewis only testified about how it made her feel.
Judge: “I have a hard time believing anything that was said on the show about the trial will help the jury do its job.” Judge admonishes Jones for standing up, says he will give him a minute to make his suggestions to Reynal if he wants one.
No idea what Alex said, he’s closer to the livestream camera than he is to me right now
Jury to return, Alex will testify
Alex Jones swears to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth
Jones apologizes to the plaintiffs, says that the video they showed this morning was out of context. He’s being very Alex Jones about it all
Jones is extremely agitated when answering questions such as "did you go to high school here in Austin"
this is Alex's standard bio stuff. He's a bit more calm talking about using cable access equipment in the 90's. allowed Reynal to finish his last question before answering it.
Alex brags about being 21 and getting a hundred calls on the public access show his first night. says the show was less political and "conspiratorial" than it is now.
Reynal compares the original show to Wayne's World, Alex likes that comparison. talks about winning Best of Austin awards from the Austin Chronicle back in the '90s
Alex describes his great childhood affection for Larry King
Alex explains what syndication is to the jury. Reynal asks how many radio stations he was on. Alex says 30-40 at first, then over 200. He said "left-wing" things like being anti-war, and when 9/11 came around "and i had questions," he lost 70 affiliates all at once
Alex says "I'm not lying like the corporate media on purpose, that's the big difference." so far we are mostly Alex boilerplate as I know it
i suspect that direct examination will be fairly tepid, except for objections. cross will be much more interesting. I expect it to be brief and explosive.
if you are fascinated by someone boasting about how awesome they were in the early '00s, this is compelling stuff
getting Jones to tell his story in his own words and steer as far away from Sandy Hook as possible makes sense. Reynal told me yesterday that his goal was for the jury to see more than the "cardboard cutout" of Jones they've gotten so far
Jones notes that "Bill Maher called for depopulation last saturday night," seems to believe that Maher has more power than he does
Jones likes to talk about how popular he was with the left-wing, says he got big awards "from the big liberal democrat channels." this is not all strictly true, but i guess it is possible he believes it about himself
Reynal asks why his voice sounds the way it does. He says it was at two demonstrations, then Bankston objects for relevance. Reynal says it's so he can understand who his client is. Gamble sustains the objection.
Jones is asked how many employees the NYT has. Bankston objects, Gamble says he can only answer if he has direct knowledge. Reynal, not wanting to put his client in danger, rephrases the question before Jones decides he does have direct knowledge
Bill Maher's name comes up a couple more times now. Still think Batman has him beat in this trial.
i think Jones's testimony would be more effective for the jury at .90 speed
Jones says InfoWars is mostly a call-in show where people weigh in on whether Nancy Pelosi should go to Taiwan. (He said he thinks she should.)
Jones says he believes Uvalde happened, but that he was "timid" in talking about it. Turns to the jury to talk about inconsistencies in the story. Taking credit for any situation where doubting the initial or official story might have correct is a longstanding Jones tradition.
(Jones has previously claimed the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the Reichstag Fire as things he'd have gotten right.)
Jones says he tells his producers now not to touch stories on 4chan and 8chan, it's "the kiss of death." A separate trial involving a separate plaintiff will happen later this year, where an Infowars employee took a photo from 4chan and misidentified it as the Parkland shooter
Jones says he's trying to segue out of politics. "We have to change individuals, kind of like Scarlett was saying." Again, if this were slowed down by like 20 percent it might feel less like a monologue from a talk show host
Reynal agrees. "Let's slow down a little bit." Asks how his typical day shapes up.
Jones says he sells "books and films and other things" rather than take sponsorships. supplements are the vast majority of the income stream for the company, books and DVDs are not.
Reynal asks if he appears on other people's shows. Jones says thousands. cites Howard Stern, Joe Rogan, The View, Piers Morgan, "20-30" BBC shows, etc, etc, etc. talks about how long he's been friends with Rogan. not sure why this is good for his case.
Jones, unable to resist answering the question Bankston objected to, tells the jury "I have a torn larynx, that's why my voice is like that" while pouring water
Reynal says that InfoWars puts out 3,120 hours of programming a year. Jones says that's about right. Will eventually ask how many of those hours were devoted to Sandy Hook. Maybe this is a very compelling argument to the jury, but the defense has made it a key to the whole case
Judge Gamble passes Alex Jones, who has been coughing a lot, a lozenge, says it's an exception to the food in the courtroom rule.
Reynal asks if he tells the other hosts what to cover. "We're starting to!" Jones laughs. says that's never been the practice before, but he's more careful. "Not just of what we've done wrong, but also how people misrepresent what we've done."
Jones: "We're more like the op-ed page of the newspaper than like the investigative journal or something. or we're like the funny papers as well. we've got really serious stuff we do where we say 'here's the documents, here's what they said.'"
Jones often argues that he's all things to all people, and he can have all of his cake and eat all of it too. they're not trying to tell you serious investigative news except when they are, just giving opinions unless you believe them, just making jokes if it will cause problems
Jones turns to the jury, talking about the clip from earlier. says "I hope you get to see the real clip, because then you'll understand everything else that's been going on."
Jones now selling supplements from the witness stand
"We buy our PQQ from the Japanese! It's the very best."
guys, i'm tired
just, like, imagining being one of the plaintiffs and having to hear this in court right now. i dunno. seems not great.
Jones coughs again, says, "don't worry, it's not covid, just a torn larynx." keeping my mask on anyhow.
going through gross sales figures for the infowars stores. Reynal asks how much is profit. "It depends what product it is. Some products make 20 percent, some make 60 percent." Supplements have the highest markup.
i suspect there aren't more objections because the plaintiffs don't want the jury to think that they're trying to prevent Alex from getting to say his piece, and nothing he is saying is a problem for them, it's mostly just tacky
Jones testifies that he doesn't have an email address, that he got rid of it ten years ago. this is important—at a hearing in March, a discovery document was produced that contradicts this. Bankston says he has questions that need to be discussed outside the presence of the jury.
the redacted document was a page shorter than the original doc. plaintiffs' attorneys noticed this and eventually got the longer version of the doc, which was an email sent to Alex Jones's email address. Bankston accused the attorney at the time (Blott) of evidence tampering
Bankston's first objection was about Jones's net worth and discovery, which Jones wasn't to discuss during testimony but decided to anyway. Second is about the email issue. Bankston moves for sanctions against both Jones and Reynal.
