Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 29, 2022 - Depositions & Trials

05:04:00

Alex Jones Defamation Trial: Sandy Hook 'Hoax' Lawsuit - Day One

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	There's one all the way at the end.
	In the future, just let's fill all the way in.
	Good morning.
	Under the rules, the attorneys for both sides are permitted to make their opening statements, which shall consist of a brief statement of the nature of the case that the party expects to prove and the relief sought.
	Because of the unusual status of this case, I'm going to read a statement similar to the one I read to you yesterday morning.
	This is information from the court.
	Plaintiffs Neil Heslund and Scarlett Lewis, the parents of one of the children murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School, have sued Alex Jones and Free Speech Systems LLC for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by public statements made by Alex Jones and Free Speech Systems LLC. You are not here to determine if Mr. Jones and Free Speech Systems LLC Defamed or intentionally inflicted emotional distress on Mr. Heslin or Mrs. Lewis,
	the court has already found that they have committed these acts.
	The jury's job will be to determine what sum of the money, if any, would fairly and reasonably compensate Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis for the damages they incurred that were approximately caused by Mr. Jones Ordinarily,
	at this stage of the case, the jury would hear all of the evidence on damages In this case, some of the evidence will be presented after you decide compensatory damages and will be followed by a second charge of the court.
	Just so you understand what's going on.
	Now, as I mentioned yesterday, we always begin with the plaintiff, so Mr. Bankston, whenever you are ready.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Mark Bankston, and I'm here to talk to you about two rules first.
	Well, we would if we were clicking, wouldn't we?
	Uh-oh, sorry.
	Let's see if we can get that going.
	not a problem your own thank you Like I said, Mark Bankston.
	Here's the first rule.
	You can't recklessly tell lies about someone.
	You can't do it.
	If you do it, and you cause someone damage, you're responsible.
	Here's the second rule.
	You can't recklessly tell lies about something important to someone.
	In this case, like the death of their child.
	If you do that, and you know you're gonna cause them harm, you're responsible for that.
	You're here because those rules are broken.
	And they were broken in a way in which the world has never seen before.
	But before we get into that story, you're going to need to understand two things.
	Who is Alex Jones?
	What is Infoworks?
	This is Alex Jones and Infoworks.
	Alex Jones is one of the country's most popular and most influential media personalities.
	Infowars is one of the nation's most popular and widely watched media networks.
	Now some of you may be forgiven for not knowing about Mr. Jones or the fact that Infowars is one of our widely watched news networks.
	And the reason is because we now live in a world of bubbles.
	We now live in a world where we all watch different things.
	We don't all just turn on the news on one of the three major networks and watch it back in like the 1950s.
	We now live in a world where significant parts of this country get their information from things that other parts of the country would never even see.
	And over the last decade, Mr. Jones has become incredibly influential over a segment of this country.
	And the thing about Mr. Jones' business is it doesn't quite operate Most media businesses are a bit different than Mr. Jones.
	Mr. Jones started on radio.
	That's where he became a big star.
	But Mr. Jones is one of the first people in this country, of media people, to understand the internet and what it could do.
	And long before most major media organizations even made their first steps into the internet, in the very early days of the 2000s, Mr. Jones was on the internet.
	And as a result, These radio shows.
	A live broadcast nearly every day.
	He has an internet website, Infowars.com, where you can view videos, news articles.
	And he has a YouTube site, or at least he did until very recently, where he got billions of views on that page.
	The other thing that's different about Mr. Jones' business is that most media businesses make their money through advertising.
	And you're going to hear from the evidence in this case that Mr. Jones makes a little money that way.
	That's how they operate.
	But the main way that this business operates affects the news they cover.
	Because what they really do, the primary way the business operates is to sell products.
	As you see here on the screen, and he said at 15. Here's a product called DNA Force.
	It claims it's going to overhaul your body's cellular engines and protect them from reactive oxygen species.
	Now, these kinds of products dictate the kind of news that has to be told on InfoWars, because you want to try to attract the audience that will buy these products.
	So that's what Mr. Jones did.
	His programming is very fantastical in some respects.
	In some respects, it's meant to convince you Are out to get all of us.
	And have put a cloak over reality.
	And Mr. Jones is going to take that cloak off and show you the real truth.
	That's what his media network's about.
	And for the past ten years or so, Mr. Jones has become very influential.
	He has gained a position in media maybe unlike any other media figure in this country.
	And when he did that, 10 years ago in 2012, when his popularity was truly exploding, Mr. Jones made a choice.
	And he made that choice.
	God, there we go.
	Made that choice.
	On December 14th, 2012. That was the day of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
	Really, one of the darkest days in American history.
	You gotta think back to 2012 when this happened.
	We've never seen anything like this before.
	I mean, the idea of someone coming in and slaughtering first graders, we were all, all of us, in like a collective state of shock over this.
	But not Mr. Jones.
	You see, Mr. Jones made a choice that day.
	Mr. Jones decided he was going to go on the air that day with the title of a video.
	And that video was called, Connecticut School Massacre.
	Looks like false flag, says witnesses.
	Now what's a false flag?
	It's actually, it's interesting, it's an older term, it's a naval term.
	From the 17th, 16th, 16th century.
	And what it means is, let's say you were a Spanish ship, and you wanted to attack a French ship, but you didn't want to get Spain in trouble.
	Well, what you could do is you could put up a British flag on your ship.
	You could fly a false flag.
	That's what that meant.
	So that you could attack the French ship without getting Spain in trouble.
	That's where the term comes from.
	But in the modern sense, in Mr. Jones' world, is when a mass tragedy, shooting, or bombing was actually staged by the United States government, and particularly the Central Intelligence Agency, and that his fate didn't happen.
	I want to show you Mr. Jones on the day of Sandy Hook, as news was coming in of Sandy Hook.
	On his broadcast, he called Connecticut School Massacre, looks like false flag, says witnesses.
	And you'll see that Mr. Jones is talking to somebody who has a relative in Newtown, and he's trying to coax out the information to prove that this was a false flag.
	Let's take a look at that clip.
	I said, this is the attack.
	People gotta find the clips the last two months.
	I said, they are launching attacks.
	They're getting ready.
	I can see them warming up with Obama.
	They've got a bigger majority in the Congress now and the Senate.
	They are going to come after our guns, look for mass shootings, and then magically As you'll come to see, when Mr. Jones says magically it happened, that's sarcastic.
	Mr. Jones means that it was planned.
	That it was all staged.
	That's what he's talking about.
	And over the next couple weeks, you will see in this case of the broadcast in 2012, that December, Mr. Jones continually was churning this idea that Sandy Hook was fake.
	By just one month after the shooting, Alex Jones, who had become patient zero for the Sandy Hook hoax, he had created a sensation.
	By a month later, he had aired an entire episode entitled, Why People Think Sandy Hook is a Hoax.
	And for some of you, I think, and it hit me right at the beginning, is why?
	Why is he doing this?
	It's guns.
	It's about guns.
	Mr. Jones knew that his audience were worried about the guns.
	Maybe even rightly, they'd be like, They were worried about, you know, people who wanted to own AR-15s.
	Maybe there were going to be some new registration checks, or maybe they were going to ban the AR-15s.
	That's people that had that worry.
	But Mr. Jones played on that fear.
	He knew it.
	He knew they felt it.
	And so here's what he did.
	Jones told his audience that Obama was coming for their guns.
	So he told his audience that Obama stayed Sandy Hook.
	And not that Obama ordered the murder of those children, but that there were never any children at all.
	That the school was fake.
	That it wasn't an operating school.
	That the parents were liars.
	Paid actors.
	Your Honor?
	No.
	Well, Your Honor has ordered that all demonstrative exhibits be shared with the other side of the floor.
	And this PowerPoint was not.
	So...
	These are words that he's saying.
	Overruled.
	Okay.
	I've shared all the images in this.
	Let's go back.
	Mr. Jones said that the school was fake.
	It wasn't an operating school.
	He said that the parents were liars.
	Paid actors.
	He said the funerals were fake.
	Their tears were fake.
	Everything was fake.
	So that Mr. Jones could have this story on his broadcast.
	This was a massive campaign of lies.
	That's what the evidence is going to show.
	And in fact, it is difficult to wrap your head around it.
	We have brought for you, we're going to be showing you in this trial, dozens of videos.
	44, I believe.
	We're going to try to show you before it's all over.
	And we can't show you all of them.
	And I'm going to tell you why.
	If we were to sit down And try to watch all the videos that we have about San Diego.
	If I just put them on and let's play them and let you watch them.
	And we're going to spend the rest of this week doing it?
	We couldn't do it.
	Would not have enough time for you to sit here every single day and watch it.
	So I'm going to have to show you what I can.
	I'm going to respect your time in that.
	And we're going to be showing you clips from over years and years and years.
	And we're going to try to give you the full breadth of what happened.
	And the other problem we face is we don't even have all the videos.
	We know there's more out there.
	You're going to hear testimony about that.
	You'll hear expert witnesses talk about it.
	We don't have it all.
	We can only show you what we do have.
	Right?
	That no one really even knows how massive this was.
	Because some of that is lost to the sands of time.
	But this was done.
	This massive campaign of lies was accomplished.
	Because Mr. Jones recruited wild extremists from fringes of the internet who were willing to be as cool as Mr. Jones needed them to be.
	The first one of these is a man named Wolfgang Halbig.
	You're going to hear a lot about this man during this trial.
	Wolfgang Halbig, you will hear, was a former Florida state trooper.
	And then apparently he started some sort of superiorism.
	And Mr. Halbig was on Infowars all the time.
	They just had him on over and over and over.
	Because Mr. Jones needed somebody who could pretend like they were going to support what he was saying.
	And Mr. Halbig was willing to do that for attention.
	I want to show you of the many, many times that Mr. Halbig was on.
	Let's first watch this first clip.
	From September 25, 2014, in an episode entitled, Connecticut PD has FBI falsified crime statistics.
	And what you're going to see in this video is Mr. Jones describing Mr. Halberg, and then I want you to pay attention because you're going to see something very strange.
	You're going to see Mr. Jones do mocking imitations of the parents' crime to try to say that they're fake.
	You're going to see Mr. Jones say that there are photos of their children that prove that they're still alive.
	That they faked their deaths.
	Let's take a look at what Mr. Jones said.
	We're fearless, folks.
	Support us.
	Support Wolfgang.
	This is not a game.
	They are hopping, man.
	We're covering this.
	CNN admits they did fake scut attacks on themselves back in 1991, 1990. Would they stage this?
	I don't know.
	Do penguins live in Antarctica?
	Wolfgang W. Halberg's our guest, former state police officer that worked for the customs department and then over the last decade has created one of the biggest most successful school safety training groups and he just has gone and investigated and it's as funny as a three dollar bill and they've been When you've got a school of 100 kids and then nobody can find them,
	and then you've got parents laughing going, ha, ha, ha, and then they walk over to the camera and go, I mean, not just one, but a bunch of parents doing this, and then photos of kids that are still alive they said died.
	I mean, they think we're so dumb that it's really hidden in plain view.
	And so the preponderance, I thought they had some scripting early on to exacerbate and milk the crisis, as Ron Emanuel said, but when you really look at it, where are the lawsuits?
	There would be incredible lawsuits and payouts, but there haven't been any filed, nothing.
	I've never seen this.
	This is incredible.
	That's Mr. Halbert you're seeing on the screen right there.
	Mr. Halbig would come on the show and they'll do interviews.
	And we'll see some from Mr. Halbig too.
	We're going to see some videos in talking.
	But that's the guy that he would be bringing on these shows to talk about this over and over and over and over again.
	The following day, they published this article on Infowars.com.
	This article reads, FBI says no one killed at San Diego.
	Now, Let's just make this clear.
	Everyone now agrees you're going to hear testimony from the author of this article.
	This is obviously wrong.
	You're going to hear.
	He didn't read the chart right.
	He just didn't scroll down.
	And they went with this and put it out to their audience.
	And the important thing about this is this story was InfoWars' third most popular story ever.
	This was a viral sensation.
	Most of people saw this article.
	You're going to see the data on them.
	And when Mr. Jones realized the explosive popularity of these kinds of things, he doubled down.
	You've got to remember, we're two years out from Sandy Hook.
	No network is covering Sandy Hook anymore.
	Mr. Jones, though, saw how this was doing with his audience.
	It became an obsession at InfoWorks.
	You're going to see that there are parts of Mr. Jones' show.
	You know, he has his live show, and he has these internet videos he puts up, and he also, you know, he does a radio show, so he has call-in guests sometimes, or call-in listeners, who will call in and talk about things with Mr. Jones.
	and they were eating the Sand Cook stuff up with a spoon, and Mr. Jones kept inflaming it.
	Here's an example from December 29, 2014.
	This was called America, the False Democracy.
	In this clip, you are going to hear Mr. Jones say that these children did not die.
	Sandy Hook is 100% fake.
	Let's talk to Kevin.
	Kevin, go ahead.
	You're on the air.
	Hi, I'm calling about Sandy Hook.
	Basically, my take on it is I live about 50 miles from Newtown, and the whole thing is pretty much the next step in reality TV because with other false flags like 9/11 or Oklahoma City or the Boston bombing, at least something happened.
	With Sandy Hook, there's no there there.
	You've got a bunch of people walking around a parking lot, pretty much what it comes down to, and none of the others...
	No, no, I've had the investigators on.
	I've had the state police have gone public, you name it.
	The whole thing is a giant hoax.
	And the problem is, how do you deal with a total hoax?
	I mean, it's just...
	How do you even convince the public something's a total hug?
	Very hard because you know anytime I talk about this issue with people, you know, they do get criticized, blackball, ridicule, call every name in the book or they respond with the magic words they were saying on TV.
	There's no statement more proof positive of somebody who's been brainwashed by that stuff, mainstream media, than those words.
	They were saying on TV.
	Well, I always tell people the same thing.
	Go out and prove the official story.
	And I knew the millisecond this happened with that now fake picture of the kids being went out of the school, that there's nothing that's going to sell this agenda.
	No, that's right.
	The general public doesn't know the school was actually closed the year before.
	They don't know they've shielded or demolished the building.
	They don't know that they had the kids going in circles in and out of the building as a photo op.
	Blue screen, green screens they got caught using.
	I mean, the whole thing.
	But remember, this is the same White House.
	It's the same White House that got caught running all these other fake events over and over again, and it's the same White House That says, I never said that you can keep your doctor when he did say you can keep your doctor.
	People just instinctively know that there's a lot of fraud going on.
	But it took me about a year with Sandy Hook to come to grips with the fact that the whole thing was fake.
	I mean, even I couldn't believe it.
	I knew they jumped on it, used the crisis, hyped it up, but then I did deep research, and my gosh, it just pretty much didn't happen.
	This kept up into 2015.
	The next part of our story.
	You'll see here another one of these call-in segments in an episode on January 13th, 2015. It was called Why We Accept Government Lies.
	Same kind of format here, except now Mr. Jones is starting to add new stuff.
	One of the things you'll hear in this video is that now Mr. Jones is saying that there were photos of a child at Sandy Hook that were used to stage a fake mass shooting in Pakistan.
	It's confusing, but we'll get into it.
	I want you to take a look at this video from January 2013, 2015.
	When you're trying to decipher clunk and dagger, dirty tricks, it's pretty hard to do.
	It's just that then you learn that they were funded by Western funding.
	Then you learn that it was the same Amarillo, Lockie Connection, Underwear Bomber.
	Then those are big red flags that they were patsy provocateurs.
	The classic ML has been followed.
	And then, yeah, it kind of becomes a red herring, you know, to say the whole thing was staged.
	Because they have staged events before, but then you learn the school had been closed and reopened and you got video of the kids going in circles in and out of the building and they don't call the rescue choppers for two hours and then they tear the building down and seal it and they get caught using blue screens and an email by Bloomberg comes out in a lawsuit where he's telling his people Yeah,
	so, Sandy Hook is a synthetic, completely fake, with actors, in my view, manufactured.
	I couldn't believe it at first.
	I knew they had actors there, clearly, but I thought they killed some real kids.
	And it just shows how bold they are that they clearly used actors.
	I mean, they even ended up using photos of kids killed in mass shootings here in a fake mass shooting in Turkey.
	The sky is now the limit.
	I appreciate your call.
	Shortly after this, InfoWars got its first YouTube strike.
	This means somebody made a complaint against the channel.
	In this case, it was a father of victim.
	It was a father who had complained to InfoWars because their son's photo was used in one of their videos.
	It was this whole thing about the Pakistan shooting, and we'll get into that.
	It's not important now.
	It's obviously a lie.
	But when they used the son's picture, they complained to YouTube for copyright reasons.
	That's how they figured they could stop him.
	So YouTube issued a strike, but InfoWars smartened up after this, and they realized don't use pictures of the children.
	That's what you're going to see.
	So from this point forward, you'll see Mr. Jones react about this and say, this is, you know, unjust to me, and I'm going to keep doing it.
	And it did.
	It kept up.
	Mr. Jones had Mr. Halbig all through 2015. And you'll see on March 4, 2015, in this video, Some new bombshell Sandy Hook information in them.
	Now, before we look at this video, I want to talk about, you've heard some of them already.
	Mr. Jones is going to keep repeating these same false claims.
	He's not questioning anything.
	You've got to make sure there's a big difference here.
	He's not questioning.
	He's not going, hmm, something fishy might be going on at Sandy Hook.
	You don't have questions, he's just stating facts falsely.
	And here they are.
	You'll hear about Anderson Cooper on a blue screen.
	You might know about blue screen from like Marvel movies.
	This is how they composite somebody into something.
	The argument here is that Anderson Cooper of CNN did an interview with a parent in Newtown and they weren't really in Newtown.
	They were really on a CNN studio in Atlanta and they faked it and made it look like Anderson Cooper was there with a parent.
	But these people weren't even at San Diego.
	You're going to see it's a lie.
	It's just an obvious lie.
	You're going to hear them talking about kids walking in circles, going around the building, doing drills.
	And you're going to see the video he's talking about.
	And what's most astonishing is the video he's showing, the building in the video, isn't even the Sandy Hook School.
	He's lied to his viewers.
	It's a firehouse in Newtown, and you're going to see that this video is hours later in the day, when parents were showing up to pick up their kids, find out what happened, and there's a group of Adults and teenagers and all walking around the building to get to the front of the building.
	And Mr. Jones tried to sell this to his audience to say that this was fake.
	It shows that it was the children were actually being let out of the front of the building and then back into the building.
	And he'll say, well you should be getting them away from the building.
	It's not even Sandy Hook.
	He's going to talk about men in SWAT gear caught in the woods.
	But you're going to see video that proves That the video they're talking about, the helicopter footage, was taken well into the afternoon, hours after the shooting, had nothing to do with the shooting, and you're going to find out it's some reporters who tried to get too close to the school, take pictures.
	It's all in the police reports, it's all public, but he tried to convince his viewers that these were CIA operatives or whatever, in SWAT gear to facilitate the shooting or something.
	Whatever false thing he thought was going on here.
	Let's talk about how the school was actually closed.
	It was not an operating school.
	That they just opened it up for this day to stock it full of people and did like a stage production, but it was all not real.
	And it's these kind of statements that you're going to see in this case.
	And the internal communication is exciting.
	Of course, they knew this was a lie.
	They're not that.
	They know there's copious evidence out there, if you really go look for it, that San Diego was open.