Reynal tells the judge that Jones's testimony wasn't because of his questions. Gamble addresses Jones directly. "What did you attorney tell you about your testimony today? Were you instructed that there were some things you could not testify about?"
Jones says yes, Gamble asks what they were. Jones says he's trying to remember—don't talk about free speech, don't say I'm innocent. Gamble: "So you don't remember." Jones argues, Gamble tells him to stop talking.
Jones stumbles and fumbles. Judge reminds Bankston that it is his responsibility to prepare his client. Reynal: "I know that it is my obligation to communicate your honor's orders. Beyond that... I think that's all I need to say."
(Reynal is saying that he can't control what Alex Jones does on the stand.) Bankston wants sanctions for both Reynal and Jones.
Reynal tries to explain his position, that the jury needs this information for Jones. Gamble says "the time for that was during discovery, when Mr. Jones failed to fully participate." Jones didn't present a defense, so he doesn't get to make a defense.
Gamble tells Bankston he has to write down his motion for sanctions, then they'll take them up after trial. That might be during deliberation, might be later in August. "Assume that will be when I have time."
Gamble addresses Jones. "You may not say to this jury that you complied with discovery. That is not true. You may not tell the jury that you are bankrupt. That is also not true. You may have *filed* for bankruptcy. That doesn't make a person bankrupt."
Gamble: "It seems absurd to tell you again that you must tell the truth when you testify, but here I am: You must tell the truth when you testify." Reminds him that this is not his show. He's not allowed asides. He is to answer the questions he has been asked.
Gamble: "You believe everything you say is true. Your beliefs do not make it true. It does not protect you. You are under oath—that means things must actually be true when you say them—don't talk—you understand the instructions."
Jones: "Yes."
Jones: "Yes."
Alex Jones is on extremely thin ice here.
he has learned how to respond to questions with just the word "yes."
Reynal asks what questions he's allowed to ask, if he can talk about Jones's education and background to illustrate the low degree of culpability he believes Infowars has. Gamble: "So Mr. Jones was too ignorant to know he was lying, is that your defense?"
Gamble says that he can ask the same sort of questions he asked Daria Karpova, and to be very very careful.
Reynal asks if Jones can say something directly to the judge. Gamble: "I am not typically in the practice of hearing from parties when they are not on the stand." Gamble doesn't want to hear from him. It's Reynal's job to talk to Alex Jones, not hers.
it appears that there is a real GambleHive forming on the internet right now
Jones is outside yelling at a bunch of cameras about tyranny and the corporate media, monologuing about the judge. you can probably see clips from other reporters. @JohnMoritz18 asks him what happened to his cough, which is the best question of the day IMO
I didn’t witness the full exchange between Jones and Lewis/Heslin but @salihabayrak_ and @JohnMoritz18 did—they shook his hand and he apologized to them, said “I failed your son.” Bankston asked if he would apologize for calling Heslin “slow” as well, and things got heated
Jones characterized this for the cameras outside the courthouse as a lovely moment between himself and the appreciative parents that Bankston ruined, which is not exactly consistent with the events as I understand them. Heslin/Lewis seemed more polite and gracious than anything
Back in court for what’s likely the last day of the first Alex Jones/Sandy Hook trial. Day should start with the continued direct examination of Alex Jones, then proceed to closing arguments.
Jones is back on the stand. Reynal starts by asking him to explain what "Truthers" are. Jones says it started with the Kennedy assassination, and officially got its name after 9/11.
(also to clarify, there is another trial involving a Sandy Hook parent coming in Austin after this, as well as one in Connecticut represented by different attorneys. Additionally, there is a trial in Texas involving someone misidentified by InfoWars as the Parkland shooter.)
(all of these cases have been defaulted. All trials will be damages trials, not liability trials.)
Jones is talking about his impeccable sources, and says he was misled by a source who was never wrong who told him Sandy Hook was staged, and he believed him because of his sterling credentials.
Jones says he drew the line on 9/11 at the idea that "space-based weapons" were used to destroy the towers, that seemed "crazy" to him.
Jones talks about Wolfgang Halbig. "He seemed credible when I saw what he first started saying." When he decided Halbig wasn't credible, he says he started to believe that Sandy Hook did actually happen.
When he started getting angry letters from Halbig, "That's when I started to think I might have made a mistake," Jones says, then after a beat, adds, "unintentionally."
Jones is a bit calmer and slower in answering his questions today, is not giving quite the same carnival barker performance he did yesterday
Reynal is going year-by-year through InfoWars' coverage of Sandy Hook. We're onto 2013 so far. This was the same technique he used in questioning Daria Karpova
Jones says his show hosted a "discussion" of what happened, that he did not have firm opinions about the events. Takes credit for recognzing the Soviet-era Operation Gladio program as a false flag
Jones also likes to claim the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the Reichstag Fire as false flags that, had he been on the air, he would have correctly identified as false flags.
quick conference to discuss whether Jones is allowed to review his handwritten notes about how much coverage InfoWars gave to Sandy Hook in 2013. He is not. Somehow manages to conjure the number from memory
Now we're onto 2014. Reynal asks Jones what else was going on in his life. Jones says "my family was falling apart—" and Bankston objects on relevance. Jones slips out a "I was getting divorced" before the judge sustains the objection.
Jones begins a rant about how the media is out to get him; Bankston objects, Gamble sustains, reminds him to just answer the fucking question
we're onto 2015. Reynal says that in the middle of 2015, InfoWars stopped covering Sandy Hook. Says he stopped because "Halbig started saying that I was involved in Sandy Hook because I stopped having him on." Says he thought there was a good chance he wasn't right anymore.