	They were saying this knowing it was false.
	You'll hear him talk about a Michael Bloomberg email the day before.
	Michael Bloomberg is the former mayor of New York City.
	And part of what he has done since being mayor is he's been a real big gun control advocate.
	And they want to have their viewers believe that Michael Bloomberg sent an email to his supporters saying, hey, 24 hours from now, we're going to have a mass shooting.
	Everybody get ready to mobilize on it.
	As if Michael Bloomberg had foreknowledge that they were going to fake this shooting.
	You're not going to see this email because obviously it doesn't exist.
	It's made up.
	Just a lie.
	You're going to hear about rescue helicopters.
	Why weren't the rescue helicopters called?
	But you're going to find out, Mr. Jones doesn't know where the rescue helicopters are coming from.
	He doesn't know how close the hospital was to San Diego Elementary.
	And you're going to hear that those EMS, they would have gotten there way faster than a helicopter from way far away.
	You're going to hear all sorts of things about the ambulances and the EMTs.
	He tells his audience that they never even allowed EMTs in the building.
	And I'm guessing here is you don't have to get EMTs in on the conspiracy, right?
	You just keep them out of the building.
	They'll never know it was all fake.
	It's garbage.
	EMTs will end up building.
	Anybody can verify it.
	It's not hard to figure that out.
	Most of them have given interviews about what they saw that day.
	It was the worst day of their lives.
	You're going to hear about that response that day.
	And yeah, EMTs were in there.
	He's going to tell you that they sealed the death certificates and that even owning one is a felony.
	That's on an Infowars episode you're going to see.
	And the truth is, any one of you could right now call a Newtown clerk and get one for $20.
	Any of the victims.
	It's just a lie.
	You're going to hear him say, as you've already heard him say, that there are photos of the victims who are still alive.
	This is so disgusting, so repulsive, that I feel silly standing here and telling you that's false.
	That's what I have to do in this case.
	That's where we're at.
	I'm going to show you a video of him saying all these things.
	This is when Mr. Halbig comes on the show again.
	Let's listen to what Mr. Derms has to say.
	Mr. Halbig, thanks for coming on.
	Recap who Why you question kind of the top 10 or 15 points that I know are on your website of why this doesn't add up and now they're really trying Tell us any time they wanted to.
	Just tell us why Anderson Cooper's nose disappears, why it's blue screen.
	Just tell us why the people are walking in circles in and out of the building.
	It appears to be staged.
	Tell us why they said they didn't catch somebody in the woods when they did.
	Tell us why the school was closed before and then after.
	Why they've sealed it all.
	Why they've not torn it down.
	Tell us why Bloomberg sent an email to his people the day before saying, get ready to launch an operation to capitalize on the mass shooting.
	Tell us why you didn't launch the emergency helicopters.
	Tell us why the ambulance was parked for an hour down the road. - Bye.
	Tell us why this appears to be as funny as the $3 bill.
	Wolfgate, thank you for joining us.
	And you'll notice, these aren't questions.
	Tell us why this happened.
	Because it did happen according to Mr. Jones.
	Be like if somebody came up to you and said, tell me why you're a thief.
	Tell me why you're a liar.
	Tell me why you're a murderer.
	It's not a question.
	That's not what Mr. Jones is doing.
	You're going to see that by November 2015, there was more people getting involved in this.
	As I told you, Mr. Jones was recruiting wild extremists from the fringes of the internet.
	One of those gentlemen was a man named Jim Fetzer.
	Jim Fetzer, Infowars helped distribute his book, Nobody Died at San Diego.
	Jim Fetzer was a former professor who, in his twilight years, started doing things like this.
	And one of his stuff featured on Mr. Jones' show.
	And Infowars wanted to help him.
	And you're going to see the internal emails in which Infowars helps him distribute this This horrific book.
	The next month, it's important to know that at least a couple of people inside of InfoWars knew what was happening was wrong.
	They knew it.
	They didn't just know it, they warned him.
	Editor-at-large Paul Watson, the editor-at-large of the company, warned Mr. Jones.
	In writing.
	Now I know that's probably hard for some of y'all to see, so I'm gonna read this to you.
	This is an email you will see.
	This is from Paul Watson, the editor at Infowars.
	To Buckley at Infowars is another managerial employee.
	And Anthony at Infowars, who you'll hear is another managerial employee.
	And he says, sent this to Alex.
	He says, this Sandy Hook stuff is killing us.
	Like Rince and Fetzer, who all hate us anyway.
	Plus, it makes us look really bad to align with people who harass the parents of dead kids.
	It's gonna hurt us with drudge and bringing bigger names into the show.
	Plus, the event happened three years ago.
	Why even risk our reputation for it?
	And when he's talking about Drudge, some of y'all probably know, he's talking about Drudge Report, a website that compiles news links.
	And if a media organization gets featured on Drudge, it gets a lot of traffic.
	So Mr. Watson wasn't so much concerned about the morality.
	He was concerned it's gonna make us look bad, and it's gonna hurt us with Drudge.
	This is about money, this is about the bottom line, what he was trying to get Alex Jones to see.
	Mr. Watson had very good reason to be alarmed.
	Not just because of the things that were being said on InfoWars and the things that were being written, but what Mr. Jones was doing on top of it.
	And one of those things was sending his reporter to Newtown, Connecticut.
	And what you're going to see is that this reporter, Dan Badandi, who you will find out is a former professional wrestler, he went to Newtown and confronted people in Newtown.
	I want to show you a video of that.
	This is going to be Mr. Badandi.
	Following around Newtown City officials.
	And I want you to hear what he says to me.
	They had communication with the helicopter.
	They're lying on the stand.
	Now that's prejury, sir.
	You know what prejury is?
	I'm coming to jail, criminal.
	You're going to jail, criminal!
	I'm coming to retirement!
	And you, sir, are defending criminals.
	How do you feel about that?
	You know, this guy here is somebody out of Central Kasten.
	This is the exact person that they would hire to represent criminals, folks.
	If Sandy Hope truth is coming out, you people are going to jail.
	You can smile all you want, you're going to jail for fraud.
	All right, we're going to have a credential stand to go to the Infowars.com, the number one alternative news source in the world.
	Live right on the air.
	Oh, what do you have to say about defending criminals?
	You're a bunch of frites, a bunch of criminals!
	Enjoy your fair reserve notes now, scumbags!
	I see those people, folks!
	They're talking about sleeping hot!
	Danny Hooker's an inside job!
	The thing about this is, is that...
	I think you can tell from this video...
	Mr. Badandi, that reporter...
	He probably believes this stuff.
	He's being...
	Mr. Jones used him just as much as anybody.
	This poor guy, not maybe, you know, not the sharpest thinker sometimes, maybe believes this.
	Mr. Jones doesn't.
	He was happy to have this happen, and you will see that these videos are featured on InfoWars, where they bragged about scaring the people of Newtown.
	And it wasn't just editor Paul Watson warning Mr. Jones.
	The warnings came out only from InfoWars.
	Mr. Jones and Infowars was warned by their viewers that what they were doing was wrong.
	And you're going to hear about people who are online debunkers.
	People who were so horrified that they felt they wanted to make it their duty to try to debunk and disprove the things that Infowars was saying.
	And those people also contacted the company and let them know in no uncertain terms the potential legal consequences from where this was headed.
	That happened.
	But it didn't matter.
	It didn't matter that they warned them, told them that what they were doing was wrong, told them that what they were doing was false, because Infowars already knew that.
	They already knew they were lying.
	They knew it was false.
	Here's the thing.
	You're going to see that you're in your testimony from the company that they admit they received a huge volume of emails from Wolfgang Halbig and Jim Fetzer that were crazy.
	And they knew that.
	And they admit it.
	And you're going to hear that they knew that Halbig and Fetzer and others were harassing the parents.
	And they didn't care.
	Didn't bother them in the slightest.
	This kept up into 2016. And one of the things that you might remember about 2016 is the 2016 presidential election.
	Mr. Jones became a major topic during that election.
	Some of you may remember, in fact, that Mr. Jones' lies were discussed by Clinton in her campaign speeches.
	Mr. Jones didn't like this.
	Mr. Jones fashions himself as a political enemy and rival of Hillary Clinton.
	And when she said this about him, he was mad, and he decided to respond.
	So he released a video on November 18, 2016, and it was called His Final Statement on Sanyo.
	It was not his final statement.
	It was very, very disturbing.
	You're going to see a couple things in this video.
	You're going to see that Mr. Jones, for the first time, directly addresses the complaints of the parents who have been outraged about this.
	And he's going to say about that, that that is suspicious.
	That they protest too much.
	That they must be hiding something.
	And at the end of this long rant, You're going to hear Mr. Jones look right into this camera, tell the people directly.
	He will address the people who say they're parents that I see on TV. And what he says to them is, my heart would go out to me.
	But the problem is, I've seen actors before, and I know when I'm watching a movie, and I know when I'm watching something real.
	You see Mr. Jones nodding along with that.
	And why should...
	In fact, isn't that in Shakespeare's Hamlet?
	Methinks you protest too much.
	So, here is my statement for the media when they call up, saying, where do you stand on this?
	Where I've always stood.
	When there were other mass shootings, I would simply point out that they're very rare, statistically, and why should we all give up our rights?
	Because some other bad person does something.
	A guy with a car runs over 50 people.
	Do we ban routing cars?
	It's the same thing.
	And there have been other instances of shootings that are very suspicious.
	Aurora is one.
	Just look into that.
	But this particular case, they are so scared of investigation.
	So everything they do basically ends up blowing up in their face.
	So, you guys are going to get what you want now.
	I'm going to start reinvestigating Sandy Hook and everything else that happened with it.
	I'm Al Scho signing off from InfoWars.com.
	If you're watching this transmission, think for yourself.
	I know it's a thought crime.
	And then ask yourself, what is it so strange?
	But I will say this, finally, my heart does go out to all parents that lose children, whether it's stabbings or whether it's to car wrecks or whether it's stranglings or whether it's to blunt force trauma or murder, firearms, whatever the case is, I'm a parent and my heart goes out to all parents that have lost children in these tragic events.
	And so, if children were lost in Sandy Hook, my heart goes out to each and every one Of those parents and the people that say they're parents that I see on the news.
	The only problem is I've watched a lot of soap operas and I've seen actors before.
	And I know when I'm watching a movie, I don't know when I'm watching something real.
	Let's look at Sandy Hook.
	This man knew that the parents of murdered children He looked straight into that camera and he said, the only problem is I've watched a lot of soap operas and I've seen actors before and I know when I'm watching a movie and I know when I'm watching something.
	It kept going.
	It just kept going.
	It doesn't stop.
	2017. And it's still going.
	They're still making videos saying it's phony as a $3 bill.
	In fact, one of those from that year that I want to talk to you about was called Sandy Hook Vampires Exposed.
	And in that video, Mr. Jones says that the media, the central intelligence, the parents that save their parents that he sees on the news, People who were the fake crisis actors.
	People who were faking the interview with Anderson Cooper.
	They're all vampires of San Diego.
	And he says, all the same fake stuff again.
	The school wasn't even open.
	It was rotting and falling apart.
	It didn't even look like a real school.
	And he asks, why haven't we seen pictures of bodies?
	Him and his new news director, Mr. Du, they wanted to see the bodies.
	And at this point, in 2017, they are at their breaking point.
	At this point, there had been an ongoing nationwide controversy that was all churned by Jones.
	There was Jones's public denial of their son's violent death.
	And they were getting harassment by Mr. Halberg and other followers of Jones.
	They were at the breaking point.
	And so, Neil made a decision.
	A very tough decision.
	He made the decision on June 19th, 2017. He decided he agreed to an interview with Megyn Kelly.
	I think some of y'all may remember Megyn Kelly used to have an NBC show.
	It's called Megyn Kelly Tonight, some news magazine.
	And he thought, when Miss Kelly asked him if he would come on the show, because she was doing a profile about Mr. Jones, he thought, if I go on the show and I say, please stop.
	Please stop.
	I'm a real dad.
	He thought if Mr. Jones was to be able to look him in the eyes and see him, that he could solve this.
	And so he went on Miss Kelly's show in front of a national televised audience and said, look, I'm a real dad.
	I lost my son.
	I buried my son.
	I held my son with a bullet hole through his head.
	Please stop.
	And Neil was hopeful.
	Neil was really hopeful that it would stop.
	It did not.
	On June 25, 2017, Infowars struck back directly at Mr. Hussman.
	They retaliated, and they did it in a disgusting way.
	They aired a video that talked about Neil's interview on Megyn Kelly and said, hmm, one problem.
	Mr. Heslin's a liar.
	Mr. Heslin never held his child.
	He made up that story.
	And we can prove it.
	Because you see, according to InfoWars' version of events, The shooting was fake, and all these fake actor parents, who were like paid actors of the CIA, were given a cover story.
	And one of the easiest parts of their cover story apparently was that they didn't release the bodies of the children to the parents.
	And the idea being, if you don't have to worry about the bodies and all that sort of stuff, it makes it easier to pull off this fakery.
	So they had all these paid actors say, we never got the children.
	The bodies never released us.
	But the allegation here is that Mr. Heslin forgot his cover story and said something that wasn't true, that he held his child.
	They did this by deceptively editing video interviews.
	The verses of this man, you're going to see this in these videos are played.
	I'm going to play you this video about Mr. Hassel.
	And this man is Dr. Wayne Carver.
	He is the medical examiner who had the incredibly difficult job of seeing those children after CPO. And what you're gonna see, the evidence will show you that Dr. Carver in this interview was talking about the process by which the children were identified.
	They got all the children and they gotta get the parents into contact.
	And he'll talk about how the way you do that is through photograph.
	The reason you do that is it's thus traumatic.
	You don't want to bring a parent into the room of a body of a child that's not players.
	So you want to do this by photograph.
	Make sure that you get them lined up for you.
	And as you'll hear, he'll even say, there's a time and a place for up close and personal.
	But first you identify by photograph.
	They actually edited this video in such a way to make it look like, oh no, the parents were only shown photographs of their children.
	And it's actually just a complete deception, sleight of hand, by editing this man's interview.
	They do the same thing with these parents.
	This is Lynn and Christine McDonald.
	And Lynn and Christine McDonald, you'll see in this interview, We're talking about the process of being at the funeral home of their daughter.
	And her casket.
	And, you know, as a mom, when your child has suffered these kinds of injuries, you have to make a very difficult decision.
	And that decision's whether to open that casket.
	And Ms. McDonald made the decision not to.
	And you're gonna hear, you'll hear expert testimony talking about this interview, where you'll see that Ms. McDonald Wanted her little daughter, she wanted to remember just the way she was.
	So she didn't look.
	And what InfoWars did is they took her interview and they cut her off mid-sentence and made it look like she was never allowed to see her children.
	Both of these things, all of this stuff you're going to see in this video came from this anonymous blog post that had information from that gentleman Jim Fetzer.
	Who infowars, you'll hear testimony, that they knew, at the time they published this broadcast, they knew Mr. Fetzer was crazy, completely unreliable.
	They didn't care.
	They were doing this to retaliate against Neil, who had the temerity, the audacity, to stand up on national television and tell him to stop.
	That's what this was for.
	I want you to see that video.
	Let's play that.
	So folks, now here's another story.
	You know, I don't even know if Alex knows about this, to be honest with you.
	Alex, if you're listening and you want to, uh, or if you just want to know what's going on, Zero Hedge has just published a story.
	Megyn Kelly fails to fact check Sandy Hook's, Sandy Hook father's contradictory claim in Alex Jones' hit piece.
	Now again, this, this broke.
	I think it broke today.
	I don't know what time.
	But featured in Megyn Kelly's expose, Neil Heslin, a father of one of the victims, during the interview described what happened the day of the shooting.
	And basically what he said the statement he made, fact checkers on this have said, cannot be accurate.
	He's claiming that he held his son and saw the bullet hole in his head.
	That is his claim.
	Now, according to a timeline of events and a coroner's testimony, that is not possible.
	And so one must look at Megyn Kelly and say, Megyn, I think it's time for you to explain this contradiction in the narrative.
	Because this is only going to fuel the conspiracy theory that you're trying to put out, in fact.
	So, and here's the thing too.
	You would remember, let me see how long these clips are.
	You would remember if you held your dead kid in your hands with a bullet hole.
	That's not something that you would With his kid.
	At Sandy Hook Elementary School, one of the darkest chapters in American history was a hoax.
	I lost my son.
	I buried my son.
	I held my son with a bullet hole through his head.
	Neil Heslin's son Jesse, just six years old, was murdered along with 19 of his classmates and six adults on December 14, 2012 in Newtown, Connecticut.
	I dropped him off in 904.
	That's when we dropped him off at school with his book bag.
	Hours later, I was picking him up in a body bag.
	Okay, so making a pretty extreme claim that would be a very thing vivid in your memory holding his dead child...
	Now here is an account from the coroner that does not cooperate with that narrative.
	We did not bring the bodies and the families into contact.
	We took pictures of them, of their facial features.
	It's easier on the families when you do that.
	There is a time and a place for a person personal in the grieving process.
	were to accomplish this, we felt it would be best to do it this way.
	And you can sort of, you can control the situation depending on the photographer.
	I have very good photographers.
	It's got to be hard not to have been able to actually see her.
	Well, at first I thought that and I had questioned maybe wanting to see her.
	Okay, so just another question that people are now going to be asking about Sandy Hook, the conspiracy theorists on the internet out there that have a lot of questions that are yet to get answered.
	I mean, you can say whatever you want about the event.
	That's just a fact.
	So there's another one.
	Will there be a clarification from Heslin or Megyn Kelly?
	I wouldn't hold your breath.
	So now they're fueling the conspiracy theory claims.
	Unbelievable.
	We'll be right back with more.
	The man you just saw, his name is Owen Schroeder.
	He's another media star, I think, for Mr. Jones' protege.
	And what you just saw there was a manufactured, fabricated lie, specifically engineered and calculated to hurt Neil Heslin and Scarlett Rose, to retaliate against Neil for daring to speak out, Proposing any sort of resistance to Mr. Jones' years of cruelty.
	They struck back against him.
	And it didn't end there.
	Now, Neal and his family had been introduced into the Sandy Hook conspiracy.
	They were a key part of it now.
	They were a focus of this lie.
	And it didn't end.
	A month later, you're going to see that there was significant controversy over this video you just saw.
	And Mr. Jones, a month later, doubled down and defended it.
	He got on a show, he played that entire video again, and then he said this.
	He said, that was a month ago.
	He, meaning Mr. Schroyer, had said, I wouldn't hold my breath looking for a response.
	We've not seen a clarification.
	Mr. Jones then said, the stuff I found was they never let them see their bodies.
	This is Jesse.
	And the thing that I think is really important to understand about Neil and Scarlett's state of mind when this video came out is, you know, obviously Neil is talking about the last moments he spent with his little boy.
	And Alex Jones came along and he took that memory, that rather beautiful memory, And he ruined it.
	And he tarnished it.
	And he made it ugly.
	And now, every single time that Neil Haslam has to think about the last moments he spent with Jesse, he also has to think about this horrible moment.
	This disgusting series of lies that will be ever, forever tied to his son's death.
	That Jesse's legacy had now become tied to this.
	That there would always be an asterisk next to his name.
	That there would be this contingent of people who would come out of the woodwork and decide they needed to confront Neil and Scarlett about this.
	And Neil and Scarlett spent the next years, up until the day they're seen in this courthouse, dealing with this fallout.
	Of having all of these people think that they're liars, crisis actors, CIA agents, and their son Jesse didn't even live.
	I want to talk about what this trial means.
	Because there has never been anything like this.
	There are lots of defamation cases in the past.
	It is in fact Defamation is one of the oldest laws we have in human society.
	Many of you know it in another form, in its earliest form from the dawn of man.
	We do not bear false witness against our neighbors.
	We believe that as a people, and we have since the moment we all started sitting down and living in cities together.
	And in the modern form, we see defamation cases.
	And that would, you know, sometimes be about a news article.
	Or a book.
	Or a video on TV. Or in some cases, maybe a couple of articles.
	Or a series of videos.
	But never, never, in the human history of definition, has somebody for ten years, over and over and over, to a global audience, harassed, lied, and attacked the parents of murdered children For ten years, causing huge portions of this country and indeed the globe to doubt them and their story.
	It has never happened.
	Where people are showing up and confronting the parents of murdered children in public, threatening their lives.
	It's never happened.
	This trial is different than anything that's ever gone on in this courtroom.
	And you're not here to decide whether all this happened.
	I think we all know that now.
	We're going to see the videos.
	Nobody doubts that the videos were published.
	You're going to see the black and white documents.
	You're going to see the internal emails.
	But you're not going to have to decide whether all this happened.
	And you know that you're not here to decide whether Mr. Jones is legally responsible.
	It's also not something you need to decide.
	And this also has nothing to do with the Constitution.
	Because defamation is not protected by freedom of speech.
	We decided that long ago, isn't it?
	It actually recalls some of the words written by our old Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the former Chief Justice of the United States.
	And he wrote, he wrote in Hustler vs.
	Falwell.
	I'm going to allow it, but It's very great here.
	In Hustler v.
	Follower, Justice Rehnquist said this.
	False statements of fact are particularly valueless.
	They interfere with the truth-seeking function of the marketplace of ideas, and they cause damage to an individual's reputation that cannot easily be repaired by counterspeak.
	However persuasive or effective.
	It's for that reason that we do not protect defamation with false speech.
	Because speech is free, but lies you have to pay for.
	There is also no question that Neil and Scarlett suffered harm.
	I don't know what InfoWars lawyers are going to get up here and say.
	I don't.
	But one thing I know they will not tell you is that Neil and Scarlett weren't harmed by this.
	That's not going to happen.
	They won't tell you that.
	Because we all know that happened.
	And the testimony will show that Free Speech Systems admits that its conduct harmed the plaintiffs.
	They'll admit what they did to these parents' grieving process.
	They'll admit it.
	They just don't care.
	And they do not believe that they should have to pay anything beyond a dollar for it.
	They think that the pain that they admit that they caused has no value.
	None.
	They're going to stand up here after the things that you've just seen, admitting that they did wrong, admitting that they caused the harm, and they're going to have the absolute gall to say, give them a dollar.
	That's what they're going to do.
	You have two tasks.
	Two things you've got to do while you're in this quarter.
	The first task is how much money should Neil and Scarlett be paid for the harm Mr. Jones has caused.
	The second thing you're going to have to consider is how much money will it take to punish Mr. Jones for his actions.
	That's it.
	There's the only two things you're here to do today, through this trial.
	And I wanna talk really briefly about the burden of proof Because that came up a little bit during jury selection.
	And you'll notice they use this term, preponderance of the evidence.
	And ever since I came out of law school long ago, I do not know why we use words like that.
	That is dumb.
	Why do we talk that way?
	It really, because there's such an easy way to say it, Everybody in the courtroom will agree with me, the defense counsel will agree, that what preponderance of the evidence means is a fact more complete true than not true.
	Just a slight tipping of the scales.
	If you think you could flip a coin flip and it's better than those odds, that's more likely true than not true.
	And that's how we decide things in a civil court.
	Obviously most of the things, like about whether he did something wrong, or whether these videos are published, you won't have to decide that one.
	So this actually isn't going to be that difficult in this case, because the evidence that you're going to see is going to fill up that scale you see that's pushing down.
	It's going to weigh it way down, because what goes in that part of the scale is the harm to Neil and Scarlett.
	And the evidence of that is overwhelming.
	You're going to be hearing a lot about it.
	You see, Mr. Jones knew that his lies would damage Neil's reputation.
	He knew that.
	He knew that if he cast Neil and his family in the middle of this Sandy Hook lie, that millions of people across this country were going to believe it, that they were going to harass these people, that their lives are going to get more difficult, not because of what was going on in their minds, but what was going on in the minds of the millions of people who saw this.
	He knew that damage would happen.
	He doesn't care.
	He thinks it's worth a dollar.
	What I want you to remember about this is this number.
	24%.
	You are going to hear expert testimony in this case.
	That will tell you that that number, 24%, at the time all these events were happening, is the percent of people in this country who believe that Sandy Hook was either definitely or possibly staged.
	One in four Americans.
	And you're going to hear expert testimony that Mr. Jones was the only voice of any importance whatsoever, the only commercial media figure at all to spread these lives.
	These were things that were confined to the weird corners of the internet, bizarre Facebook groups and weird little YouTube videos and these crank professors writing their anonymous blogs.
	Nobody with millions and millions and millions of followers.
	Nobody was doing it.
	It was Mr. Jones.
	And you're going to hear expert testimony that Mr. Jones and his conduct is the nearly exclusive driver of this.
	That as Mr. Jones put that out and his followers put that out and it spread like a virus through the internet.
	And you're going to hear how had it not been for Mr. Jones, this number would be trivial.
	Because it would have never gone beyond the most crazy places on the internet.
	And you're gonna hear how for 10 years, Mr. Jones' lies have inspired his guests to harass Neil and Scarlett.
	That's something you're gonna hear.
	You're gonna hear how guests and viewers who believed Mr. Jones' lies contacted Neil and Scarlett at home.
	That they accosted them in public.
	They harassed them online and by telephone.
	And that they threatened their very lives.
	Mr. Jones knew that his lies about Jesse's death would cause severe emotional distress to Neil and Scarlett.
	He didn't just knew it, he intended it.
	Intended to inflict emotional distress.
	This was his goal.
	It wasn't that he committed an accident.
	It wasn't that he was just not careful.
	He intended to hurt them, and now he wants to pay a dollar.
	But for ten years, Mr. Jones has robbed Neil and Scarlett of the time they needed to heal over the violent death of their son, Jesse, because Mr. Jones wanted to sell more of his products.
	That's the reality.
	You're going to hear how Mr. Jones' lies caused Neil and Scarlett to get stuck in loops of negative thinking about Jesse.
	is when your thoughts don't have an off switch.
	You're going to hear expert psychological testimony, medical testimony, medical experts, that what this is called is forced rumination.
	Rumination is obsessive thinking about a tragic situation When it interferes with your normal function.
	And that's what was happening to Neil and Scarlett over the past ten years.
	For ten years, Jones has used his campaign of lies about the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting to force Neil and Scarlett to ruminate about the violent loss of their son, Jesse.
	Whenever Neil encounters the Sandy Hook lie, he can think of nothing else.
	And whenever Scarlet encounters the Sandy Hook lie, she shuts down and isolates.
	It didn't have to be this way.
	I want to make crystal clear to all of you, we are not here today to seek compensation for the death of their child and the grief that comes along with losing a child.
	A lot of parents lose children.
	Way more than we want.
	It's accidents, disease, firearms.
	We've actually gotten to the point where firearms is a leading cause of death of children.
	Parents have to deal with this.
	And yes, it's horrible.
	But with qualified medical intervention and time, you can heal.
	We just heal.
	We develop scar tissue.
	You come to a place of closure.
	You come to a place of acceptance.
	And the grief will always be with you, but if you can do it in a healthy way, the outcomes for a parent who's lost a child you're gonna hear are okay.
	You can get them to be in an okay place.
	People like Neal and Scarlet can heal over time if they are allowed to shape their past and present circumstances.
	But Neal and Scarlet were prevented from healing because they had to contend with Alex Jones' lies.
	Dealing with this conspiracy of lies for ten years put a lot of life stressors on Neal and Scarlet, which led to a substantial decline in their well-being.
	And cause them to continually suffer aggravated mental anguish.
	That is what you will hear from a medical professional, psychological professional, I'm going to tell you this.
	And that's one of the other things you're going to compensate for in this case.
	We talked a lot about mental anguish yesterday, but it's that and the reputation, right?
	It's about what went on in their minds, that's the mental anguish.
	But in the millions of other people's minds, that's the reputation damage.
	Both of those things happen to Neil and Stark.
	That's not the only thing you're going to have to consider.
	You're going to hear evidence over the next coming days that relates to the things you'll need to consider for punitive damages.
	And as we talked about, these are the damages designed to punish the defendant and also to deter To convince every other media organization that if they go down this path, if they try to copy Mr. Jones' formula, it will not be a good thing for them.
	Hopefully, this trial will be able to deter and prevent any other media organizations from following the same cruel path.
	Because what you have to remember is that Mr. Jones, for 10 years, intentionally lied that the shooting was fake or a government-led plot.
	When I say 10 years, it's because I want you to understand this hasn't stopped.
	Bringing this lawsuit did not solve this.
	You can look at what Mr. Jones has said afterwards, and you can see inside of his mind and know how malicious he was, because he is still saying Sandy Hook is synthetic.
	I want to show you a video from October 1st, 2021, just last year, in which Mr. Jones says that, you know what?
	My original instinct was right.
	And I thought, maybe it's real.
	And now, he says, seeing how fake and synthetic everything is, maybe I was right.
	Maybe Alex Jones is always right.
	That's what you're about to hear him say.
	I want to show you this video from October 1st, 2021.
	It's like the New York Times lying about WMDs on purpose and all the people think that, "Oh, but I questioned one of the big events they hiked up because of a lot of the anomalies, and I have a right to question that.
	In fact, I for a while thought it didn't happen, then I thought it probably did, and now, Seeing how synthetic everything is.
	Maybe my original instinct.
	Maybe Alex Jones is always.
	I'm pretty much right 99% of the time, folks, and so are you.
	I mean, we all know this is easy to look at to see what's happening.
	Can you see in here today, Mr. Jones still nodding along.
	Mr. Jones, you'll hear.
	He still thinks.
	It's a cover-up.
	Sandy Hook.
	Keeps pushing it.
	Because it's important that his audience not hear him retract.
	It's important that if he was to go out and say, yeah, I was wrong.
	Yeah, I need to be accountable.
	That would destroy him with his audience.
	He can't do it.
	He won't do it.
	You need to understand that he intentionally lied to sell supplements.
	That's what he did.
	Mr. Jones used Jesse's death And Mr. Jones retaliated against Neal for speaking out.
	Mr. Jones told the world that Neal was lying about holding Justice's vote.
	Because Mr. Jones will do or say anything to protect his ability to profit off his laws.
	This is a case about creating change.
	You have the power to stop this from ever happening again.
	You can put an end to these lies by punishing Alex Jones.
	You can make that part of Jesse's legacy.
	You can make Jesse's legacy this trial in which he can hopefully Jesse's legacy can prevent this from ever happening to another family, to another set of victims.
	That can be Jesse's legacy.
	But just as importantly is compensating Neal and Scarlett for the harm that they suffer.
	And I remember when we were talking in jury selection, when my partner Mr. Ball was talking to him, a lot of us were talking about how it's difficult to wrap your mind around something abstract, like mental anguish, reputation damages.
	One of the things you're going to find out, that's going to be, that's why we all are four.
	We're going to tell you everything we can.
	We're going to give you all the instructions we can.
	We're going to show you all the evidence.
	But it's going to be up to you.
	And one of the ways that I think, right now, obviously I'm just an opening statement.
	I can't show you everything.
	But one of the things I think you should think about, a number you should keep in mind, something to help wrap your head around this level of damage, is this number.
	that 24% the number of people in this country who believe that San Diego was definitely your policy mistakes this pool of people who do not believe in Scarlet these pool of people who doubt them from out of which come these followers who were asked that group of people is 75 million people
	And we would submit to you that a fair measure, analysis, of the level of harm that was done to Neil's reputation out of all of this is one dollar for every one of those people.
	Just one dollar.
	75 million.
	And we would submit to you, too, that the emotional damage that was done to Neil and Scarlett, which you will hear through medical experts, We'd submit to you that that is at least as valuable as what happened to their reputation.
	At least.
	In this case, that has never had anything like this ever happen.
	Another $75 million.
	And that is why, at the end of evidence, we're going to come and we're going to ask for a verdict of $150 million.
	Now that is a huge verdict, to be sure.
	But it is one that will do justice to the level of harm done in this case.
	Harm that was done to the grieving parents of murdered children who have had to endure for ten years the most despicable and vile campaign of defamation and slander in American history.
	We look forward to telling you their story.
	Thank you very much.
	Alright, thank you, Mr. Bankston.
	We are going to take our morning break.
	It is 10.50.
	We're going to break for 20 minutes.
	For my jury, remember all of my instructions.
	This is still a low discussion time.
	So you can go up through that door as soon as this magic deal comes in and be ready to come back at 11.10.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	Make sure you shut that door behind you, please.
	Thank you.
	All right, you may be seated.
	Yes, Mr. Rannell.
	At this time, the defense would move to a new straw based on a violation of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Chapter 31,.0011.
	Mr. Bankston's opening statement, squarely put before the jury, content that the civil practice amenities go that the Texas Legislature says should not be in an opening statement in the first case, first part of a perpetrated trial, and therefore we'd ask for a mispronance.
	Well, this is not, as we have discussed at length, a traditional bifurcated trial.
	The only element, the only issue, and the only type of evidence that is bifurcated is the evidence on Mr. Jones and Free Speech Systems' net worth, which was not discussed in the opening statement.
	The motion is denied.
	Thank you.
	And just to remind you, we need to take up a quick thing about the work here.
	If I stand up, everybody stand up.
	Thank you.
	Get him.
	Thank you.
	Thank you. - Thank you.
	Everything outside of this courtroom.
	Every participant in this trial, every party, every lawyer is ordered to be silent outside of this courtroom or if there is any member of the jury within sight.
	And on the fifth floor entirely, no talking about this case at all.
	No talking about anything.
	Because my jury cannot be hearing any of that.
	Is this understood?
	Yes, ma'am.
	We need to shut that door.
	Can you do it?
	I didn't know if you needed the rest of my counsel.
	They just came and told you you needed me.
	They are welcome to come in.
	I need at least one person from each side and I needed Mr. Jones to hear me.
	If he is asked a question, he is not allowed to answer on the fifth floor.
	If you go down to the first floor, it's fine.
	See if you remember, you may not say anything.
	And neither may anyone else.
	I just don't think they're going to be asked.
	Also, at 5 o'clock, this building is closed.
	So if you want to be interviewed, you got to do that outdoors.
	Or even if you don't want to be.
	It's outdoors.
	It's not in the building.
	We'll end at 5 and everyone must immediately pack up and leave.
	potentially the lawyers can stay and talk to me.
	Alright, what was the issue? - Mr. Bexton doesn't like my demonstrative example.
	- I actually did my other issue.
	This one is just broadcasting.
	They don't broadcast over airwaves.
	It's just factually incorrect.
	But as far as this one, There's a factual claim that there were 27 hours spent on Semioc and that constitutes less than 1% of its number, but they violated the discovery order to produce this bacteria.
	We know there's tons more 31 as being the totality of the Sandy Hook videos just did that well I wasn't in the conference
	What was agreed to me was that these are the videos that are admitted in court.
	This case is in its unique and frustrating situation because of the choices your clients have made.
	Period.
	That's the end of the day on that.
	Council and I agreed on Exhibit 31 as a summary Exhibit I wasn't there.
	What was presented to me is here's an agreed list of the videos admitted into evidence.
	Those are two different things.
	I would love to be presiding over a trial in which a full discovery process unfolded properly and according to the rules.
	It did not.
	Not because of my choice, not because of the plaintiff's choice, because of the defendant's choices.
	They are stuck with the consequences of those choices.
	I'm not going to let you use those demonstrators.
	Anything else?
	We have the issue that I've raised to you from James earlier, I don't know how you do it.
	I don't want to have that conversation out here.
	I'm not done with my break.
	We're going to go about three more minutes over because I had to deal with all that.
	I'm going to make sure that whoever is out there, and I don't know who it is, knows what my orders are now going forward.
	Mr. Bankson, you'll tell your team.
	I think all of you were in here when I issued the words about the hallway and the building.
	Is that right?
	Alright, so then everyone should understand that.
	All right, I'll be back in a few minutes.
	All right.
	All right.
	All right. All right. All right. All right. All right.
	All right. All right.
	All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right.
	Alright, you may be seated.
	Mr. Renal, are you ready?
	I have your honor.
	Alright, you may proceed.
	May I please the court?
	Yes.
	We heard a lot about rules at the beginning of the personal injury lawyers presentation.
	I'm going to tell you the most important rule I learned as a young lawyer.
	I'm going to tell you the most important rule I have in the world.
	In case anybody can't read my handwriting.
	That says do not lie to the jury if you hope to get the verdict that you've requested.
	What we heard was a conspiracy of lies.
	The truth is going to come from that witness stand.
	It's going to be in the documents, the records, the evidence.
	My mentor Who I'm lucky enough to have sitting at this table with me, told me a long time ago to keep track of the other side's opening statement and write down their misrepresentations so you can come back to the jury in closing argument and show them where they haven't kept their word.
	You see, a lawyer's opening statement is not like a politician's speech.
	You don't get to see if the politician is going to keep her word before you vote for her.
	You get to see if we keep our word before you vote in this case.
	My name is Andino Reynau, and I am honored to represent Alex Jones and FSS. He is one of the most polarizing figures In this nation.
	And I'm honored to represent him, not because I agree with everything that he says, but because I believe in his right to say it.
	And I believe in every American's right to choose what they watch, and what they listen to, and what they believe.
	Mr. Bankston's first lie came at 9.37 a.m.
	When he said that Infowars was one of the most significant networks in the USA. In fact, the evidence will show that in 2018, Infowars was completely deplatformed.
	You will not find Infowars on YouTube.
	You will not find Infowars on Facebook.
	You will not find Infowars on Twitter.
	You will find it absolutely nowhere.
	Mr. Jones has been canceled.
	Punished.
	For statements that are related to this case.
	Statements we don't dispute were wrong.
	But, in order to render a just verdict, you need to understand and be able to see all the evidence and understand the chain of events.
	understand what he said and what he said.
	I'm going to take my time and I promise not to go on for too long.
	to first tell you a little bit about this case, go through a timeline of events, and then lay out why we believe the evidence will show that we should receive the verdict.
	On December 14, 2012, Adam Lanza, a mentally disturbed a mentally disturbed young man in Connecticut, woke up early, and he was in the hospital.
	He got a.22 caliber bolt-action rifle, went to his mother's room, and shot her in the head while she was sleeping.
	He then armed himself with a long gun and two pistols, And some reports say he drove by the high school where he'd been a student, saw two police cars, and diverted to the elementary school.
	He shot his way in and killed 20 first graders, six-year-olds, and six school employees.
	In the span of 10 minutes, he created pain that would last a lifetime.
	Alex Jones was 1,500 miles away in Austin, Texas, dropping off his own six-year-old at school.
	When he heard about the event, he was shocked and saddened, just like everyone else in America.