Jones characterizes Dan Bidondi as "a part-time reporter" hired as "a Howard Stern character" for six months but it didn't work out. Said he would go off on his own and sometimes say he worked for InfoWars. They were proud of some of it and not proud of others.
again, Jones loves having his cake and eating it too. Bidondi didn't work for him, but he had Infowars gear, and sometimes Jones was proud of what he did; when he wasn't proud of what Bidondi did, then he was just a rogue actor
Jones talking about the 2016 election. "I was popular with populists everywhere," says the right thought he was leftwing, the left thought he was rightwing. He liked Trump as an outsider and "got thrown into the deep end of the weaponization of politics."
Reynal asks about Hillary Clinton. Jones rants about what the media was saying about him. Bankston objects, sustained. Judge explains what "hearsay" is, which appears to have blown Alex's mind
Jones starts talking about a "huge ad buy" Clinton made. objection for speculation, sustained. Says "I read there was a $27 million ad buy," same objection. Gamble explains again, like you would a child, what hearsay is. "If you didn't say it, even if you read it, it's hearsay."
Alex starts ranting about how people came up to him in the supermarket that made him feel bad. Bankston objects for hearsay and non-responsive. Sustained.
clear takeaway here: Jones didn't like talking about Sandy Hook by 2015 and 2016, and feels like people were being very unfair to him for making him the Sandy Hook truther guy. He talked about all sorts of other things. "It's less than 1/10th of 1 percent."
we are on to the Megyn Kelly-bashing part of the testimony
Jones says he went on her show because he was told he'd be allowed to say Sandy Hook happened and he'd be able to apologize to the families, and that didn't happen. Worth remembering here that Alex Jones has his own platform on which he could have done that too
Alex Jones is media savvy and clearly understands the difference between the credibility of mainstream news media and what he does. He invokes it constantly—"this is from the BBC, not something I pulled off ZeroHedge!" or whatever—when it is convenient to him
Jones needs a mainstream outlet as a foil before he can do anything (it's why he talks to the cameras outside the courthouse every day). In order to say "Sandy Hook happened," he needed to be saying it as a refutation of the deceptive blablablah of Megyn Kelly
the clip we are watching now is just Alex saying "Sandy Hook happened but also I was still right when I said that it didn't," just classic Alex stuff
this clip is still going, Jones spouting a bunch of stuff that is sometimes true, sometimes not true, sometimes kinda true but he misunderstands what he read, claiming that he's always right. now he's talking (in the clip) about the "dinosaur media," claims credit for the term
as the clip goes on, Alex talks about how "there were anomalies" in Sandy Hook and "the government is famous for staging things." this is the segment he's showing to prove that the media is full of shit when they say he denied Sandy Hook happened
he's now showing a cartoon someone drew where a host of rightwing conspiracy figures crash down to earth in comets, clearly compelling stuff for the jury
in the clip, Alex praises ZeroHedge for being great reporters, specifically shouts out pseudonymous author "ZeroPointNow," the source of the story in the Owen Shroyer broadcast that's at the heart of this case. genuinely shocking that his defense put that in front of the jury!!!
who knows exactly what the jury is focused on, but I strongly suspect that ZeroPointNow, who has been used during the first week as an example of the nadir of InfoWars's irresponsible approach to broadcasting, is lodged in their minds
in the clip, Jones said "we should get him to write for us." Last week, plaintiffs' attorneys strongly suggested that ZeroPointNow might have been an InfoWars staffer laundering theories anonymously so they could put them on the air by claiming they were "out there"
i am very sorry that i know so much about "zeropointnow" and am interested in some sort of electroshock therapy to make me forget as soon as this trial is over
now Alex, in the clip, is questioning whether Sandy Hook happened again. Remember that this is a defense clip that he put on to prove that the MSM lies about whether he questions Sandy Hook happened.
"Why won't they report on what I'm actually saying?" the answer is because it's absolutely incoherent and contains multiple self-contradictory sentiments, and every time he starts talking about Sandy Hook he at least half-convinces himself it never happened
Reynal: "Why haven't you fired Owen Shroyer?"
Jones: "Because I asked him why he did the clip and he said he wasn't questioning what happened, he was questioning Megyn Kelly."
Jones: "Because I asked him why he did the clip and he said he wasn't questioning what happened, he was questioning Megyn Kelly."
Jones says that Owen made an oversight in covering Sandy Hook, doesn't think he intentionally did it. "Owen's a really classy guy, I know he's sorry." When asked if he regretted the clip on the stand last week, he said that he did—because it did serious damage to his career
Jones denies that he made money off of his Sandy Hook coverage. No idea how he could prove that it lost him money, given how much money he made 2015-2018.
Jones complaining about edited video, says "they steal your identity" and "build a demon out of bad things you said"
remember that one of the key pieces of evidence is video where two speakers were cut off in mid-sentence to completely reverse the meaning of what they said
remember that one of the key pieces of evidence is video where two speakers were cut off in mid-sentence to completely reverse the meaning of what they said
Jones talking about Uvalde now, starts talking about something in Florida. Bankston objects for nonresponsive. sustained. "What was the question?" "What do you think happened at Sandy Hook?"
Jones addresses the jury. "I'm trying to challenge the military industrial complex. I'm tying to challenge the forces I believe are trying to take over our country. I want people to investigate things for themselves. I'm trying to promote American values, the first amendment."
Reynal asks Jones what he's proud of in his career. He cites WMDs in Iraq, claims to have been the first to expose Jeffrey Epstein. He's proud "we have inspired a lot of independent journalists who are doing great work. We've inspired more great people than bad people."
Jones says he's proud he got to shake hands with Neil and Scarlett yesterday. Bankston objects, sustained. Reynal passes witness. Bankston to cross
Bankston: "Are you taking this trial seriously? Are you approaching it in good faith?"
Jones: "Absolutely."
Bankston says that in truth Jones wants the world to believe that Judge Gamble is rigging the court proceeding so that a "literal script" is being followed
Jones: "Absolutely."
Bankston says that in truth Jones wants the world to believe that Judge Gamble is rigging the court proceeding so that a "literal script" is being followed
Jones says "no," he believes he's innocent, he believes this is America, etc. same stuff he's been saying on the show. Bankston introduces a video clip from Friday's show that we will see after the jury break that directly contradicts that
Bankston told me yesterday that his cross examination would be short and include an "atomic bomb." I suspect that this is it.
Infowars host (and one-time Jones lawyer in this very case) Robert Barnes is on the screen for the clip
Barnes says, "The judge is rigging the court proceedings and the script—a literal script—is being followed." Reynal starts to object, then sits down. "No, that is what he said," he accepts.
we may have nine different breaks for the jury for Bankston to introduce video clips that reflect Jones's feelings about this trial
we'll be back shortly. jury is still out. Judge Gamble is probably reviewing the nine(?) clips Bankston wants to introduce, which are likely to all be comments InfoWars about the trial itself over the past week or so
Reynal has airpods and could watch the clip on Bankston's laptop; Bankston doesn't want him connecting to the machine like that. If Reynal wants to review clips, he either needs wired headphones or to object and make the jury leave the room each time. Petty, but effective.
Bankston plays the video. Jones watches it. "That man's name is Robert Barnes?" "Yes." "That's InfoWars?" "Yes." "He was hosting the show?" "Yes."
Bankston says that Jones has been broadcasting a picture of the judge on fire. Reynal objects. Jones answers anyway. "No."
Bankston moves to introduce into evidence an image from InfoWars of Lady Justice on fire, with Gamble's face behind it. Gamble asks to see it, then chuckles. It's admitted into evidence.
Bankston: "One of the things you've been talking about recently on the show is your allegation that government officials are aiding in pedophilia and sex trafficking."
"You mean like Epstein and the Clintons?"
"Is that a yes?"
"Yes."
"You mean like Epstein and the Clintons?"
"Is that a yes?"
"Yes."
Bankston asks if Alex Jones has been connecting Judge Gamble to child traffickers and pedophilia. Jones says, "No, that's not what I'm saying." Bankston moves to introduce a clip from Thursday's show. Reynal found wired headphones to review the clip.
Reynal will watch the clip on Bankston's laptop, presumably fantasizing about being on a beach somewhere and not attempting to defend whatever Alex Jones said on the show.
Reynal objects that it is improper impeachment because it's on a collateral matter. Overruled.
Clip: "Judge Maya Gamble comes from CPS, which has been exposed for human trafficking and working with pedophiles."
Bankston: That's what you mean by 'taking this seriously?'
Jones: it's serious as cancer.
Jones demands the full clip, Bankston/Gamble explain how court works.
Bankston: That's what you mean by 'taking this seriously?'
Jones: it's serious as cancer.
Jones demands the full clip, Bankston/Gamble explain how court works.
Jones insists that it's all out of context, he needs the full clip. Bankston: "You say that you're taking this trial seriously. You're telling the world that someone rigged the court and picked these jurors, 'who don't know what planet they're on.'"
Bankston introduces a video of Jones bashing the jury to be played for the jury
Reynal watches the clip, presumably imagining that he's chilling by the lake with his family
Reynal will object on whatever grounds, will be overruled
Video clip is of Jones: "A lot of people are awake to the new world order, but they're experts in leftist jurisdictions in sending out jury summons, and hitting—let's just say this—extremely blue collar folks. Half that jury panel does not know who I am. They've said that."
"In blue city bubbles, people do not know what planet they are on."
Just to be clear, during the jury selection process, which included 112 or more people, only 10 raised their hands when asked if they didn't know who Alex Jones was. Everyone on the jury was present for that, obviously.
Bankston says that Jones has been on his show pretty much every day last week. Jones says he did an hour here or there, and taped some as well. Bankston: "You haven't been coughing on your show, have you?"
Jones explains that he has a "cough" button for when he's on the air
Bankston asks if Jones said that the Boston bombing was fake. Asks if the Gabby Giffords shooting was a government mind control operation. Asks if he said the Sutherland Springs shooting was an antifa false flag. Asks about OK City bombing. "Absolutely that was."
Asks about Parkland. Jones says he didn't call them crisis actors, but noted that the drama club was involved and had the necessary skills. Bankston asks if he remembers saying Parkland was a false flag engineered to start a civil war. "I said it could be."
Asks about Vegas. Jones says lots of people question Vegas. Gamble reminds him that his job is to answer questions. "I believe that it should be investigated."
"Is there a mass bombing that has occurred in America in the past 15 years that you have not said was a false flag?" Jones rants, Bankston objects, sustained. Asks again.
"No." Bankston says okay.
"No." Bankston says okay.
watching a video of Jones talking about staged events. he calls Sandy Hook "synthetic."
Bankston asks about Sandy Hook truther Jim Fetzer. Says he came to believe Fetzer was unreliable in 2015. Bankston: "By 2015, you claimed you put a ban on Sandy Hook stuff. You just testified to that?" says that by then, Jones knew Fetzer was not well. He says yes.
Bankston asks if Jones saw InfoWars corporate rep Brittany Paz's testimony that InfoWars used his material when the company knew he was not credible. Jones says the corporate rep was incorrect, they just hired her, she didn't know everything (her role is to know everything)
Bankston asks about Wolfgang Halbig, brings up Paz's testimony, where she says they received emails from 2014 they thanked Halbig for even though they "knew he was crazy."
Bankston says that Jones knew Halbig was crazy by 2015, so we shouldn't see anything from him after that. Jones says he doesn't remember the exact date.
Bankston asks Jones again about all of the Sandy Hook videos, which weren't produced during discovery. Bankston shows an email from Paul Joseph Watson in December 2015 that "the Sandy Hook stuff is killing us." Bankston says that is proof that Jones didn't ban Sandy Hook in June
Jones says he was telling people not to cover it too. This is not the most credible he has been on the stand.