	He was also suspicious.
	Alex Jones has hosted a show called InfoWars since the late 1990s.
	He started out on Austin Public Access.
	InfoWars is a talk show where Alex Jones discusses, and some of the people who work with him, discuss conspiracy theories, and they discuss government cover-ups, and they discuss Lies told by the mainstream media.
	And they try to give an alternative view.
	Mostly it's a college.
	So let's discuss what happened and go through the years.
	I want to clarify something.
	Because you're going to watch the videos.
	The videos are the most important part of this.
	Not cherry picking little snippets, but actually watching the videos.
	And I hope you hold the plaintiff's account.
	You're going to hear that Alex Jones was concerned about the government's response on the day of Sandy Hook.
	You're going to hear that he suspected the government.
	That he thought the government might have been involved.
	You are not going to hear him say that he didn't think any kids were killed at any time in 2012 or 2013. So when you watch those videos, and watch them, when he says staged an attack, he means they committed an attack.
	When he says false flag, he means the government attacked its own citizens to try and achieve a political end.
	Alex Jones doesn't trust the government.
	Millions of Americans don't trust the government.
	So let's talk about 2012. And the first thing I want to talk about is what happened In the immediate aftermath of the Sandy Herb murders.
	There was, and you'll see Alex, you'll be able to watch his response to it.
	Like him, everyone was heartbroken across the nation and across the world.
	And they showed their sympathy for the people of Newtown, Connecticut.
	You will hear from the witness stand There were over 500,000 letters, cards, drawings.
	There were so many toys sent to the town because it had happened right around Christmas.
	So many toys sent around the town that they had to get a separate mail sorting facility to distribute the toys to other places.
	Millions of dollars went to the United Way to support the family members.
	President Obama got on a jet and flew there the next day.
	Not to mention every senator from Connecticut, every mayor, every town politician.
	People from around the world gathered to war.
	The mainstream media also went.
	Unfortunately, Some of the people
	who went to Sandy Hook.
	And the evidence is going to show that Sandy Hook wasn't different from any other school shooting.
	I mean, we live in a nation divided.
	If you're blue, every time there's a school shooting, it's America's the most dangerous place in the world, and we need to ban the ARC. And if you read, every time there's a school shooting, it's, again, here they are, taking advantage of a tragedy to try and infringe upon our rights.
	Unfortunately, that's just the way things work in this country.
	And it was no different at San Diego.
	Hours after the event, CNN, every major news source was there, interviewing people, Broadcasting.
	The evidence is going to show calling for gun legislation.
	Infowars, back in Austin, was also covering it in 2012 and 2013. It was big news.
	And Infowars never contested that the children were married in 2012 or 2013. You'll watch the videos.
	I was, frankly, I was surprised.
	You'll watch them, okay?
	Assess them yourself.
	They were covering it, and they were saying that it was being botched, mishandled, and used to push gun legislation.
	And you'll hear from the witness stand, they will admit to you that the investigation and the coverage of the event was botched at first.
	I mean, I don't know what we have now.
	There's an enormous report.
	But you will hear covered that CNN misidentified the shooter and put this man's picture up from Hoboken, New Jersey for four hours and said that he was the real killer.
	You will hear that there was another, well at least they reported, that there was another man in handcuffs outside.
	You will hear that it was reported, and you'll see it in the video, that there were people who were arrested.
	There was chaos.
	And we all know that that's what happens after these events, okay?
	Unfortunately, in this case, the chaos, the bad coverage, led a lot of people to death.
	People who became known as truthers or the truth community.
	These were hundreds or even thousands of Americans who got together on Facebook and on Twitter and on YouTube and discussed the event and pointed out what they saw as inconsistencies in it that they believed suggested that there was a cover-up.
	That the government wasn't being forthright about what happened.
	And some of these people are very, very extreme.
	They are!
	I want to mention four people in particular.
	because they were leading members of the truth community.
	All right?
	They were all over YouTube.
	You'll hear that some of the videos they made got 10 million views.
	This was big news.
	And InfoWars was covering, was covering the questions that people have.
	Because InfoWars believes in people's right to question information.
	And they were interviewing these people and saying, hey, you have questions about Sandy Hook.
	What are they?
	Okay?
	Now there did come a time When Alex was taken in, right?
	And did become, for a time, one of those people.
	We're not hiding that.
	But it wasn't in 2012, and it wasn't in 2013. The four people are Dr. James Fetzer, who was a professor at the University of Minnesota at the time,
	Dr. James Tracy, Who was a professor at Atlantic Florida University of Media Studies at the time.
	Wolfgang Halbig, who you'll see, who was a Florida State Trooper, who did work for the Seminole County Education Board.
	And who claimed to be a school safety expert who had been interviewed on multiple channels and had even testified before Congress.
	Some of that now, 20-20 hindsight, I don't think is true.
	But he presented himself that way at the time.
	And if you understand the news cycle and how it works, commentators...
	People on talk shows, they get information, they run with it.
	Alex Jones was wrong to believe these people.
	But he didn't do it out of spite.
	The evidence will show Because he thought it was important coverage.
	Because he thought that these people had a right to say what they were doing.
	That a citizen has a right to get on Infowars and talk about what their questions are.
	So, let's talk about the bad facts.
	Have we talked about brutal honesty?
	2014 to 2015 in the summer.
	The rest.
	Alex Jones has apologized repeatedly for the coverage that he gave to Sandy Hook from 2014 to the summer of 2015. And he has every reason He does.
	They trusted people that they shouldn't have trusted.
	It created a lot of tension at his company.
	There were arguments about it.
	But he felt the show was important, and he aired it.
	He regrets that now, and he said so.
	The thing you have to remember about Alex He has been talking about conspiracy theories and taking on the elites, whether that is the Bush administration or the Obama administration or the Clinton administration.
	He's been the outsider for a really long time.
	And by the time we get to 2014 and 2015, What he perceived as so many lies and so many cover-ups and so much hand-washing of the facts that he had become biased.
	He was looking at the world through dirty glasses.
	And if you look at the world through dirty glasses, everything you see is dirty.
	Important for you to know, I don't think there's any evidence that is going to come from that witness stand that Mr. Heslin or Miss Lewis ever watched his show during this
	And I can assure you that there will be no evidence that Mr. Jones or any member of his staff named Mr. Heslin or Ms. Lewis during this time.
	So just to recap where we are, 2012-2013, InfoWars is covering Sandy Hook with a slant that children were really murdered, but there's a government cover-up and potentially government involvement.
	That doesn't say that Mr. Heslin and Ms. Lewis aren't the parents of a dead child.
	It doesn't.
	So we get to this period, and it ends...
	in July.
	And after July, we have quiet we have quiet from Infobars on this topic.
	I'll reject the reasons we just discussed that Infobars was quiet Thank you.
	I'm free to discuss what I believe the evidence will show, Your Honor.
	You are free to discuss what the evidence will show but liability has been established in this case and you are
	Let's talk about 2016 Was it election year?
	It was a very contested election.
	And Mr. Jones, for the first time in his entire career, supported a candidate.
	And he was associated with Donald Trump.
	Hillary saw that as a liability for Trump.
	And made Alex a big part of her campaign.
	Saying that Alex had repeatedly said on his show that Sandy Hook hadn't happened.
	By this point, Alex didn't believe that.
	So on November 18th, 2016, he put out a video called Final Statement on Sandy Hook.
	And you'll have the opportunity to watch that video.
	And I think you should insist on watching that video in its totality, just like every video that's going to come into evidence.
	Because only then can you understand what really happened.
	You can't cherry pick.
	And he said, I want to reach out to the victims Of criminal crimes and listeners to clarify where I stand on Sandy Hook.
	The last three or four years, the mainstream media has made attacks against me that I said no one died.
	I've hosted debates with both sides of the aisles.
	I've always said I'm not really sure of what happened.
	I can see based on the evidence why people might say nobody died.
	But I don't know what happened.
	I know mass shootings happen.
	The official story, however, of Sandy Hook has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.
	And he still believes that.
	That's it.
	Only statement on Sandy Hook for the whole year.
	Megyn Kelly is no friend to Donald Trump.
	And she decided that she was going to run a hit piece on Alex Jones about this issue.
	Alex Jones hadn't brought it up since November.
	She brought it up.
	She decided to air a show where she would confront Alex, who she got to interview by misrepresenting the purpose of the story.
	And juxtapose it with an interview with Mr. Heslin.
	Alex had never said Mr. Heslin's name.
	He'd never said Miss Lewis's name.
	The show is about the air.
	And before it airs, Alex says, I need to clear the air because this is going to misrepresent me.
	And he says, in a piece, I believe children died there.
	So, the show airs, and afterwards, a young reporter at InfoWars sees an article on a website called Zero Hedge.
	And that article is in evidence.
	And the judge has already found Infowars, or Free Speech Systems, the parent company for Infowars, and Alex Jones, guilty for those statements.
	But, You are free to consider the intent with which they were made in determining whether they were made maliciously or in good faith.
	And you're going to hear from the reporter who made the statement.
	Your Honor, I'm not to object again to the comment.
	So you're going to have to explain the difference between defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
	Intentional infliction of emotional distress, for which Alex Jones and Free Speech Systems LLC have already been found liable, includes the state of mind of the actor, which means it has already been established that the acts they took to inflict the emotional distress were intentional.
	Defamation does not include that.
	In the same way.
	So you're going to have to clarify that if you're going to go down that path.
	I think the court has already clarified.
	This is the article.
	is in evidence.
	I'm going to move this because I'm sure that most of you can't see it.
	And basically, the article, you'll have it, you can read it, you know, you can fact check me, but basically the article says that
	Megyn Kelly isn't doing a good job fact checking her sources because she didn't run down a seeming inconsistency between what the coroner said about the parents not being brought into contact with but basically the article says that Megyn Kelly isn't doing a good job fact checking her sources because she didn't run down a seeming inconsistency between what the coroner said about the parents
	And interestingly, it states, Alex Jones's official position is that he believes children die in the shooting.
	In fact, during a 2014 account of a hearing before the Newtown Board of Education, an InfoWars journalist did not dispute that Adam Lanza had perpetrated the shooting.
	I'm almost...
	There are four big reasons why I'm going to come back to you at the end of this case and ask for your verdict.
	The first reason is because when you look at the totality of the coverage InfoWars' coverage of the Sandy Hook incident between 2012 and 2018 was less than one half of 1% of its total coverage.
	It was barely 27 hours.
	I can reject again?
	He can say this.
	He's got to show it.
	Okay, thank you.
	Less than one half.
	And remember rule number one, the lawyer who lies deserves to lose.
	Less than one half of 1% of total coverage on the show.
	Okay.
	And important to add to that, Remember, you've got CNN and Fox and every other newscast covering this issue.
	Especially back in 2013. And Infowars is a whisper in a hurricane.
	Point number two.
	The No One Died at Sandy Hook lie did not begin with Mr. Phillips.
	It began with Fetzer, and Tracy, and Halvick, and a guy named Steve Pachenik, who was a former State Department official and a psychiatrist.
	they were four of the most prominent among thousands of people who were saying this on YouTube, on Twitter, on Facebook.
	Given that, it brings me to point number three.
	You are still allowed to decide how much And in doing so, you can assess whether his words made their way to the ears of the plaintiffs.
	You can assess whether anybody was moved to act by anything that Alex Jones said.
	And the evidence will show that he did not cause the harassment.
	Number four.
	Mr. Bankston, the personal injury lawyer talked about this a little bit.
	Actual damages.
	The first question you're going to be asked to answer is actual damages.
	You will see no evidence that it was Alex Jones, the talk show host and not Adam Lanza, the mass murderer.
	The mental anguish that is honestly suffered by Mr. Heslin and Ms. Lewis.
	The videos are so important.
	I wanted, before I sit down, I want to make a couple more points.
	Number one, Alex Jones has apologized repeatedly.
	And I expect he'll do so again here.
	Alex Jones has already been punished.
	He Because of this case, he lost all his access to the Internet.
	Millions of dollars.
	cancer he regrets And he's paying a price for it.
	He's paying a price for it today.
	He pays a price for it every time somebody on the street chases him and says, you killed the children at San Diego.
	And throws coffee on him.
	And because he's been canceled, nobody can hear his silence.
	Nobody can Hardboard cutouts.
	We are all real complex people.
	People make mistakes.
	They pay for it.
	They want to tell you this is the great Satan.
	This man is not a cardboard cutout.
	He's a human being just like every one of us with his own ideas.
	You will be able to decide.
	And I want you to ask yourself, at the end of this case, is this an honest attempt by personal injury is this an honest attempt by personal injury lawyers to get just compensation for damages that were actually experienced?
	Or is this a cynical attempt by personal injury lawyers to enrich themselves while silencing a political opponent and limiting every American's right to choose what they watch, And what they listen to.
	I look forward to presenting this case today.
	All right.
	Thank you, Mr. Reynold.
	Before we break, I see people with gum in their mouth.
	It's clearly stated on the door.
	There is no eating.
	There is no gum in this courtroom.
	If I see it again, I'll stop.
	I'm talking, sir.
	The number one rule in court, fair or not, is when the judge is talking, nobody else is.
	Even if I interrupt someone.
	There is no chewing gum.
	There is no soda.
	There is no eating in this courtroom.
	If I see it again, I'll have you removed.
	There is no recording of any kind of the YouTube feed or the proceedings in this courtroom without prior written permission signed by me.
	No photographs.
	No audio recording, no video recording.
	So, I'm not taking away everyone's phones in the room, but if we find out that you're doing one of those things, you will be removed.
	There is no talking to, talking in front of, or approaching by anyone of my jury.
	If somebody does that in the courthouse, they will be removed until this trial is over.
	Just want to make that very clear to everyone.
	We're going to break for lunch.
	It's noon.
	We're going to break until 1.30.
	My jury can go ahead and head on out the lawyers need me right now We'll come back with one One
	All right, Mr.
	Anel First on On the United Way It was certainly not my intent I think I said that United Way received millions of dollars of donations to support the parents and the families of Sandy Hook I don't think that's collateral source
	I think that's what the evidence will be that the United Way took in all that money I certainly didn't mean to insinuate that they turned around and gave it to Mr. Huston and Ms. Lewis And I think it's easily covered in the testimony The money came in, it was spent on all sorts of things I'm not going to get into it But there's lots of allegations that it was missed spent On others by the United Way I'm not really sure what relevance it has to this case at all
	I think it's relevant because part of We think that the fact that
	the whole community was supported throughout this period They're going to call an expert,
	and I expect that the expert's going to use examples and say, you know, when somebody has their experience of calling David, it re-victimizes him.
	That might very well be true in the case of sexual assault or something, where you reach out to an authority figure and the person says, man, I don't believe you, that you were raised or raised.
	But our case is distinguishable.
	There was tremendous outpouring of support from these families to help them.
	And that's relevant to the amount of negligence that they saw.
	I would just like to say that if he felt that a collateral source issue of benefits was relevant, he was obligated under the standing order to approach the court and secure a ruling before putting it in front of this jury.
	This jury has now been poisoned to think that these plaintiffs are being part of the recipient of millions of dollars, which is exactly what Mr. Jones said he was going to do and why he brought it.
	I'm interested.
	If I were going to violate your honor's ruling, which I certainly would not come into, it wouldn't be in a two-second throwaway comment after saying they got cards, flowers, toys and...
	: Alright, what's the rest of your response?
	: The issue of net worth.
	I said nothing about Mr. Jones' net worth.
	Mr. Bankston made the platforming part of his opening statement.
	To say somebody has lost millions of dollars doesn't say anything about their network.
	I mean, the platforming, he brought that into this trial, right?
	And there are consequences to the platforming that are painfully obvious, and one of them is loss of revenue.
	Do you remember my response to that is he not only said he lost millions, but tied that in the same way he lost everything.
	These comments were clearly to imply evidence of net worth.
	That's what our motion is on.
	By putting this into the trial, the only way I could rebut it is, for instance, putting in the amount of revenues for the years that he listed up there.
	He said, oh, 2016, we have evidence of where the revenues were, and there are $165 million of And
	then on the The Court of Appeals denied our motion on Friday.
	The sanction was due on Monday.
	I had a check overnighted from InfoWars for He put on it the names of all the plaintiffs.
	I instructed my client, his father, particularly to put on it the name of the law firm and the name of the plaintiffs, and had it delivered to their offices.
	Instead of cashing it and saying, you owe me another hundred grand, Mr. Bankston called me and said, you know, the check's not legible, it's for the wrong amount, Reissue me a new check.
	Okay, so I called my client, and they are putting a stop payment on the old check.
	I think they already have, and they're coming up.
	They're going to do a new check that has everything typed on it.
	I thought I was going to have it today.
	I'm sure I'll have it tomorrow.
	I mean, you know.
	There's lots of good things.
	$166,000 is not.
	So Mr. Banks could have cashed the check and said you don't have a hundred dollars.
	- Your Honor, I could not have cashed the check.
	- Would you try?
	- The check was-- - No, it's not ours.
	- The check was completely illegible.
	I can show that to you if you like.
	It was written to the wrong clients.
	I cannot take money from these plaintiffs that is owed to them.
	I don't know why the check would be written to anyone other than the attorneys.
	To go into their account and then be dispersed properly.
	That's the way we do things like this.
	It's always written to the attorneys.
	Look, the aw shucks.
	I just made a mistake.
	I don't know quite what I'm doing.
	Enough of that, okay?
	You know exactly what you're doing.
	You're very competent.
	I don't appreciate you pretending to not be.
	Get the check here tomorrow.
	Made out to Mr. Bankston's law firm.
	In the correct amount.
	If you don't know what the correct amount is, send Mr. Bankston an email and ask him what it is.
	If you disagree with his response, let me know before we leave today, and we will have a conversation about it.
	I don't want to open up the whole trial with regard to net worth, because we went through that a week ago.
	What I heard Mr. Reynold say was Infowars lost everything.
	Now, I know Alex Jones is Infowars and Infowars is Alex Jones.
	That's been established in this case.
	The same goes for free speech systems.
	But I don't know that we need to completely open up network to address that.
	But I do think it means you're going to get a little more leeway to talk about those subjects.
	You can respond To the United Way by asking, I guess, asking your clients if they got any.
	I mean, I don't know the answer to any of these things.
	So you can talk to me.
	I'm not going to make a decision on that without knowing a little bit more about it.
	Let's put it that way.
	We might need to have a conference about that.
	But I don't know, I don't know enough about the facts on that.
	I've asked my staff to print the live meetings because...
	Oh.
	I do not...
	I do not see in your answer anywhere that you plead 7303.
	83.
	Here are the...
	Many of the apologies are contained in the videos that are in the notes.
	That's fine, but that's not how you make an affirmative defense on damages.
	You have to plead it.
	You didn't plead it.
	You are already argued in your statement to the jury that he's been punished and shouldn't be punished more because he's apologized.
	So what am I supposed to do with that now?
	Now you weren't allowed to do that.
	So this statement I'm being asked to read to the jury.
	Mr. Reynold threw out his opening statements, claimed that Mr. Jones has, quote, apologized repeatedly, unquote, for the statements he made against the plaintiffs.
	Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this statement is hereby stricken from the record, and you are to disregard this statement as it has no evidentiary value in this case.
	Any public apology, correction, or retraction of the libelous matter made and published By the defendant, Alex Jones.
	Did you want to include free speech systems?
	Sure, but that's just for clarity for the jury.
	May not be considered as evidence of mitigation damages in this matter for Texas law.
	Can I ask the court a question?
	I don't think so.
	Okay.
	You can write a note to your co-counsel, but it's one attorney per proceeding, section, argument, witness.
	Thank you.
	I would add, Your Honor, that as Your Honor, there is nothing but the Senate.
	You want me to add that to this proposed statement?
	No.
	No?
	No.
	Okay.
	Are you making an alternative suggestion of a statement I might give to the jury?
	I'm not sure why you just said that.
	My father.
	He was...
	He was...
	I mean, I think that this proposed statement is true and accurate. I think that this proposed statement is true and accurate.
	I'm willing to add that as a reminder, what the lawyers told you in their opening statements is not evidence.
	It's their expectation of what the evidence will show.
	I think I would add that before the statement proposed by Mr. Bankston to provide a little context for it and not after when it might be misconstrued as contradicting what I had just read them.
	I would rather not draw more attention to it.
	You're fine with the statement as produced by Mr. Bankston.
	All right.
	Then I will read that.
	Any other motions?
	Could I deal with all of them except for the one that I'm thinking about?
	Exactly.
	The only other thing I would ask you alternatively, Your Honor, is if we're not going to open up bifurcation.
	I know you told me in House And then, what are we doing in the second part of the trial?
	Right, I hear what you're saying, but I'm only just going to put on the revenue.
	And so, in the second part of the trial, I'm going to put on an expert for Nesport, and he's going to have to This should be what today the network of the company should be.
	This would be more of an argument about what the revenue of the company was at the time Mr. Raynaud has implied that the company was losing the earnings.
	Is any of that going to be necessary today?
	I don't think I could make it not.
	I have a witness who might come on today who I might be the person I want to do that through.
	Okay, because what I'm going to do is read the transcript for both of those issues, actually.
	Okay.
	Was there any other motion, Mr. Branson?
	No, Your Honor, that's all from the plaintiff.
	Anything from you, Mr. Branson?
	No, Your Honor.
	I was expecting something else, so we're not dealing with that.
	Oh, if you wanted to go back in Chambers and deal with that, yes we can.
	Is there something you're planning to ask me to do?
	Or you just want me to know about it?
	Yeah, it doesn't need to be on camera.
	I understand, but...
	Yes, I'm going to ask you to do something.
	I'm not sure if you're going to do it or you're going to do something else.
	But yes, I do have a specific question.
	Alright, we'll take that up later.
	I don't want to make the jury wait longer.
	Alright, we are ready to bring the jury back.
	Yes, all right.
	Yes, magic still we're ready to bring the We'll do that once I ask for the first witness well they need to stay in here until until i swear yeah okay
	so if they're in the building and they're going to be a witness they should be in here now
	um so
	okay okay
	do you like doing that okay thanks okay
	okay all right did someone go on mute that one
	otherwise i would not mean oh yeah you want to go do it right now thank you sorry i didn't realize i didn't make it I didn't know you were doing that.
	All right, you may be seated.
	I'll let you smile and see I'll get through.
	- Sorry.
	- No, you're fine.
	It's keeping everything running.
	Are you kidding?
	Thank you.
	All right.
	Welcome back from lunch.
	I do have a quick statement that I'm going to read for my jury, and then we'll turn to the plaintiffs' side for their first witness and some other things.
	Mr. Raynell, throughout his opening statements, claimed that Mr. Jones has apologized repeatedly for the statements he made against the plaintiffs.
	Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this statement is hereby stricken from the record.
	And you are to disregard those statements as it has no evidentiary value in this case.
	Any public apology, correction, or retraction of the libelous matter made and published by the defendant's Alex Jones or Free Speech Systems LLC may not be considered as evidence of mitigation of damages in this matter per Texas law.
	Alright, now we're ready to begin again.
	It looks like we've had a little council change there.
	So, Mr. Ball, do you have a witness for me?
	I do.
	I do, Your Honor.
	I'm going to call Detective Dan Juice in San Francisco.
	All right.
	Thank you.
	Are you evoking the rule?
	Your Honor, this time the defense will invoke the rule.
	All right.
	I need every witness or potential witness who is in the room.
	So I need the attorneys to identify them.
	I don't think that we have one in the room.
	Experts are not included.
	Any fact witness?
	We have two.
	Could you both come up here, please?
	Just stand in front of me.
	You don't need to come all the way up.
	Just stand in front of me.
	All right, just stand right there.
	And then we're going to go to the next slide.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	And then I need your names for the record, please, sir.
	Go first.
	Daniel Jewis, J-E-W-I-S-S. Thank you, ma'am.
	Daria Karkova.
	Daria Karkova.
	Alright.
	I need each of you to raise your right hand with your name.
	Do you solemnly swear or affirm, under penalty of perjury, that the testimony you're going to give in this matter shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, sir?
	Thank you.
	Lower your hands.
	You have been placed under what is called the rule, which means that it will be necessary for you to remain outside the courtroom while other witnesses are testifying.
	You are not to speak with each other or with any other person, including the parties, about this case, except by permission of the court.
	You may, however, discuss your testimony with the attorneys in this case.
	You may not and are not to read any report of, or comment upon the testimony in this case while under the rule.
	Any witness or other person violating these instructions may be punished with contempt of court and it may result in my striking the witness's testimony.
	So, Ms. Karpova, this time you're not testifying, so you will be instructed to remain outside the courtroom.
	And Mr. Juus, if you are not released from the rule after your testimony, you also will have to remain outside the courtroom.
	You do need to stay on this floor so that when you are called to testify, you are available and you can hear your name being called.
	So, this time, Ms. Karpova, I need you to go out in the hall and remain there.
	Counsel, it is your obligation to inform any and all other fact witnesses that the rule has been invoked and the effect of the rule and any violations of the rule.
	As any other witnesses arrive, you need to advise me so that they can be sworn in and placed under the rule formally as well.
	Also, if they come in and they sit down and you don't tell me, then they may not be allowed to testify.
	So you need to make sure everyone knows that.
	Do you each understand that?
	Yes, Your Honor.
	Yes, Your Honor.
	Thank you.
	All right, sir.
	Sir, you have been sworn in and you may come and sit on the witness stand.
	You can sit down and there is water in a pitcher and cups if you need them.
	You should not need to lean into the microphones.
	It should pick up your words.
	I'll give you a few instructions.
	I don't know if you've testified before.
	It is not a conversation.
	It is a question and answer process.
	And to that end, you need to allow the attorneys to complete their question before you begin your answer, even if you think you know what they're going to ask you.
	Let them ask the question, and then they'll let you give the answer.
	If you hear the word objection, you need to just stop talking until I indicate whether it has been sustained or overruled and you can proceed or not.
	Do those things make sense?
	Yes.
	Also, sometimes people will answer with nods or uh-hums, things like that.
	Those don't make for a good record, so I'll ask that you answer all of your questions out loud with actual words.
	All right?
	Yes.
	Wonderful.
	Thank you.
	Go ahead.
	Thank you.
	Detective, good afternoon.
	Good afternoon.
	If you would please introduce yourself to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
	My name is Daniel Jewess and I am a retired Connecticut State Police detective.
	And Mr. Jewess, it's my understanding that in 2012 you were the lead investigator for the Sandy Hook school shooting that occurred on December 14th, 2012. Is that correct?
	Correct.
	And that school shooting, sir, resulted in 26 total deaths, 20 of which were children between the ages of 6 and 7 years old.
	Correct.
	If you would please, Detective.
	Explain for us what your involvement with that investigation was, what your duties were there in police.
	Sure.
	As a member of this state police major crime squad, we're responsible for responding, investigating to anything that they designate as a major crime, which obviously this Sandy Hook shooting was.
	I happened to be off that day, so I was called in like many of my coworkers.
	We were initially told that there was a reported shooting at a school.
	Back in 2012, our initial thoughts were not towards an active shooter or a mass shooting.
	By the time I got to the Newtown Police Department, there was already some of the survivors at the police departments, and we had a pretty good confirmation that there were some fatalities.
	There was an enormous response, obviously, of first first responders at the school trying to stop the threat and then save lives.
	We then immediately went into our investigative hole, set up our command post operations, and started working with the 26 different agencies that ended up responding and helping out with the investigation.
	Detective Jewish, how is it that you came to be the lead investigator in charge for this particular school shooting, this incident?
	Sure.
	The first part of that is just how the state police actually became the lead agency, because you'll see that in many of these other There's either a federal agency or the local agency and that was because of some previous work that we had had with the FBI in particular where there was a clear understanding that we were the ones that handled homicides and they were very supportive but that this being a mass homicide was
	something that we were going to handle.
	Newtown itself is just a mid-sized police department and Just couldn't be expected to handle something like this, especially because so many of them were part of the immediate response and obviously had some other needs at that point.
	The Major Crime Squad was our premier detective bureau in the Connecticut State Police, and homicides is what we do.
	The office that I worked out of, which was manned by a sergeant and six detectives, was about 10 minutes from Sandy Hook, so we were going to be the main office to investigate that.
	And at that time, I was the senior detective in that office.
	And so it just made sense that they ended up putting my name on the paper as the lead detective.
	And that's what it was.
	It was just a name because this was such a massive case that there were so many people that played key roles, but they had to identify somebody as the lead investigator.
	And how long did your role as lead investigator continue, detective?
	I don't see an end to that role.
	So you consider yourself, continued today, the lead investigator on Sandy Hook?
	I do.
	I'm retired, but I still consider myself.
	That's my responsibility.
	And we're going to talk a little bit Here in a moment about your involvement with the parents, with the community.
	But before I do that, I kind of want to go back a little bit and talk just a little bit about your background so that we kind of have a foundation for where you're coming from.
	Is that okay?
	Absolutely.
	Okay.
	In 2012, could you tell us where you worked and lived, Detective?
	At that time, I was living in Waterbury, Connecticut, which was probably about 30 minutes, 25 minutes from that Sandy Hook community.
	Again, I was assigned as a detective in the Western District Major Crime Squad, but my office was actually out of the Southbury Barracks, which was about 10 minutes from there.
	I had joined the Connecticut State Police in 1998 and made detective about four years after that.
	Connecticut State Police.
	And I also had done 20 years in the Connecticut Army National Park.
	And I retired from there as a Master Sergeant.
	Now, where you told us that you lived back in 2012, would you consider that detective in or around the Newtown community where the Sandy Hook Elementary School was located?
	It is.
	I mean, Connecticut is only so big, especially compared to a place like Texas.
	But we divide the state almost by whether you're east of the river or west of the river.
	And so I certainly consider myself to be part of that community.
	Pretty small community overall.
	Absolutely.
	I understand that you...
	I think from what you've told us, kind of hinted towards it, that you've recently retired from the force.
	Is that correct?
	Correct.
	I retired officially in March of 2021. Congratulations.
	Hope you enjoy your retirement.
	It's my understanding though that in your retirement you're also kind of busy right now, aren't you?
	I am, yes.
	And what are you taking your time up with as it concerns employment and your continued involvement?
	Sure.
	So even before Sandy Hook, I had I worked with a co-worker and we did outside training for his small company.
	That was leadership and team building training.
	And then after Sandy Hook, there was a lot of requests for sharing of lessons learned, both from the leadership side and the investigative side.
	And so then that led into my development of another private company called the RAC Academy, which stands for Response to Active Killers.
	And so now in retirement I still do that leadership and team building training under team training associates.
	And then I am fortunately but also unfortunately very busy in today's world with the response to active killer training which my team and I do.
	We consult and give training to the full spectrum of people that are involved in active killer incidents from obviously law enforcement and dispatch, but also I do a lot with school safety and businesses and houses of worship, anybody that would be a likely target of these types of events.
	And kind of bringing together your experience and how you're applying your experience now with active shooter situations, the kind of the shooter itself but more take you to what you learned and what you did in this Sandy Hook elementary school shooting as it concerned management of and your time with the parents and the families after this took place.
	Sure so so both in our response and support of those families and now it's a large part of One of the training that I do in the consultation is many of our clientele expect to learn some advanced investigative techniques to handling these types of things.
	And the reality is it's not required.
	That's not really there.
	Law enforcement investigates homicides These departments that I go and I work with, they're already good at that.
	They already have the skills of collecting evidence and doing interviews, and it's going to take them a lot longer, just like it took us, and a lot more resources, so they're going to need a lot more help with that.
	But the things that I like to concentrate on are the things that caught us by surprise, the things that were off the radar, the things that we never received training for.
	And actually, when it comes to Sandy Hook, it's the thing that I think that we made the greatest impact on.
	And it's the thing that we spent the majority of our time on.
	And that is the support of those families and really doing deep dives into, even though we can't bring back their loved ones, How from the moment that it happens, from the moment that we're involved, how we can support them the best that we can.
	I think one time you had told me in a previous discussion with you something about a butcher block piece of paper.
	Does that bring to mind some of the involvement that you have with the families there?
	And if so, tell us about it.
	It did.
	Obviously these events are so unique, and so our response, and I don't mean from the response on the scene of Stop the Threat.
	Yes, those are unique and we need to get into that, but our support of the families cannot roll into our traditional model and go by our traditional policy and procedures, because otherwise we would have to tell those families things such as, it's an ongoing investigation, we can't share information with you.
	We'll tell you things once this is all over, and we want to be able to return belongings or actually walk them through the scene until we've come to some type of resolution to this case, which obviously with cases like this are going to take a long time.
	The first time that that came to light was Sustained.
	Let's try to break it up just a little bit.
	Sure.
	As it concerns the work that you did with the families afterwards, were you personally involved with the families who lost loved ones, one of the 20 children who were murdered in the Sandy Hook school shooting?
	I was, yes.
	And personally involved with them, How did you make that one of your priorities in your investigation of this?
	Sure.
	We quickly identified that our top priority in this investigation was, the first question we always had to ask was, what is best for the victims in the victim's family?
	That became our immediate top thing in every action that we took.
	Before we brought it against the policy or even what state law was, we went and asked ourselves, what is in the best interest of those victims and those victims' families?
	And that just put us on the mindset that we are here to continue to support them in the best way that we can.
	And I think I asked this, but I want to make sure.
	Did you become personally familiar with each and every one of those families that had to go through this tragedy, Detective?
	They did.
	There was a couple families that...
	That we didn't have direct contact with out of 26 families that we were dealing with.
	But initially, we as the investigative team had assigned an officer to be assigned to those families to carry out some duties with gathering some initial information for positive identification because they lost their loved ones.
	But eventually that role transitioned over where myself and another partner of mine were the direct contacts with the family to meet with them individually in groups and to answer whatever questions and continue to give them support
	That still continues today and so that thought of Of what's in the best interest of the families, that's something that we actually put up on a butcher block and we hung that in our command post and we hung it in our office and it was just a constant reminder of what our goal was because, you know, our shooter was dead so we weren't preparing to go to trial.
	We knew that the best thing we could do is to support those companies.
	And I want to capture something you said there.
	You said that still continues today.
	Is that one of the reasons, if not the main reason, that you consider yourself to still continue your duty as lead investigator of this tragedy?
	It is, absolutely.
	The families that you've had personal involvement with, you have had personal involvement with the Lewis and Heslin family, correct?
	I have, yes.
	And you're aware of our client sitting in the room here, Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis, yes?
	Yes, very much so.
	I'd like to thank you on their behalf for being here today.
	You don't live in Texas right now, do you?
	No, I don't.
	That's right.
	Where'd you fly down from?
	Where do you live now, Detective?
	I'm still in Connecticut.
	I just relocated to East Haven, Connecticut.
	Okay, well thank you for being here.
	So, in your very detailed involvement with this tragedy, I want to talk about December 14th, 2012, the day of the shooting and a few days thereafter.
	With that timeframe, can you tell me about how many agencies, government agencies, first responders, however else you'd like to We recorded that there were 26 different agencies between state, local, and federal that were not only first responders there, but also came and were part of the investigative team.
	We never took an overall count, but I would estimate it was probably between 400 and 500 law enforcement personnel.
	And that was going to be my next question.
	So 400 or 500 law enforcement personnel, we're talking about had access to that scene within the day of and the days thereafter.
	Fair?
	Correct.
	It was either access directly to the scene, which was Which was certainly in the hundreds or reported directly to us at the command post and started taking investigative steps.
	If you could, I don't want you to have to tell me exactly all 26, you might be able to, but highlight some of the agencies for us, if you could, that responded to it in that 26 we're talking about.
	Sure.
	The main agencies were the FBI, federal agencies, ATF, helped out with a lot of the gun tracing, the DEA, The U.S. Marshal Service.
	The U.S. Postal Service was extremely key with a lot of the mail stuff that we had to deal with.
	And then our local police departments that neighbors around Newtown.
	Fairfield Police Department, Reading Police Department, and some of the other smaller police departments that were in that area.
	Twenty-six agencies, four to five hundred different people on the day of and the days thereafter.
	My question to you, Detective, is did anyone at any time at that time or the days thereafter have any disagreement about what happened that day?
	Absolutely not.
	Detective, in your role as lead investigator, Are you familiar with Alex Jones, who I don't see here any longer?
	By the way, were you in the room today for opening statements?
	I was, yes.
	Okay.
	I'm going to ask you about a couple things that were said in those statements, but I think you saw Mr. Jones here earlier today?
	I did.
	All right.
	Well, I don't see him here anymore.
	I guess he's exited stage right, but are you familiar with who Alex Jones and his media company is?
	I am.
	And if you could...
	I don't want you to go on forever, but explain to us a little bit about your familiarity with Mr. Jones and his media company, please.
	Sure, well, you know, Attorney Bankston actually hit on some specific individuals that...
	Your Honor, I object to lack of foundation, because generally, what is your familiarity?
	The basis for familiarity is watch the show.
	That's fine.
	Let's do a little further exploring as to where his familiarity came from.
	Will do, Your Honor.
	Thank you.
	As lead investigator for Sandy Hook, did you have an opportunity to come into contact with or observe the media in and around Sandy Hook, the school, the shooting, the issues?
	One of those media personalities, was that Mr. Jones, his company Infowars?
	Yes.
	Did it include people that came to Sandy Hook from Infowars, such as Dan Badandi?
	It did, yes.
	It included people such as Halbig, someone we've heard of earlier?
	Yes.
	You've had personal involvement and had to deal with those people before as a member of the community and as a lead investigator?
	Yes.
	Okay, if you would, please, tell us what your general familiarity, your personal familiarity with Mr. Jones and his company is in that context, please.
	Sure.
	So, Michael Lieben, again, we've mentioned several names of Those people associated with each other and we've heard different names of conspiracy theorists or hoaxers and myself and my team, we considered them to fall into three different groups.
	There was a group of individuals that usually had some extreme mental health concerns and Even if they happened to be in one of those classrooms during Sandy Hook and actually witnessed the shooting, they probably still were not going to believe it.
	They were never going to change, never be off of that.
	There was this middle group that probably believed some erroneous reports, and there were erroneous reports that had gotten out there, and they didn't have the full picture of the information, and they were being steered one way or the other.
	But the belief was that if they had more information, if they had gotten information like I think that Neil Peslin tried to put out, that there was a possibility that they would have recognized that Sandy Hook did actually happen and that we lost 20 children and six staff members.
	And then there was this third group, and we believe that those parties absolutely knew that Sandy Hook happened.
	They knew it wasn't a hoax.