Bankston says Jones described Bidondi as a part-time reporter. Jones: "If that." Bankston says, "Okay, if that." Jones volunteers that Bidondi was a full-time reporter, which is different from his prior testimony. Attempts to parse that Bidondi was not all that closely involved
Jones accuses Bidondi of lying in his testimony about his role with Infowars.
this is all an absolute mess for Jones, just demonstrating that not only is he scattershot and making shit up on his show, he's done the same thing throughout the trial
Jones has said variations of "Sandy Hook happened, but it didn't" many many times over the years, and he wants everyone to understand that he was very clearly saying that it happened, unless he wants them to understand that he was saying that it didn't
Bankston asks him about his claims that Sandy Hook wasn't a functioning school. Jones says he saw articles about that. Bankston asks him if he said that in 2017 on his show. Jones dissembles, then finally says "I think I do remember that"
Bankston asks Jones about the 17-minute clip we watched this morning about the Megyn Kelly interview. Bankston notes that Jones says "the media never quotes what I said." Brings up ZeroPointNow, and his quote that he did a good job and wants him to write for InfoWars
Jones complains that the media never quotes that he said Sandy Hook happened. Bankston: "Mr. Jones, in that video, you went down and read these questions about these false things about Sandy Hook."
Jones says again that "I believe Sandy Hook happened." Bankston asks him about the clip we watched this morning where he introduced all of the reasons he thought Sandy Hook didn't happen.
just absolutely baffling that the DEFENSE introduced the clip where Jones read the questions about Sandy Hook and praised ZeroHedge as evidence that he stopped denying Sandy Hook and the mainstream media refused to report that
it would have been a prized piece of plaintiffs' evidence and they didn't even need to introduce it
Bankston shows Jones texts between Jones and Watson about Sandy Hook. Can't see what they say from where I'm sitting in the courtroom.
the text included an article Watson sent from Infowars that says that coronavirus footage was staged. Watson: "This is a video of a medical student training to intubate. Makes us look ridiculous saying Covid is fake. Sandy Hook all over again."
Jones's text: "I get it."
Bankston: "Mr. Jones, it's true this article is live on Infowars right now." Jones says he never saw the text, they must have gotten it from Watson. Bankston points out that the bubbles with his response is blue, asks if he knows how an iphone works.
Bankston: "Mr. Jones, it's true this article is live on Infowars right now." Jones says he never saw the text, they must have gotten it from Watson. Bankston points out that the bubbles with his response is blue, asks if he knows how an iphone works.
Bankston reveals to Jones that the full contents of his phone ended up in his possession because he received an unredacted copy of his full phone materials.
"Mr. Jones, in discovery, you were asked if you had the sandy hook text messages on your phone, and you said no, correct?"
"If I was mistaken, I was mistaken, but you've got the messages right there."
"Mr. Jones, you know what perjury is?"
"If I was mistaken, I was mistaken, but you've got the messages right there."
"Mr. Jones, you know what perjury is?"
now on to Alex Jones's email, which he said (during discovery, and again yesterday under oath) he doesn't use. Now says that he uses it for household stuff.
Bankston: "In your deposition, you swore under oath that you don't have any emails about Sandy Hook, because you don't use email."
Jones: "Infowars dot com email?"
Bankston: "No, Mr. Jones. We asked for ALL emails. And you said you don't use email, and there are no emails."
Jones: "Infowars dot com email?"
Bankston: "No, Mr. Jones. We asked for ALL emails. And you said you don't use email, and there are no emails."
Jones: "I, personally, do not get on the internet and send emails. I don't like email. that's a fact, that I don't use email."
Bankston shows him a document. It has his email address, which Jones confirms. Asks if it's him writing an email. Jones says yes.
Bankston shows him a document. It has his email address, which Jones confirms. Asks if it's him writing an email. Jones says yes.
Jones: I must have dictated that to my assistant.
Bankston: So there are emails you've sent to your lawyers, your staff, others, about Sandy Hook, ZeroHedge. They exist. Do you agree?
Jones: I've dictated emails to people, but that is my personal email I use for personal stuff.
Bankston: So there are emails you've sent to your lawyers, your staff, others, about Sandy Hook, ZeroHedge. They exist. Do you agree?
Jones: I've dictated emails to people, but that is my personal email I use for personal stuff.
Bankston says that for every $100,000 worth of food Infowars sells, he makes $20-40,000. Jones says yes. Bankston produces a document—texts between Jones and Infowars' business manager. Reynal has no objection.
Bankston: "You understand when your attorney sent me your phone, he didn't mean to do that." Reynal objects. Judge explains how discovery works for the jury—we don't know if it was on accident or on purpose, but it wasn't turned over when it should have been
Bankston explains Bates Numbers on documents that Jones produced for discovery. Says there's no Bates number on the doc in front of him. Jones says "but I!" Gamble reminds him to answer the question. He says "no there is not."
Bankston says that pretty much every day Jones gets an update on how much the store has sold and how much profit he made. $110k gross food equals almost $70k gross profit. Jones: "That's what he says but it's not what it does, so I have questions about it."
Bankston: "I think it's clear that you only get 20-40 % profit margin on food is not true."
Jones: "I could bring those numbers in and show you."
Bankston: "I asked you for those numbers and I didn't get them. Instead I have those text messages. Why should anyone trust you?"
Jones: "I could bring those numbers in and show you."
Bankston: "I asked you for those numbers and I didn't get them. Instead I have those text messages. Why should anyone trust you?"
Bankston: "We've heard a lot in this courtroom that you've lost everything. Is that true?"
Jones: "Not everything."
Bankston produces a document with revenue figures. "You would agree between 2016-2018, InfoWars made around $100-200k a day." Shows days where they made $800k.
Jones: "Not everything."
Bankston produces a document with revenue figures. "You would agree between 2016-2018, InfoWars made around $100-200k a day." Shows days where they made $800k.
Bankston: "Well after your deplatforming, you kept having better days."
Jones: "No, deplatforming they went down. CPAC was unusual." Bankston says he doesn't have all the numbers, but he does have that text with certain numbers.
Jones: "No, deplatforming they went down. CPAC was unusual." Bankston says he doesn't have all the numbers, but he does have that text with certain numbers.
this is absolutely critical to Bankston's case—he's able to present that Jones could make as much as $300m a year, that the limited evidence he has suggests it's possible, that Jones kept other evidence away from him. Jury is watching this part very intensely.
Bankston produces a dollar. "Are you aware that your attorney has insisted that this is the amount you should pay?"
Jones: "What does the NYT pay for lying about WMDs?"
Bankston: "I don't think there's any point in asking you further questions."
Jones: "What does the NYT pay for lying about WMDs?"
Bankston: "I don't think there's any point in asking you further questions."
Reynal does re-examination. Asks Jones if he thinks his lawyers have done a good job. Jones says yes. No further questions, and we're done with the circus.
Jury q's will come before lunch, so short break here.
Jury Q's are weird. first two are about mass media contagion and the Charlie Hebdo shooting
"Are you going to change the way you present your show based on what is happening today?"
"Your employees have appreciated the way you allow them to tell the truth. In light of their loyalty, do you take personal responsibility for their decisions?"
"Your employees have appreciated the way you allow them to tell the truth. In light of their loyalty, do you take personal responsibility for their decisions?"
"If you are genuinely sorry, how will you show, rather than tell that? Would you join Scarlett Lewis's org?"
"How much precaution do you plan to take with clipped videos on your own show?"
"What date was exhibit 134 from?"
"How much precaution do you plan to take with clipped videos on your own show?"
"What date was exhibit 134 from?"
"The defense has testified that Infowars has mentioned Sandy Hook less than 1% of the time. Is your stance there should be no penalty for breaking the law if it happens rarely?"
"what compensation would you believe to be appropriate?"
"do you feel you are getting a fair trial?"
"what compensation would you believe to be appropriate?"
"do you feel you are getting a fair trial?"
"do you believe there will be a fair and impartial determination by this jury?"
Bankston objects to the Charlie Hebdo question. Reynal thinks it's a great question, wants her to ask the end of it. Gamble says she doesn't want to lead them to believe free speech is something it isn't, strikes question
the "mass shooting contagion" question will be asked, Alex should enjoy answering that one
someone on the jury really likes the idea of Alex Jones doing work on behalf of Scarlett Lewis's foundation
Mass shooting contagion Q: "Studies do show that hyping up shootings causes more shootings, and talking about shooters does that. All media contributes to shootings, but we have a first amendment right—" judge interrupts, moves to second part of question
this is a coherent answer
Why do you think Sandy Hook was a conspiracy?
I had seen many other things that had been staged. When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I had seen powerful forces blame gun owners. I felt defensive, and I was innocent, and I subconsciously didn't want to believe it.
I had seen many other things that had been staged. When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I had seen powerful forces blame gun owners. I felt defensive, and I was innocent, and I subconsciously didn't want to believe it.
this is also a coherent answer
"Are you going to change the way you present your show based on what's happening today?"
"I've never been like the corporate media that lies on purpose, but this has been terrible for everyone involved, including myself."
"I've never been like the corporate media that lies on purpose, but this has been terrible for everyone involved, including myself."
Jones says he is responsible for what his employees do.
Lewis foundation question: "Absolutely. Regardless of how this goes, I'd love to invite her on the show next week. I would love to have you meet the people and come on, and I think it'll be huge for people to see that. I'm more concerned about that than monetary stuff."
it is WILD how much better Jones is answering the jury question's than he was under either direct or cross examination
Will he change the way he approaches clipped videos? "We take way more precaution now than even mainstream media. Our listeners get mad if we put out something that's fake. It's been a long time since we did that. We did one three weeks ago and I smashed up my office."
they aired a deepfake and he has an "allergy" to that. lots of "corporate media lies on purpose" stuff
Sandy hook "less than half a percent" question. Should there be no punishment? "This is civil, but there is a law of right or wrong, and we have paid a massive price for the mistakes we've made." Judge cuts him off, reads again. "No, even when people do stuff on accident—"
"Blue collar" means people he thinks are so great because they're working hard, they're not in bubbles, and in his experience aren't paying attention to politics. got the idea the jury is blue collar because he's read that a lot of stuff—judge cuts him off, decides it's a bad q
Jones asked about appropriate compensation. He talks about the business numbers to contextualize them. Says "any compensation above $2m will sink us." Judge reminds him that it's about appropriateness, not about him. he says whatever number they think is right.
"Are you aware that this jury is not being improperly influenced in any way?" "I don't think that you are operatives or part of a false flag. I don't think you're bad people, I think you're good people." complains about discovery again.
"Do you feel as if you're getting a fair trial, and if not, why not?"
"I'm barred from saying." Judge tells him to answer succinctly. He says he's been found guilty by a judge, he thinks in America—judge cuts him off, says he's not guilty, this isn't criminal. rambles some more
"I'm barred from saying." Judge tells him to answer succinctly. He says he's been found guilty by a judge, he thinks in America—judge cuts him off, says he's not guilty, this isn't criminal. rambles some more
judge moves to the question about how many employees they have. 80 employees and contractors. Asks revenue question—$60-70m gross, probably, but doesn't know.
"What are some specific changes you've made to business process to increase accountability at infowars?"
"I've explained we're not just some little internet show." quotes Spider-Man that great power comes with great responsibility.
"I've explained we're not just some little internet show." quotes Spider-Man that great power comes with great responsibility.
He's done. That was easily the best Jones has been on the stand in this entire case, dude made every charisma saving throw
both sides close. lunch break, then if they finish the charge, we will get closing arguments.
Conference now is about the jury charge. Alternate jurors will be released before deliberations.
Note about the jury q’s: they’re hard to parse! It’s easy in these trials to assume too much based on the questions. Jurors want to do a good job in asking relevant questions, doesn’t necessarily tell you what they believe
It is possible that there are a few redpilled jurors. Likely a lefty shitposter on the jury based on the “lizard people” questions last week. Most often, though, they are just trying to ask questions they didn’t hear during the examination that sound like what a lawyer would ask
That said, Bankston and team have always had the harder job, as a practical matter—not easy to convince a Texas jury to award $150,000,000 in damages, and it is entirely possible that the jury agrees with the plaintiffs on everything but the dollar amount
Court is back in session now for closing arguments.