	Your Honor, I objected him testifying into what's in someone else's mind, what they knew or didn't know.
	It's speculation.
	That part of the trial has already been ruled upon, Your Honor.
	So, I'm going to allow it a little bit because he is speaking specifically about his role as a police officer and what the Law enforcement's interpretation of the individuals they're dealing with?
	That is what I'm asking.
	Okay.
	But personal opinions, I think, would not be treated the same way.
	Thank you.
	As it concerns your experience as law enforcement, or more specifically as a lead investigator for this, continue in your understanding of who Mr. Jones was as you saw him and obviously his associates.
	I think one of the reasons why we would put people in some of those boxes is to help evaluate the level of threat and to see if there's any measures that we can actually take to either make those families safer or to give them more information so that they're not in that group anymore.
	And so this third group, we believe, were ones that absolutely knew that it was true.
	However, they were still going to use that opportunity to spin it for their own benefit, whether it was power or money.
	That group was most likely the hardest one to be able to get to turn and that they were the most dangerous.
	And that's where we put Alex Jones.
	And sir, as it concerns Alex Jones, are you aware, speaking of these hoax and the things that said, are you aware Mr. Jones and his media company harassed Sandy Hook families in the days, weeks, years following this.
	There's been a little bit of leading.
	Let's see if you can...
	I'll ask it non-leading.
	Thank you.
	Will do.
	Are you aware of the lies that Alex Jones and his company...
	Well, the lies are established.
	So, I think that we can sort of make an assumption that some of this isn't leading because it's been established in the earlier stage of this case.
	However, you do tend to ask a lot of long questions that contain the answer.
	When the witness's answer is that much shorter than the question, you're probably leading.
	Let's both work on it.
	I can ask the non-leading.
	I just started getting leading objections, Your Honor, so I'll change on that.
	I know, I know, I know.
	So let's go ahead and keep going.
	Are you aware of the lies that Alex Jones and his company spread concerning Sandy Hook?
	A large part of our support of those families were to Continuously field complaints from them about harassment, hoaxers, people that they felt threatened by,
	and so they reached out to us on numerous occasions, and obviously part of that then was they would explain who those people were, how that contact was made, and then if we could assist them, we would.
	Were you personally aware of Mr. Jones and his media company saying that Sandy Hook was staged?
	It was.
	That it was synthetic?
	Yes.
	That it was manufactured?
	Yes.
	That it was a giant hoax?
	Yes.
	That it was completely fake with actors?
	In your capacity as lead investigator and in your capacity as a member of the community in and around Newtown and Sandy Hook, did you have personal experience with Mr. Jones and his cohorts as it concerns these statements that we just went over that were being made?
	I didn't have any personal contact directly From Alex Jones, but people closely connected to him.
	Wolfgang Halbig reached out to me on numerous occasions, and he and his team actually came up to our community, and so we addressed some of those concerns, not only the fear that they That they developed amongst our community and amongst those family members just by their announcement that they were coming up.
	But then there's things that we had to do on the professional side to work with our legal affairs about what information was going to be disclosed through Freedom of Information Act, which he was also taking measures to try and get information to continue this spin of that information.
	So I dealt with those in a large part.
	And again, that's one of those things that was off the radar and unexpected to us.
	But not only took up a lot of our time, but was a huge part of, I think, if done properly, supporting those families.
	Speaking of the information that was disclosed, I want to talk a little bit about that.
	The information that was disclosed in the days, weeks, and year that followed the 2012 incident.
	Okay, sir?
	Yes.
	Alright.
	I'm going to bring to you what we previously marked as a plaintiff's thesis.
	put it on the board i'd like for you to identify what this is please this is a printout of our internet release of our case information
	So this is our agency's response to the thousands of Freedom of Information Act requests that we had.
	One of the challenges that we had was how to honor those requests in a timely manner, in an efficient manner, and also in a way that Again, going back to that very top priority of ours, what would best support the victims and the victims' families?
	And one of our concerns was that if we honored each one of those individual requests, that we could actually give some control of that information to whichever individual outlet we then released it to until somebody else did a FOIA request and then got that.
	Until that time, They would own the context of it.
	And so we decided that by us actually just publicly releasing it all and having it be on our website where any fact checker could simply go to it to include the families, then it would be more difficult for somebody to spin that up and misinterpret it and own that power.
	That site has everything that was not redacted through FOIA was released there.
	So that is thousands of reports under numerous case numbers associated with Sandy Hook.
	Photos, videos, everything associated with our case that was released under those FOIA requests.
	And what I've handed you there is Exhibit Number 27. Is that an accurate copy of an official state website from the state Is this a compilation of the information that you have discussed?
	It is, and it's still up today.
	At this moment, plaintiffs would move Exhibit 27 into evidence.
	Any objections?
	Plaintiff 27 is admitted.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	If we could, please, let's bring up Exhibit 27 on the board.
	So, you've kind of told us this a little bit, but I want to get just a little further into it, Detective.
	Again, this is an actual official website of, this is not the actual website, this is a printout of it, of a compilation of all of the information that you just told us about, and it was done by the Connecticut State Government, yes?
	Correct.
	Okay.
	If we could go to the I'll just flip through this real briefly.
	Go to the next page, please, again, Melissa.
	And then the next page.
	Thank you.
	Go back to the page before that.
	So it's my understanding that this website contains information about first responders, pictures, videos, things of that nature.
	It does.
	It contains every written piece of documentation that we gathered.
	Interviews, every piece of evidence.
	It's our complete case file.
	Does that include 911 and police recordings?
	It does.
	Dash cam footage from patrol cars?
	Correct.
	Hours of video inside and outside the school?
	Absolutely.
	Hundreds if not thousands of photographs?
	Yes.
	Investigative reports, lab reports, evidence inventories.
	Yes.
	Written reports of statements of every responding officer that we've kind of alluded to and talked about.
	Absolutely.
	And tell me this, was this information available to anyone who wanted it?
	It was.
	The public can access this directly right on our website.
	All you had to do was have a computer, borrow a computer, or go to a public library, and you could access every bit of this information.
	Correct.
	How would you best describe, based on your professional experience, the breadth and volume of information that was available on this Sandy Hook elementary school shooting tragedy?
	Can we specify a period?
	A question.
	I agree.
	Your Honor, I appreciate the objection and I will further narrow it.
	Let's talk about the 2012, we know it happened in December 2012, is that correct?
	Correct.
	Okay, so let's talk about the month thereafter and the year thereafter, so 2012 and 2013. When you were heavily involved as lead investigator of this tragedy, how would you describe, based upon your professional experience in that regard, the breadth and the volume of the information that was available concerning this tragedy?
	So first, our team, my sergeant and our six detectives, we worked on nothing but this Sandy Hook investigation for a full year.
	It's the only time in my career that I've ever heard of that ever happening in the Connecticut State Police as far as being isolated onto one case.
	Yet these reports and these records are still generated by so many different members of those 26 different agencies.
	Just this information got funneled through that small team that worked on that.
	And the result after one year, because it took us about one year to at least get to our first time period where we could say we're going to suspend it at this point.
	We're going to be gathered up as much that's apparently ready for us.
	That final case allotment was Enormous.
	It's the largest case file that I've ever seen.
	Probably 20 times bigger than any other case that I've ever worked on.
	And being a major crime detective for quite a while, I've worked on the most major cases in Connecticut.
	But the case file itself is absolutely enormous.
	Have you reviewed all of the information that is available and that was available in the month and year thereafter?
	I did.
	Every report that is in there.
	It came across my desk and I read that.
	There's one caveat is that when it came to photos and videos, I've only seen some of those and that was because we knew pretty early on that I was not going to have to go to court and testify for that because otherwise I would have had to see all those things as well.
	But just understanding the trauma that can be inflicted by just looking at and experiencing those things I didn't see a need without this case going to court to have to see those things.
	But as far as every other written report and every other photo or video, which does not include some very graphic things, I personally saw.
	Based on your knowledge of the information contained therein and your personal review of it, could any reasonable question have been answered with the review of this information as it concerned what happened to Sandy Hook?
	Absolutely.
	I'm your honor of direction to cultural speculation.
	That means you can answer.
	Thank you.
	We frequently fielded questions for the 10 years after Sandy Hook about intimate details about it.
	And we still go back to those same reports, those same documents, or simply point somebody to a portion of those documents to give them the answers to those information.
	And we break that information down into three categories.
	There's things that we absolutely knew for fact.
	There were things that we were able to develop strong theories about, and there were things such as why the shooter did it, which he never left a suicide note or a manifesto, so there's some guesses on that.
	But we also were very clear as far as what we clearly knew for fact, what we had some strong evidence of and some theories for, and why we supported those, and then, you know, information that we ended up just not being able to find answers for.
	I just want to be clear, it was never a thought that some shooting didn't occur, right?
	Unfortunately not.
	I do though want to talk to you about some of the outrageous claims and lies that we heard about in opening that Alex Jones, his company, and his cohorts made in the month and the years following this incident.
	And I've kind of got these in quotation.
	I took them down as Mr. Bankston was either saying it or showing a video that we witnessed during opening.
	So the first one is, quote unquote, men were arrested wearing SWAT gear.
	Your response to that, sir, as the investigating officer?
	It never happened.
	There were individuals that were temporarily detained because, like happens in many of these things, they're trying to sneak onto the property and get photos and stuff, but no one in SWAT gear was ever arrested.
	Was it even reasonable to believe that in any way?
	It wasn't.
	It's just absurd.
	There was absolutely nobody else.
	And you can see that in our arrest paperwork.
	There was nobody that was arrested.
	And next, quote unquote, multiple shooters chased into the woods.
	Absolutely not.
	There was one shooter.
	That shooter was found dead in Classroom 10 of a self-inflicted gunshot.
	Quote unquote, no EMTS entered the building.
	That's totally true.
	Not only were some of our law enforcement personnel, not only did they have a high level of medical training, but three paramedics were escorted into that scene for those victims that were still there that were not immediately transported to hospitals with life-saving to try and save their lives.
	So paramedics were actually escorted into that scene so that they could make official declaration on those victims.
	The school had been closed for years and was not an operating school.
	One of the things that we did to go into the background of the shooter and find out that he did actually attend that school was We totally found out that that school had been operating for decades.
	There was no stop timeframe in that school.
	It was fully functional and we had thousands of people that attended or worked in that school.
	If someone were to argue the reasonableness in any Increment of believing that statement, that the school hadn't been operating for years, your response to that would be?
	There were numerous interviews because we went back with staff that worked in that school just to get past behaviors and stuff.
	So there was numerous interviews about people, adults, swearing that they were still working there, that they had worked there.
	All with dates and times that were clearly documented in those reports.
	Kind of the last one that I've got that we were introduced to in the opening, quote unquote, the death certificates are sealed and it is a felony to possess one.
	They're not sealed.
	There's information that certainly is sealed about this, but they are not one anybody can still access.
	Those are state documents.
	Last one.
	I thought I was on the last one, but now I am.
	Quote, unquote, rescue helicopters were not sent.
	Explain to us, if you could, the absurdity of that statement, I guess is what I'm asking.
	Yeah, we rarely use rescue helicopters in the state of Connecticut.
	The state is so small, yet we have a number of hospitals.
	So those that were transported were transported quickly with ground transportation, which clearly got them there the fastest.
	We kind of landed helicopters there initially when the threat was still what we call a hot scene.
	So those individuals that were transported to the hospital got there by the fastest means possible, which were by ground transportation.
	And right at the base of Dickinson is a firehouse where EMS staged.
	So EMS was actually extremely close to that scene right from the beginning of this.
	Let me ask you this, Detective.
	Did Alex Jones ever ask you for an interview of any sort whatsoever or even request an interview of you of any sort whatsoever to clear up any of these manufactured issues that we've heard about?
	No.
	No phone call, no email, no letter, smoke signals, or the like, right?
	I never had any contact from him.
	Let me ask a different question.
	I'll come back to that.
	I want to actually now focus rather than generalities of these broad statements to the Sandy Hook community.
	I want to talk a little bit about Neal Heslin and Scarlett Lewis, okay?
	Again, you know Mr. Heslin and Ms. Lewis, yes?
	I do.
	Come to know them pretty well over these events.
	Yes.
	And obviously their son is Jesse Lewis.
	Yes.
	We've discussed a number of these outrageous lies and claims that were made by Jones and his company, but are you personally aware, as the lead investigating officer and a member of the community in and around Sandy Hook, of other lies Mr. Jones and his company directed towards or concerning the Hessel and Lewis family?
	I am.
	Tell you what, I would like to now, this has already been pre-admitted, PBX 23. I'm going to play a subsection of PBX 23. After I play this video, which is a portion I believe we might have seen in opening, I'm going to ask you a couple questions about it.
	Okay, Detective?
	Yes.
	All right.
	If you would, please play that, Melissa.
	He's claiming that he held his son and saw the bullet hole in his head.
	That is his claim.
	Now, according to a timeline of events and a coroner's testimony, that is not possible.
	As lead investigator and a member of the community in and around Sandy Hook, Newtown, what is your response and reaction to that detective?
	The information to us is clear.
	Both of their statements are correct as far as Dr. Carver explained the fact that victims' families were not afforded the opportunity to go into that scene and view their loved ones for a lot of different reasons.
	However, families did obviously get the bodies of their loved ones released to them.
	So after we had gone through our investigative steps with them to include autopsies that were done by a medical examiner's office, then those bodies were then released, usually through a funeral home, to those families.
	And I believe that that's probably when Neil Heslin is talking about having that personal interaction with his son.
	And that lie that Mr. Heslin never held his son in his arms could have been easily disproven with the information that you personally reviewed and that was available for anyone and everyone to see true.
	Absolutely.
	Why was it important for you today, detective, to be present here and offer us your testimony?
	To me, it still goes back to...
	That number one thing that we wrote on the butcher block, and that is...
	That it's still our job to support those families in every way possible.
	And it's absolutely horrific the amount of trauma that they've had to endure in the wake of having lost a loved one.
	Other than the shooter himself...
	Your Honor, I object to this part of the testimony.
	I understand that Mr. Drewis is emotionally involved here, but he's not a psychiatrist.
	He's not a doctor.
	He doesn't have personal knowledge of There are trauma in any way that can be helpful to the majority.
	I'd like to speak.
	Overruled.
	I think he's already testified that he does have personal knowledge.
	From my experience with the families, the trauma, the heartache that they had to deal with associated to these conspiracy theories It's only second to actually losing their actual loved ones.
	So I'll continue to support them any way I can.
	And that support just comes in the manner of telling the truth.
	We had consulted with a psychologist early on that really guided us through and helped us In the wake of these types of tragedy, because that's not something that I had ever experienced before, and that's not something that we had covered in training.
	And she told us some key things.
	Objective, the hearsay you're on.
	Sustained.
	So, Mr. Justice, Detective Justice, excuse me.
	Don't tell the jury things other people have told you, unless those other people are Mr. Jones.
	Sure.
	There's some other exceptions that may come up, but for now, that's the basic rule.
	Do you want to ask another question?
	Sure, I will.
	I'll end with this.
	Is supporting the family in this trial today something that was important to you, sir?
	It is.
	Supporting the family of Sandy Hook is the most important thing that I've ever done in my career and it's the most honorable thing that I've ever been a part of.
	Thank you, Detective.
	Thank you for coming down here and spending your time with us on behalf of Mr. Heslin and Mrs. Lewis.
	Thank you.
	All right, thank you.
	Mr. Reynald?
	Can we have a, we've been going for about.
	No, we break at three.
	Okay, Your Honor.
	Good afternoon, Detective Drewis.
	Good afternoon.
	You said that, what time did you arrive at the Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14th, 2012?
	I didn't actually go to the school itself on December 14th.
	I responded to the Utah Police Department.
	And so at that time there was already some survivors that were arriving and so we met, we met, we as in my team that was there, went immediately to the Emergency Area Operations Center and started our command post operations.
	I'm Jack, not responsive, Your Honor.
	Everything I've traveled isn't there back then.
	I'm going to overrule the objection, but I'm going to instruct Detective Juice to try really hard to just answer the question you're asked.
	And that's it.
	Okay?
	Do you have water?
	I'm sorry, Your Honor, it was because I took a drink of water.
	That's okay.
	Go ahead.
	There were 20 children murdered that day, you testified?
	Correct.
	That is 40 some odd parents?
	Yes.
	And 20 couples?
	There were some Split families, some different dynamics, grandparents that were more involved, so we're probably dealing with about 30 different type of family units.
	And only eight couples have chosen to sue over this?
	I'm taking the form, Your Honor.
	How would he know that in any way?
	What is it relevant to this case?
	I don't know about the form, but you have not.
	Excuse me.
	There's no indication that this witness has any knowledge about that, so you're going to play some background.
	I'm in speculation, Your Honor.
	I'm sorry?
	I'm in speculation, Your Honor.
	Yes, speculation is the same.
	You'll have to figure out if he knows anything about that.
	You've been in close contact with families?
	Correct.
	Over a decade.
	Yes.
	You've testified that you've spoken to them multiple times on the phone?
	Absolutely.
	And you still live in Connecticut?
	I do, yes.
	And as you said before, Connecticut is a small space.
	It is, yes.
	A couple million people?
	That sounds about right.
	Okay.
	I mean, smaller than many cities.
	Oh, absolutely.
	And when something about Sandy Hook happens, people tend to find out about it.
	Sure.
	And you particularly, because of your involvement, find out about it.
	Yes.
	And so, you know that of the twenty-some-odd couples, only eight of them have chosen to sue.
	Objection, Your Honor, in relevance and speculation.
	The speculation is overruled, or, yeah, overruled, and it's tangential, but I'm going to allow it, so overruled.
	That means you answered the question, if you know.
	I don't know how many families are involved in what particular lawsuits.
	In the aftermath of the massacre, who was the killer, if you know?
	Adam Lanza.
	And in the aftermath of Adam Lanza's Rampage at the school.
	You testified that 26 different law enforcement agencies responded?
	Correct.
	And coroners came from all over to help out with Dr. Carver's work?
	Medical examiners is what we caught in Connecticut, yes.
	From New York and other surrounding states?
	There was some personnel from around New England and New York that assisted.
	And there were hundreds of people at the scene?
	Yes.
	And that, in fact, became a problem for you in conducting your investigation, did it not?
	I mean, there were many challenges.
	The more people you have involved, the more details you have to try and figure out.
	It's true, is it not, that you've...
	that you had a very...
	I think your words were a very disturbed scene?
	Absolutely.
	And by disturbed scene, you meant that when you tried to investigate what had happened that day, there had been so many different police officers who trampled around on it that it was very difficult to figure out exactly what had happened.
	Well, I guess there's actually two interpretations of that, and they're both true.
	So, in that sense, that the scene itself was disturbed or contaminated, absolutely.
	It was also the most disturbing scene that I've ever seen.
	You'd agree that this is one of the most heinous crimes in our nation's history?
	I believe so.
	Certainly one of the most heinous crimes, or the most heinous crime in Connecticut history.
	Yes.
	And you took your job very seriously.
	Yes.
	Your job to preserve and document it.
	Yes.
	And so it certainly wasn't a positive for you that hundreds of people had gone through the scene, was it?
	I'm not sure what you meant by a positive.
	Let me change it.
	It didn't make your job in uncovering the truth any easier that the scene had been disturbed by hundreds of officers before it was captured?
	No, it does make it more challenging.
	In a case like this, an important case, it's very important to preserve evidence, right?
	Correct.
	And to the extent you can, to not have evidence be handled by non-professionals.
	Objection, Your Honor.
	Getting into a previously ruled on limites as it concerns liability, questioning whether this happened or not goes directly It is relevant for this jury to determine the degree of damages,
	to determine the degree of malice involved here, to determine whether what was done was done from evil purpose or was done from a genuine desire to uncover the truth.
	Well, we've already discussed that that's true for one cause of action and not another.
	I'm going to allow some examination on this point, but not extensive.
	So you may continue.
	Do you consider the body of the victim to be an important piece of evidence in a murder?
	And is it important for that body, that person, to be handled only by professionals until The first priority is actually trying to provide medical attention and save lives,
	or stop the threat.
	So before we get to any investigative stuff, the top concern is that.
	So if the body is handled because of those things, then those are a higher priority.
	After that, though, the scene should absolutely be secured and processing the scene should be the top priority.
	Okay.
	And that's what I want to ask.
	I want you to assume that this person is deceased and you're processing the scene.
	And so it's important that only professionals handle the body of the deceased until it's released to the funeral.
	Correct.
	Now, if a non-professional handled The body of one of the children at the crime scene.
	Somebody who was not in the police, who was not a medical examiner.
	Would that be important to you?
	to know that.
	Do you mean other than somebody else in that school?
	I'm saying if there was, well let me ask it this way.
	Are you aware that Mr. Hesslin has said that some member of law enforcement allowed him access to his son at the medical examiner's tent outside the school so that he could hold the body?
	No.
	Okay.
	Would that, in terms of preserving evidence in the most Significant crime scene in Connecticut and potentially nationwide history.
	Would it be important to you as the investigator to know that a victim's parent, probably good stuff, but went in and handled one of the bodies before it had been autopsied and released?
	I mean, I don't object to the relevance of this.
	We are literally getting into the exact opposite of what has been said by Alex Jones and his crew, so I can't understand the relevance of this in any way.
	Your Honor, I think it is very relevant to the state of mind of the InfoWars broadcast.
	Your Honor has ruled that a reasonable, I assume that Your Honor has ruled that somebody watching that broadcast would interpret that Mr. Shore was saying that Mr. Judge, you've made that decision, okay?
	And I'm not trying to go against your decision.
	What I am saying is that we should be allowed to offer that, in fact, what was intended was to dispute the quality of the investigation.
	And maybe you are, but not this way.
	Sustained.
	Do you believe that it is appropriate for citizens to question the official narrative of what happened?
	In any mass casualty?
	No, I think that's important.
	Transparency breeds self-correcting behavior.
	And what you're suggesting is that by the government being transparent, which is what you try to do, we can better inform the public, right?
	Correct.
	There's steps in place for us to be transparent.
	But you're certainly not claiming that the government is perfect.
	Absolutely not.
	And you're not saying here that you did your best, but you're not saying that this investigation is perfect.
	Absolutely not.
	And so, it's legitimate, is it not, for people to investigate, to question, to unearth, right?
	I think that's what we're used to in law enforcement.
	And we've seen it now, I'm sure you, have you lectured on Uvalde?
	I haven't talked specifically about Uvalde.
	Are you aware of what the first official narrative was there?
	Objective, objection or honor.
	Absolutely.
	Sustainable.
	When was your report finalized and released to the public?
	What year?
	I believe it was the beginning of 2014. And when you say the beginning, are we saying first quarter?
	I believe it was the first quarter.
	Closer to April or closer to January?
	In my mind, our investigation hit that first mark after the year, which would have been December of 2013. Then it went to legal affairs to actually do that release.
	I believe it was sometime close to that February 2014 timeframe, but I'm not positive.
	Okay, and that was the decision was made basically to compile everything, do the investigation, and then release it as a whole to the public?
	Is that how I understood your testimony?
	Well, we wanted to conclude our investigation before we released anything.
	I don't know.
	Well, let me ask the question a different way.
	Did you release information about the investigation before the official release of the big report?
	It was released through our PIO, so our Public Information Officer.
	In small amounts, depending on what had been requested?
	Correct, for briefings and things like that.
	But the vast bulk of the information wasn't available until it was released by legal sometime in the first quarter of 2014?
	I believe so.
	The report is massive, Drew.
	Everybody calls the report like there's one long narrative.
	There's not.
	There's actually thousands of reports that make up our case jacket.
	Okay, I mean, if we brought it into this room, I mean, would the boxes almost fill up the room?
	The reports themselves took about ten five-inch binders, four five-inch binders.
	Now, let me ask you a little bit, because you talked about the...
	I don't know if you used the term.
	Are you familiar with the term Sandy Hook Truther?
	I am.
	The truther community?
	Yes, I'm familiar with the term truther.
	Now, do you know who Dr. James Fetzer is?
	I haven't heard his name until today.
	Are you familiar with a book called Sandy Hook?
	I think if Sandy Hook never happened or Sandy Hook, no one died at Sandy Hook.
	I only just recently heard about that.
	That was never brought up to you by any family?
	Not that I recall.
	And how about Dr. James Tracy?
	I'm not familiar with him.
	And how about Steve Pachette?
	Did you at the time go on YouTube to let's say during this 2013-2014 period to see how many videos there were on there talking about Sandy Hook posters?
	I didn't proactively search for those things but when families would send me links of things complaining about the process for us as the state police is I would take a look at what they were complaining about to see if there was a criminal aspect to it and if it was something that we would handle then we would investigate I don't know if it was on a bigger scale and involved other states,
	then we would forward it to the FBI for a team that did investigations on that.
	You can affirm that you became aware of hundreds, if not, I'd say hundreds of different videos that were circulating on YouTube from the Truther community?
	I knew there was a large amount of propaganda that was out there.
	The vast majority of it was not produced by influence.
	I don't know.
	It wasn't our position to try and backtrace that.
	It didn't have a criminal nature to it.
	And talking about that, As a police officer, documenting information is very important, isn't it?
	Correct.
	And it's one of the first things you learn in the academy, right?
	Correct.
	And you want to be accurate in what you're documenting, right?
	Correct.
	Because not only do you have to rely on it, but others might have to rely on it, right?
	Absolutely.
	You might not be available, right?
	Correct.
	Another officer might have to read it.
	Yes.
	Or someone else.
	How many offense reports or police reports do you have from Mr. Hessler and Ms. Lewis about being harassed?
	I don't know a number of reports.
	Fair to say you don't have them?
	I'm not sure if there were reports that were done after that initial allotment.
	The case was continuously open and closed, depending on new information to include if it was anything that we actually investigated.
	Some of those were just simply referrals to other police departments, so they would have had the actual reports about those criminal complaints.
	So you can't stand here and tell us specifically that you have a report where you can say that Mr. Heston and Ms. Lewis came to you and said, listen, this Infowars person came and harassed me.
	I can't.
	I want to rewind.
	At the time of the Sandy Hook tragedy, there was a worldwide outpouring of sympathy, true?
	Correct.
	Half a million cards, drawings, letters sent into the town of condolences for the family.
	I know there was an enormous amount of donations, cards, gifts, and all different manners that were given to the town.
	And distinguished public figures, including the President of the United States, came to San Diego?
	Correct.
	I keep calling it San Diego, actually it's a new town.
	Well, San Diego is a small suburb of Newtown.
	Ah, okay.
	I thought that was just the .
	No, San Diego is a small part of Newtown.
	And the President embraced, actually embraced Mr. Hesley, Ms. Lewis, or at least Ms. Lewis, true?
	I was busy with the investigation, so other than knowing that the President was there, I don't know about his particular actions when he was there.
	And since you were there, there was a tremendous media presence?
	Absolutely.
	And that was all the major networks.
	Again, I don't know if it was all, but there was a lot.
	At any time in 2013, did you ever see an Infowars anything in Newtown?
	Not that I recall, no.
	Fair to say that in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, There were wild withdrawal.
	Fair to say that in the aftermath of the shooting, the news media, the national news media, made incorrect statements about what had happened at San Diego.
	Yes.
	And fair to say that the national news media misidentified who the shooter was.
	Isn't it true that CNN put up a photograph of somebody other than Adam Lanza and identified them as the shooter?
	Correct.
	And I don't know if it was local news media or national news media, but at first there were reports that a second person was in custody because of the attack.
	Isn't that true?
	I don't know if the reports were that it was because of the attack as opposed to that there was somebody else that was detained.
	Around that time I was obviously busy with things.
	I don't know exactly what the media reports.
	I don't know.
	The -- in the aftermath of the shooting in the Bay's following, Is it fair to say that a lot of the reporting that was done on the Sandy Hook Massacre, Adam Lenz's murder spree, focused on the need to ban AR-15 style weapons?
	Again, especially in that, especially those few weeks directly after the shooting, I didn't watch much TV or do much.
	I don't know about the very immediate reports after the release.
	One more.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Did...
	Did Megyn Kelly ever contact you about appearing on You said earlier,
	in response to a question by Mr. Ball, that Wolfgang Halvey was closely connected to Mr. Jones.
	Do you recall that question?
	I believe that's the wording I used.
	Okay, and by that I take it you mean that he appeared on his show?
	I do, yes.
	You're certainly not telling this jury that he was ever an employee of Infowars, are you?
	No, that I don't know.
	That man, Wolfgang Halbig, that's closely connected to Alex Jones.
	You're personally aware of emails and communications sent to you by Ms. Lewis as it concerned his harassment, continued harassment of her and her family, correct?
	Yes, absolutely.
	This whole thought about that CNN Put the wrong picture of someone up and it reported incorrectly who the shooter was.
	That was Adam Lanza's brother.
	Picture of him, right?
	Because Adam Lanza had his brother's ID, right?
	Correct.
	What objective are we doing, Your Honor?
	Okay.
	I can rephrase.
	That's fine.
	Thank you.
	The picture that the defense counsel here talked to you about as the wrong shooter.
	Who was that the picture of?
	It was his older brother.
	It was Adam Lanza's older brother, Ryan.
	Still dealing in misinformation, aren't we?
	Objection to the sidebar, Your Honor.
	Sustained.
	Unless you meant that as a real question.
	I did.
	Still dealing in misinformation, aren't we?
	Today, in this courtroom.
	I'm going to object to the sidebar again, Your Honor.
	But I'll take it back up on Marie Cross.
	I don't know that it's a sidebar, but I'm going to ask you to move on to another question.
	Fair enough.
	Thank you, Ron.
	Let me ask you this.
	The questions you were given about the other families and whether they had began, initiated any legal proceedings.
	Sitting here today, you're not aware of any other families that have been specifically retaliated against other than this family sitting in this courtroom.
	Is that fair?
	By Alex Jones, that is.
	I believe Lenny Posner is through the connection of Halbig.
	Might be somebody that I would consider.
	I don't know enough about the details, but that's the person that I would say might fall under that category.
	Your personal involvement, you understand that this family was specifically retaliated against, yes?
	Yes.
	Thank you.
	Yeah, I guess, one other question.
	And did Mr. Posner file a case?
	The other one that you're aware of who was specifically retaliated against by Mr. Jones?
	I believe so.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	Is it in any way okay to identify somebody's older brother as a mass murderer on the nightly news?
	I don't know how that initial information got to the press.
	I understand, but I mean, as you sit here today, do you think that that's something that somebody could get sued over on the press side for putting out the wrong person's picture and saying this person just killed 20 children in Utah?
	I don't know enough.
	Objection here, Hunter.
	I don't think he's a legal expert on it.
	Sustained.
	How that comes to be.
	Yeah.
	When you say specifically targeted, you're, again, we're talking about Wolfgang Hollweg, right?
	Which question is the idea of effective?
	I'm not suggesting this isn't the truth, but when we're talking about Mr. Heslin and Ms. Lewis being harassed, you're talking specifically about Mr. Hollweg, aren't you?
	He is one of the people.
	Okay.
	Who else harassed them?
	Well, I believe by what we just saw in the opening statements that Alex Jones...
	Well, let me stop here.
	Let me stop everyone.
	You may be asked questions about which you don't actually have knowledge.
	It is okay to say, I don't know the answer to that.
	It's not your fault.
	It's probably the lawyers trying to get something out and seeing what will happen.
	That's a lawyer thing.
	Not bad.
	I used to do it all the time.
	Just a lawyer.
	So I'm just saying, you listen to the question and you tell us what your answer is.
	If you have an answer, if you don't have an answer, that's what we want to know.
	So the question was, who else harrass them?
	I can ask a better question than the plot.
	All right.
	As you sit here today, the only person that you know of that has specifically sought them out by email, telephone or other medium based on your investigation and being a police officer in Connecticut and not based on anything you've seen in court today is Mr. Wolfgang Hall.
	Isn't that true?
	I don't know that.
	I'm not sure.
	That's fair.
	But you can't offer anybody else as you said.
	Well, as I sit here today, I know that Alex Jones talked about Neil Hessen's I know that Alex Jones talked about Neil Hessen's interview with Megyn Kelly.
	And so I would say that that is a public harassment of that because that information was incorrect.
	Understood.
	And that's what we watched on the television.
	That was the broadcast.
	Correct.
	No further questions.
	All right.
	Thank you.
	It's 2.56.
	We normally break from 3 to 3.30.
	What we're going to do today is break from 2.56 to 3.30.
	But this break is going to serve two purposes.
	As I discussed briefly with you at the end of the day yesterday when you retired and probably not able to really take in what I said, you actually are going to have the opportunity to propose your own questions to live witnesses.
	Here's how it works.
	Waiting for you in the jury space are pre-printed pieces of paper with Detective Juice's name on them, and there is enough for each of you to have one.
	You may not discuss with each other.
	If you're writing a question, what your question is, what you've heard, or anything else, the ban on discussing the case and the evidence and what you've heard continues until the very end, including during this process.
	You may ask a question or questions if you have them.
	You do not have to.
	I'm not recommending that you ask questions.
	I'm not suggesting that you ask them or not ask them.
	I'm simply giving you the opportunity.
	You write them down on yourself.
	Do not sign them.
	These are not...
	You'll know.
	I'll tell you if it has or hasn't.
	Until you hear from me that it has, you just assume it has not.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	I heard I actually got the other one.
	I got them turned up a little bit, too.
	I can hear what they're doing.
	All right.
	You may be seated.
	Welcome back, everybody.
	All right.
	So what happens now, detective and jury, is I am going to read you some questions and you just answer them to the jury just like they had come from one of the lawyers, okay?
	And to the jury, thank you.
	Some of you may not hear a question you proposed or it may be slightly rewritten.
	You can put all of that on me.
	These are my decisions.
	I decide what the questions will be at this stage.
	And so if you're frustrated by that, the end of this process, meaning the end of the process, I'd be happy to talk to you about it.
	Until then, just assume that I have a good reason for the decision I made.
	All right?
	Okay, here are the questions.
	How many hours or days after the shooting did you first see the scene of the crime as a police officer and as an investigator?
	It was one week after Sandy Hook that I went to the scene and with my team we then did a walkthrough of the scene.
	In your experience and observation, did Mr. Heslin and Ms. Lewis experience greater trauma from the harassment calls and emails?
	Can I ask greater trauma than you want?
	Unfortunately, no.
	That is one flaw.
	We don't go back and forth.
	You just do the best you can with the question the way it's written.
	And if you can't or you don't understand it, you're free to tell us that as well.
	I find it hard to even put myself in the shoes of a family member who's lost a loved one in this situation, especially being a parent who's lost a young child.
	Objection not responsible.
	So let me just read the question one more time.
	And if it doesn't work, it's okay.
	You can just tell us that.
	In your experience and observations, did Mr. Heslin and Ms. Lewis experience greater trauma from the harassment for calls and emails?
	So I believe that experiencing that harassment on top of that unbearable is...
	I can't even imagine, but absolutely I do believe that it is greater and it's extended.
	It makes it so much longer lasting.
	In the aftermath of a school shooting, what, if anything, brings the most solace to a mourning family?
	I have found that that's individual for each one of them.
	Some is faith.
	Some is just their own family and friends.
	When we look at it from the law enforcement side about what we can provide to help with that is I believe it's our responsibility to Provide them the truth.
	As harsh as that truth may be sometimes.
	What we can do is fill in as many facts as possible because otherwise we find that victims will have some type of script of how things went in their mind and that they'll actually make They'll imagine that it's more horrific than anything actually could be.
	And so our responsibility is to provide them with every detail that we're able to do.
	The information you discussed is available through the Freedom of Information Act.
	When was the information available for viewing on the department's website?
	I believe it was that beginning portion of 2014. I know it was after We initially suspended our investigation the first time, which was one year afterwards.
	I could be wrong, it could be December 2013, it could be much later in 2014, but I do believe it was the beginning of 2014. Was the information available incrementally as it was created or all at one time at the conclusion of the investigation?
	Some information was put out through briefings through our PIO and other forms, but as far as the release of those reports and those photos and everything that we saw in, I believe, Exhib 27, that was all released all at once.
	So whenever that release was, that happened all at once.
	And then if there was any other follow-up reports, because the place was open and closed with some minor stuff after that, that was continuously redacted through FOIA, and then the site was updated with that new information.
	Do you know how the other families are dealing with their loss?
	Again, I found that that's very much an individual, not just by family, but by family members, and that that has We've changed and progressed over time.
	One of the things that our consultant, Dr. Balboni, who is a psychologist, educated us on was the different stages of grief and how we should expect these different family members to go through all those stages over time.
	And because they each experienced their loss in different ways, we saw them As individuals of this whole group, really progress through that.
	Some, I believe, are much farther along in that process, and some still have a long way to go in that process.
	Thank you so much, Detective.
	That concludes your testimony at this stage, and you may exit the witness stand.
	May this witness be released from the rule and any subpoenas?
	Yes, please, Chairman.
	The speed is not from the rule.
	All right.
	So you, well, Okay, because how are you going to get him back there?
	I would imagine that through plaintiff's counsel I could arrange to do it.
	I don't want Mr. Drewis to have to sit here in Texas unnecessarily.
	Alright, so you are released from any subpoenas compelling your presence here, but you are not yet released from the rule, which means you may not have any conversations with anyone about anything else.
	Happens in this proceeding or your own testimony other than the lawyers.
	He's not under subpoena now.
	I've said if.
	So that's fine.
	Does that make sense?
	So you are not yet released from the rule.
	Now earlier I told you you know when I told you you were, but now you'll know when the case is over.
	Okay?
	Thank you so much for your time and your testimony.
	we greatly appreciate it and you are free to go another witness for us your honor the plaintiffs are called Daria Carpova at this time all right do you mind
	thank you all right now you come have a seat in the minutes here please
	there is water in the picture and glasses if you need a drink and I'm asking you to try and make yourself comfortable You should not need to lean into the microphone unless you are extremely soft-spoken.
	A couple of instructions in case you have not testified before.
	Testifying is not a conversation.
	It is a question and answer.
	So it's very important that you not speak until the attorneys have completed their question.
	That you listen to the question and then you give us your answer.
	Does that make sense?
	And if you could not talk over one another, that would help.
	That helps a lot with my core cover.
	In addition, sometimes people have a tendency to answer questions with nods or uh-huhs.
	I need you to answer out loud in words so that we can get a good record.
	Does that make sense?
	All right.
	Thank you so much.
	All right, Mr. Bankson.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	All right, good afternoon, Ms. Garfova.
	Thank you.