Also here is what happened with Alex Jones’s cell phone, according to Mark Bankston: the phone’s contents were put in a Dropbox folder the two parties had been to using to exchange materials roughly ten days ago
Bankston said that he did not believe the phone was placed in the folder intentionally, and told me he notified Reynal and his co-counsel, who under texas law had ten days to respond that the materials were transmitted in error
also included in the Dropbox folder was medical information on the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Jones in Connecticut. According to Bankston, Reynal never responded to his notice. As of yesterday, the files were legitimately in Bankston’s possession. He destroyed med records.
Bankston used some of the material on the phone in his cross examination. Could only begin going through it last night. Will be looking through it for information that is newsworthy or relevant to law enforcement, and offering that to media/LE as they determine appropriate
unfortunately, there appears to be little chance that the contents of the phone might be left on a park bench somewhere an intrepid reporter could just happen upon it and pick it ip—Bankston was clear he doesn’t intend to publish the full contents of the phone anywhere.
yes I said please
More details on how the law around this works
https://twitter.com/deepnhearttx/status/1554901433786458122
also if this really is the past two years of messages that would include the period between November 2020 and January 2021, which… well… could be interesting
while we’re still on jury instructions, here’s what happens next: Lawyers will make closing arguments on the matter of compensatory damages owed to Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis. Jury will deliberate, then award those damages and those damages only—NOT punitive damages
This trial is bifurcated, so the question of Jones’s net worth is not a consideration for the jury when determining appropriate compensation. Once the jury returns that verdict, a second (much shorter) trial begins with testimony on the matter of Jones’s net worth
That testimony will involve two witnesses: Jones again, and then a forensic economist hired by the plaintiffs as an expert. After that, jury deliberates on punitive damages and makes its award. Then this case is closed.
Closing arguments have begun. Honestly not sure how much I’m gonna tweet from this—Kyle Farrar makes the argument for the plaintiffs, he is recapping the trial evidence and plaintiffs narrative we have seen the past week
I am 99 percent sure that this will be the jury for the second trial as well, but have not covered a case like this before and could be wrong. Much of the evidence thus far was relevant to punitive damages and there is no additional voir dire scheduled
snuck down to the quieter fourth floor this morning to talk to NPR about the trial wbur.org/hereandnow/202…
Farrar, addressing Jones directly, tells him that nobody goes up to him to say he killed the kids at Sandy Hook, that no one believes he was the gunman. Jones, furious but aware he needs to shut his mouth, nods with a force that could dislodge his jaw
one note on appeal, since folks are asking—in civil court, my understanding is that ineffective counsel is not grounds for appeal. as a practical matter, it’s hard to imagine there will be an appeal at all, because he lost four separate cases, and this is only the first of them
https://twitter.com/Groovy_Toon/status/1554907190816780288
The verdict in this case is only the first verdict. Next is another lawsuit against Sandy Hook parents in Connecticut, then another parent who sued in Texas, then a man from Massachusetts who was defamed by InfoWars by being misidentified as the Parkland shooter. All defaulted.
Jones could appeal in this case, but it’ll be expensive, and the odds of success are well below fifty percent. and then, if he manages to succeed on that appeal, he will have three additional cases to appeal, all of which will be expensive, all of which are unlikely to succeed
Reynal told me earlier on Monday that he expects to appeal, but I imagine when it’s all done, it just will not make financial sense to file four appeals in four cases and hope that all will be reversed. Bankruptcy seems like the more likely path forward for that reason.
Farrar wraps his closing argument. Fifteen minute break and then Reynal is up.
I suspect he will not write “lawyers who lie should lose” on the whiteboard this time
Passed Reynal in the hall as I went back into the courtroom. “Don’t mind me, I’m just going to stand out here to finish chewing my gum.”
Reynal begins his closing argument. Says it’s been an honor to argue the case in front of the jury.
Makes clear that they are here to discuss “actual damages” rather than punitive damages. Punitive damages will come later, in a day or two.
whatever you think about Reynal, the argument he gets to make here is much more in his wheelhouse than trying to manage all of the characters in the trial thus far.
Reynal argues that the truther community existed before Alex Jones, and that he was many miles away from the shooting when it happened, talking about all sorts of things that were not Sandy Hook
again, just to reiterate, Texas juries are generally pretty stingy, and often think very practically about what compensatory damages are. lots of questions during jury selection focused on things like medical bills and lost wages.
Reynal says “not that many people listen” to Alex Jones, he’s not the NYT or CNN. Now attempts to rehabilitate the Owen Shroyer/ZeroHedge segment. Says that neither plaintiff knew about it until a year later.
Reynal: “I put it to you to infer from evidence that someone weaponized their grief, and convinced them Alex Jones was responsible.”
high risk argument! I’d go with “this is how much money all of this cost them” and not “the clients you have been watching all week are puppets”
high risk argument! I’d go with “this is how much money all of this cost them” and not “the clients you have been watching all week are puppets”
Reynal back to “Sandy Hook was .16 percent of infowars’ broadcast” as an argument. Farrar objects, says that’s all in evidence, they don’t know what wasn’t provided in discovery.
Reynal is making a weird analogy where he is out playing with a bow and arrow. Says that if the range he used got smashed up and someone said he did it, he would want proof before he accepted responsibility. Maybe this is compelling to the jury! Who knows
Reynal now goes after Dr. Lubit’s testimony, the forensic psychiatrist who was the plaintiffs’ weakest witness by far.
Reynal and infowars witnesses have been arguing over and over again that the damage Jones did to them only began in 2017. Even if persuaded, jurors may wonder why anguish they suffered in 2017-2018 don’t count.
Tells the jury that they know Alex Jones never said that no children died. I don’t know how the jury could possibly know what Jones did and didn’t say, given the way he shifts his claims, often within the exact same broadcast, many of which they’ve seen
much of Reynal’s strategy right now is saying “where’s the evidence!” in an incredulous voice
Defense closing remarks : “I forgot to mention! What about our electoral system?” Blames Hillary Clinton for the anguish suffered by the Sandy Hook parents. This is some weird shit
Reynal: “there’s twelve of you- do three of you think that Sandy Hook didn’t happen?” This is the best argument Reynal has to attempt to discredit the poll, I am surprised it took him so long to find it.
Reynal’s son is apparently super into weighing heavy things, knows how much $150,000,000 weighs relative to the same weight in elephants
Reynal says he is going to show the jurors something he struggled with deciding to show. It’s a series of questions about how to determine damages relative to the defamation. Runs close to bashing the parents here.
Going through all of the factors that make up defamation, according to his list, Reynal once again reiterates: “one dollar.” That is pretty bold!
Reynal says he doesn’t like this part, he feels bad, but it’s just not proven. Addresses the plaintiffs now. “I hope to god you’ve gotten some level of closure.” Turns to the jury: “what’s been proven, caused by Alex Jones? You need actual evidence.”
Reynal says he won’t belabor the point and that this is repetitive. Skips to another question and then tells the jury to read the first paragraph.
There is an interesting argument around whether Jones directly caused emotional distress in videos that Heslin never watched, but I don’t know that Reynal is making it.
Reynal allows that maybe the jury might want to award some compensatory damages to continue mental health treatment, though he doesn’t believe it’s supported by the evidence
Reynal tells the jury what the Latin roots of “verdict” are
Fun fact, at Reynal’s first hearing on the case, he addressed the judge beginning with, “to quote Oscar Wilde…”
Reynal closes with “first they came for…” before wrapping up.
I dunno man, Reynal is here to defend his client and try to convince the jury to only give the plaintiffs one dollar but watching that poem invoked on behalf of Alex Jones makes me wanna scromit blood
there are uhhhhh a few groups named in that poem that Alex Jones and some of the guests he has platformed seem quite comfortable with people coming for
Farrar on rebuttal says we are still in infowars conspiracy land, where his firm and the judge are the deep state and the plaintiffs lied to the doctors. “They have called them liars for ten years to make money, and now they’re calling them liars to save money.”
Farrar says they didn’t show full videos because the jury doesn’t need to see Alex Jones ranting about gay frogs, and that Reynal only showed one long video because he realized afterward that it wasn’t helping his client
“Finding out someone is lying about you secondhand is worse because it means the lie is spreading,” Farrar says. He’s much more animated and impassioned in his rebuttal than he was in his close.
Farrar says that Jones’s apology is worth nothing because his lawyer just said that Alex Jones didn’t do anything wrong.
Farrar finds his strongest argument to connect Jones’s actions to the trauma suffered by the plaintiffs. “Jesse’s murder didn’t cause them fear; it caused them unimaginable grief. The fear came from Mr. Jones.”
Farrar recalls Karpova’s testimony that “words are Alex’s weapons,” tells the jury that the verdict is their weapon. (Interestingly, this line was crowdsourced by the attorneys on a subreddit this week!)
jury to leave for deliberation; they only go to five o’clock so won’t get much done today unless they’re somehow already unanimous. They’ll pick up again tomorrow between 830-9am
Hanging around the courtroom till 5pm just in case the whole jury looks at each other and it is “$150 million?” “$150 million.” “$150 million” to each other (or, alternately, a dollar or eight dollars or whatever Reynal’s math came to)
Okay I am going home and then maybe to a swimming pool, see y’all tomorrow
back in court now, though there's nothing going on since the jury is still deliberating. the documentary film crew is reviewing the video exhibits in the case on the monitors right now, presumably for pickups, so they're all showing various InfoWars clips on mute in the courtroom
for those wondering how long until there's a verdict: nobody knows, juries are weird! they've been in deliberation for a little more than two hours. they could finish in five minutes or five hours.
worth being clear that whatever number they do eventually come back with does NOT represent the total damages—they are deliberating on compensatory damages only. once they're done, there are two more witnesses, then the jury goes back to determine punitive damages
the verdicts are split so the jury is not thinking about how much money Alex and Infowars have when they are deliberating on compensatory damages—this part is about the plaintiffs and what fairly compensates them, not about Alex and what he can afford to pay
a lawyer can better explain how this works, but there is a cap in Texas on punitive damages that is directly tied to the amount of compensatory damages—i believe it is a max of 2x compensatory, or $750k, whichever is higher
also please read this thread by @annamerlan on what happened this morning in a brief hearing over the cell phone contents that somehow landed in Mark Bankston's dropbox
https://twitter.com/annamerlan/status/1555203790185562113?s=20&t=oeuty5ACiqtz4D9XPq0tRw
Have been told that nothing is gonna happen till after 1pm, as the judge has other work to do. Doesn’t mean anything will happen at 1, but nothing will happen before that
back in court but nothing going on, just a bunch of reporters looking at their phones or trying to file copy
while we continue to wait for a verdict, here's @salihabayrak_, a reporter with @TexasMonthly's summer intern program, on how Judge Gamble has managed the courtroom for the past two weeks texasmonthly.com/news-politics/…
Reynal now has a show-cause order in Connecticut requiring him to appear in person on August 17 for a hearing to determine whether he should be disciplined for the disclosure of the plaintiffs' medical records that were in the dropbox with Jones's phone civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquir…
Jones's lead counsel in that case, Norm Pattis (who was denied the ability to work on this one) also has to do the same civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquir…
verdict is in, awaiting announcement
i believe the stream will be turned on again in a moment
again, remember that this is for compensatory damages only, unless they come back at one dollar, there will also be punitive damages following additional testimony about Jones's net worth
Gamble says the other witnesses will be on tomorrow morning
Jones is not in court for the reading of the verdict; the plaintiffs are
there are eight counts here, so even the process of reading the verdict is gonna take a minute
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