	Can you tell the jury first, can you identify yourself with a note record?
	Sorry, Garfova.
	So you are sort of soft spoken.
	So I think maybe, yeah, move a little closer.
	And if you need to, there's a microphone if you want to stay close.
	And then can you spell your name, please?
	D-A-R-I-A-K-E-R-P-O-V-A. Thank you.
	Ms. Karpova, how old are you?
	41. You are an InfoWars producer?
	Yes.
	I want to talk first a little bit about your background before InfoWars.
	Can you tell me where you grew up?
	I grew up in St. Petersburg, Russia, and then in New York City.
	Okay, can you tell us where you went to for your secondary education?
	I went to Expression College for Digital Arts, which is the top one.
	Okay, and I am going to assume that you have experience in video production.
	Yes, sir.
	And you've been doing that at InfoWorks, correct?
	Partially.
	And you have other jobs at InfoWorks, correct?
	Yes.
	You have worked with Mr. Jones since 2015, is that right?
	Correct.
	You have managerial authority over production employees inside InfoWorks, is that correct?
	Objection to the vagueness managerial authority?
	I don't know what that means.
	Overruled.
	If you don't know what a question means, Ms. Carverway, you can say that.
	But otherwise, if you do, you can answer the question.
	As of in my current position, I do.
	Now, when you're working with Mr. Jones and you're doing work for InfoWars as a producer, am I correct that you were employed by his company, Free Speech Systems, LLC? Yes.
	You were, isn't it correct, selected to act as a corporate representative of that company in this case, correct?
	Yes, I was.
	As part of that Yes.
	And when I say on behalf of the corporation, you gave testimony in which you prepared to speak with the corporation's voice, correct?
	Yes.
	As part of the preparation for doing that, you were tasked with making yourself acquainted with several topics of information that relate to this case, correct?
	Yes.
	One of those that you have made sure you were ordered to prepare yourself on for that testimony was an examination of the videos that are contained in plaintiff's lawsuit, correct?
	I don't believe that's true.
	Okay, do you remember?
	Yes, sir.
	Yes, sir.
	Do you remember if one of those topics in that petition to research was the videos in plaintiff's petition in their lawsuit?
	I don't remember that exact phrasing for videos.
	I think the question, the topic was a more generalized question that I remember.
	Sure.
	We'll come back to that and start, please.
	Okay.
	When you prepared yourself to testify about InfoWars, one of the things you did was talk to other people inside of InfoWars about one of the things you did was talk to other people inside of InfoWars about the Are you referring to the current testimony?
	No, ma'am.
	Actually, let's focus back on your 2021 testimony, when you prepared yourself to speak on behalf of the company.
	In preparing to do that, you spoke with people inside of the company about the evidence of this case, correct?
	I would say partially yes.
	Well, I mean, you spoke with Nightly News Director Rob Dew, didn't you?
	Yes, I did.
	You spoke with Mr. Jones?
	I did not speak with Mr. Jones.
	Okay.
	Did you speak with an InfoWars employee named Michael Zimmerman?
	Yes, I did.
	Do you remember any of the other people you spoke to?
	I believe these were the two people that I spoke to.
	Okay.
	And in doing that preparation, you also looked at documents inside the company, correct?
	Yes.
	In fact, you and I have met before, correct?
	Yes, sir.
	And one of the things that we did when we met last time is we looked at some of those documents together, didn't we?
	Yes, we did.
	Okay.
	Another thing that you did when preparing for that testimony was to view InfoWars video.
	Yes, I did.
	Okay.
	Some of those videos that we talked about in your deposition relate to some of the things that are going on in this case, don't they?
	Yes.
	I want to talk about, if we go back to...
	I want to use a date range with you.
	For these questions, I want to talk about the period between 2012 and 2018. Okay?
	Now, do you understand sitting here today, 2012, that December was the San Diego shooting?
	Yes, I understand.
	Okay.
	And you understand that Infowars was sued over statements made about Mr. Huston and Mr. Lewis in 2018.
	Are you aware of that?
	Yes.
	I want to talk about during those years, the different ways you can see Infowars.
	Okay?
	So the first one I want to talk about is that Mr. Jones does a live show.
	Correct?
	Yes, he does.
	He's doing it right now.
	Correct?
	I'm not sure what he's doing right now.
	Okay.
	He had a YouTube...
	Your Honor, I would object to lack of foundation that she has personal knowledge of Info was between 2012 and when she began working there in 2015. She was actually prepared on that for the deposition.
	Right, I think that's what we're talking about.
	I understand, but I think it would be up to Mr. Banks to elicit what somebody told her.
	She has no personal knowledge of this act.
	Well, okay, right now we're talking about her role as a corporate representative.
	A corporate representative is somebody designated by the corporation and tasked with obtaining all of the knowledge that that corporation has and swearing to it under oath at a deposition or testimony.
	So, she doesn't have to have worked there if she's been designated as the corporate representative.
	I believe that's the case, Your Honor, for purposes of the deposition, but not for purposes of the testimony here today.
	Well, I'm not really sure exactly what...
	We're not there yet, so make it clear.
	Correct.
	Okay.
	If it's personal knowledge that Ms. Garbova has just as a person, it probably starts when she went to work there.
	But if it's her knowledge as the corporate representative, then that's something different.
	Yes.
	And in fact, I think one thing that would help me make it clear for you, Ms. Garbova, when I ask questions, is I may ask questions that are geared towards your personal opinion and your personal knowledge.
	Or I may ask you what you have testified to on behalf of the corporation.
	Do you understand the difference between those two things?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	I want to go back again to your corporate deposition and ask you again, do you remember in your corporate deposition that you were tasked with certain tasks and one of those, the first topic in fact, Was the sourcing and research for the videos and plaintiff's petition.
	Do you remember that?
	Yes, I remember that topic.
	Let's go back again to 2018, 2012 to 2018.
	And those videos in Plain's Petition span that entire time period, don't they?
	Different years of videos, yes.
	Okay.
	And during those years in which those videos were put out, and those broadcasts were put out, you would agree with me that they appeared in multiple different formats, correct?
	I'm not sure what you mean by that.
	Sure, let's start then.
	You understand that some of those videos during that time period were aired as part of Mr. Jones's live show, correct?
	I believe some of the videos were taken from the live show.
	Another place that some of these videos come from is Infowars' YouTube page, correct?
	I'm not sure where the videos came from.
	You don't remember us talking in deposition about YouTube videos?
	I'll see if I can find that for you in a little bit.
	Let's move on to something else.
	Let me ask you about another one.
	Some of the videos that we're talking about were also carried on the radio show, correct?
	I'm not sure if the videos were...
	I don't have personal knowledge of who was playing on the radio show.
	I'm not sure what you mean by that.
	One thing you do have personal knowledge of is that Mr. Jones' live show that you can see videoed is simulcast on radio.
	You understand that, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So, as we know, you testified earlier, some of these come from the live show, right?
	So some of them are on radio, weren't they?
	If those shows were broadcasted on radio, they would have to be, but I'm not sure if they were.
	Okay.
	But we do know that Mr. Jones' live show is simulcast on radio, correct?
	Typically.
	You would- would you agree with me, for instance, the InfoWars YouTube page?
	You would agree with me that that was a source over the course of your career?
	And I'm asking you personally.
	Over the course of your career, that's been a significant source of enforced views and audience.
	Do you agree with that?
	I would assume so.
	Okay.
	Would you agree with me that that YouTube channel has over a billion views?
	I'm not sure if I can agree to that because I haven't seen the statistics.
	okay fair enough let's talk about the infowars website right Because not the YouTube page, but I want to talk about Infowars.com.
	You're familiar with that website?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	The videos discussed in Plain's Petition, many if not all of those videos appeared on the Infowars.com website, correct?
	I don't agree with that, no.
	Okay.
	Do you agree that some of them were?
	I'm not sure.
	For the specific videos in question, I would have to look at the archives of Infowars.com to see if those particular videos were posted to Infowars.com.
	You would agree with me that much like the live show is typically simulcast by radio, typically Infowars videos are hosted after the live show on the Infowars.com website.
	I don't agree with that.
	You wouldn't agree with me that pretty much every day after Mr. Jones does his show, that there is not only uploaded to InfoWars.com a full video of that day's prior day's show, but several clips from that show.
	You wouldn't agree that that's the typical practice of InfoWars?
	No, sir.
	Okay.
	That website, InfoWars.com, you've reviewed statistics related Do you remember seeing this in your corporate deposition?
	You reviewed it then?
	There were a lot of documents there.
	don't recall specific star co I'm going to bring you something the big document I only see the first thing
	this is previously admitted as plenty of exhibit 39 your honor with your permission I'd like to publish this exhibit to the jury sure at least can you bring up 39 this is analytics for the infowars website correct yes
	I'm going to blow up a piece of this so hopefully the jury can see it but I know it's in front of you You would agree with me at the very top of, well let's start a little bit on this document.
	These analytics are something that is collected by Infowars to analyze their business, correct?
	I can confirm that because I'm not responsible for that job.
	I'm not in the analytics department and I don't know.
	So you don't know why InfoWars collects stats on how many people view its website?
	You don't know that?
	I don't know if it does or why it did.
	Alright, and on this page, which as you see here has a blown up column for page views, On the InfoWars website.
	Isn't it true that you agree with me that there are nearly 3 billion views, unique page views on the InfoWars website, that's correct?
	That's what it says.
	Thank you, Mr. Gov.
	You would agree with me that over the course of your career, from 2015, for instance, during that period, Infowars was already featured on over 200 radio stations, You know that, right?
	I don't know the exact number of radio stations.
	Okay.
	Ms. Carpo, before your role as corporate representative in this case, weren't you asked to prepare to learn all the company's information about the audience reach of those videos in that plan's petition?
	I was asked to prepare several topics, and I consulted with the people that I thought were necessary for that, and I did the best I could collecting that information.
	Okay, objection on responsibility?
	Sustain.
	Ms. Karpovo, what I'm asking you, very specifically, is when you were being I disagree with your premise.
	It's very hard to determine the reach of our audience.
	Objection.
	Objection, non-responsive.
	Alright, succinct.
	So just listen to the question, and just the actual question you're asked, answer that question.
	Okay?
	So he's going to tell you one more time.
	All right, let's go. let's go.
	Let's try it.
	Let me make sure I'm making it clear with you.
	I'm not asking you right now for what the audience reaches.
	I'm not asking you if you were able to do it to your satisfaction.
	I'm not asking you about any of the data.
	I want to know, were you tasked for this case, preparing to testify about what the audience reach of the Planner's Petition and Videos were?
	Yes.
	You would agree with me that another place that you could see InfoWars' videos is social media, correct?
	Yes.
	Not anymore.
	Ms. Rapova, do you remember when I asked you about a date range?
	Yes.
	Okay, and that was 2012 to 2018, wasn't it?
	Yes.
	InfoWars, and let's go past that date just for right now, because I want to make sure we get this really clear.
	Alright.
	Let's talk about 2018 to the present.
	You've still been working at InfoWars, right?
	Yes.
	InfoWars has a social media account on Parler, doesn't it?
	Yes.
	InfoWars has a social media account on Getter, doesn't it?
	Yes.
	InfoWars has a social media account on Truth Social, currently, correct?
	Yes.
	In fact, InfoWars has numerous social media accounts, doesn't it?
	Yes, it does.
	So, let me ask you this.
	InfoWars has an urgent need website.
	A lot of people come and visit the InfoWars website, even currently.
	Correct?
	Again, I'm known as statistics.
	And InfoWars has a website.
	Yes, it does.
	It has access to the internet.
	Yes.
	That's something it still has.
	In fact, there are many InfoWars employees who have social media accounts.
	Some of those accounts are on things like Twitter, Facebook, things like that, correct?
	I'm not sure about Twitter or Facebook.
	Those places, the company social media accounts, those are places where people can see InfoWars videos from time to time, isn't it?
	Are we asking about the personal social media accounts or are we asking about the company accounts?
	I just said the company social media accounts.
	Correct?
	You can see videos on the company's social media accounts, correct?
	The ones that you mentioned, other than Facebook and Twitter.
	Okay, so the company still has social media accounts, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay, and the company has a website where you can watch InfoWars videos right now, doesn't it?
	I believe the website is mostly article driven.
	Infowars.com.
	If I go to Infowars.com and I hit ban.video, I'm looking at a huge archive of videos, aren't I? That's updated every single day, right?
	You just mentioned a different website.
	If you go to Infowars.com, one of the sections of that website, up at the top, with news, featured articles, You're talking about band.video, but you're asking me about Infowars.com.
	Alright, let's not split a lot of hairs then.
	I'll just make the question a lot bigger for you.
	The Infowars.com website provides a link at the very top of the website to another, I guess, web domain that is also owned by Mr. Jones and Free Speech Systems that provides video content daily on the internet, correct?
	Yes.
	So if somebody were to say That Infowars has had all of its access to the internet taken away and lost its ability to post on all social media, that would not be true, would it?
	Not entirely.
	Excuse me, I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
	Not entirely.
	That's not an entirely true statement, is it?
	Right?
	If someone was to say that, that would not be an entirely true statement.
	I would say for the most part it is true.
	Okay, well what I'm asking you is because something I heard earlier today in opening statement is this right here.
	InfoWars has lost its access to the internet.
	InfoWars has lost its social media accounts.
	If those things were said, that's not true, is it?
	InfoWars has not lost its access to the internet.
	InfoWars has not lost the entirety of its social media.
	Correct?
	I believe it was referring to the audience reach.
	And the new social media platforms that have come up since the deplatforming have a fraction of the viewership that the previous platforms did, which Alex is no longer on.
	Let's just talk about what you mean when you say deplatforming, right?
	Infowars Shortly after the filing of this lawsuit, lost its YouTube page, correct?
	Yes.
	And it did so, that happened because of repeated community violations of YouTube policy, correct?
	I don't know that.
	Okay, you don't know how you lost the YouTube site?
	I object on her cause for speculation as to...
	She obviously doesn't work for YouTube.
	I mean, it's...
	Okay, your objection calls for speculation is overruled.
	She said she doesn't know.
	You can try to get to it the other way.
	Did YouTube send anything to the company notifying it why it's canceled and canceled?
	I don't know because I was not privy to the documents.
	Okay, that's fine.
	The other thing that happened to you to InfoWars is that it lost its Twitter page, right?
	Yes.
	And I believe its Facebook page?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And that's what you mean by de-platforming, right?
	That and a few other platforms.
	So that's it.
	That's what we're talking about.
	InfoWars lost a few platforms.
	Didn't get denied access to the internet.
	It's not banned from all social media.
	You'd agree with that?
	I wouldn't agree with that because you were talking about the audience reach and the platforms it was banned from.
	That encompasses most of the audience, most of the internet.
	Really?
	You're going to testify here under oath, Ms. Rappova, that the audience from Infowars YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook page is greater Mr. Jones, live show, radio show, Infowars.com, and the Banned Video Archive.
	That's your testimony under oath today?
	I don't know how it would compare because I don't have the evidence for that.
	Okay.
	In the future, I want you to testify that way instead of saying that it would, right?
	Because I don't want it to personalize.
	I'll sustain that, but I am going to say that you need to restrict your answers to things that you know.
	Right?
	Whether you are asked a question as an individual or as a corporate representative, you have those two roles.
	You have information in each of those roles.
	It's not helpful to the jury to guess or assume, so you need to only testify about things you know.
	Do you understand?
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	During the time in which you've been employed by InfoWars, both for personal knowledge, let's do it first for your personal knowledge.
	Actually, scratch that.
	Let's do it backwards.
	And getting prepared to testify for this company, to be its corporate representative.
	You became aware, when preparing for the topic of audience reach, that InfoWars has been carried on several cable packages.
	Correct?
	Yes.
	Same question about your preparation.
	You also became aware that InfoWars was carried on shortwave radio.
	Correct?
	Yes.
	And that's a worldwide Christian radio, isn't it?
	I'm not sure what radio that is.
	Okay.
	And you know what Genesis Communications Network is, right?
	Yes.
	Okay?
	Genesis Communications Network is an entity by which InfoWars is broadcast on a bunch of radio stations.
	Isn't that right?
	I can't speak to the distribution of Genesis through the network.
	So in other words, when you got prepared to testify in this case about audience reach of these videos and broadcasts and things, how far it gets through Genesis Communications Networks, that's not something you can tell this very far.
	I don't have the information.
	When getting prepared, one of the other things that you knew in fores was carried on is OTT boxes.
	Isn't that right?
	I don't recall that specific topic of research.
	Let me see if this may help you understand because I used an abbreviation.
	And do you remember in our prior discussions with each other talking about over the top box systems?
	Boxes that are put on top of the TV and plugged into it.
	Do you know what I'm talking about?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And informers has been on those, right?
	At times.
	Okay.
	So that's a yes.
	Correct?
	During this time period we're talking about?
	Okay.
	One of the other ways that you're fully aware that I could see Infowars content is that Infowars content is republished by a variety of different people, correct?
	Yes.
	In fact, Infowars programming is what we call free-to-air, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And when we say free to air, that means that anybody can take one of Mr. Jones' videos in which he advertises his products, and without paying InfoWars a dime, and without signing any kind of agreement, they can broadcast it wherever they want.
	Correct?
	Yes.
	And they frequently do.
	There are people who do that, right?
	I don't know how many people do that.
	I'm not asking you how many.
	The company is aware, and you are aware and getting prepared to talk about audience reach.
	You were aware that people do, in fact, republish InfoWars money.
	That's allowed.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	I want to talk to you next, Ms. Carpolo, about, during that same period of time, 2012-2018, I want to talk to you about the ways that InfoWars made money.
	Okay?
	How the business operated.
	First of all, advertising.
	Is that something that informers make money off of?
	Could you be more specific?
	Sure, I'll give you one example.
	You know what Rev content is, right?
	Those little click boxes that were for a long time at the bottom of InfoWars webpages.
	If you don't know about them, that's not my specialty.
	So, in other words, let me put it this way.
	In your role as a producer for InfoWars, you do not encounter the advertising modules on the website?
	Is that what you're saying?
	Not typically.
	Okay.
	And then in terms of the video, there's video production.
	Over the course, and let's back up for a second.
	As a producer, you have produced, you have worked on multiple InfoWars shows, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay, and one of those would be the Alex Jones show, right?
	Yes.
	On the Alex Jones show itself, during the time in which you were producing that show, you personally, there was advertising on that show.
	Correct?
	Could you be more specific on the type of advertising?
	All I really want to know is, during the entire time of your career, was there ever advertising on InfoWars?
	Yes.
	So, in advertising is one of the ways that InfoWars makes revenue, correct?
	Yes.
	Another way that InfoWars makes revenue is the sale of its products.
	You know what I mean by that?
	InfoWars has a website where it runs a store, right?
	Yes.
	That store sells a variety of different products, right?
	Yes.
	One of the types of products that that store sells is herbal supplements, right?
	Yes.
	In fact, there are a variety of different supplements, some not using herbs, right, but others using elements like iodine.
	Yes.
	There are a variety of different pills that can be purchased on InfoWars that purport to give health benefits.
	Would you agree with that?
	Yes.
	There is a variety of materials, would you agree with me, that are geared towards those who are prepping for emergency situations?
	Yes.
	That would include, for instance, tubs of pre-packaged food, things like that?
	Yes.
	Water filtration systems?
	Yes.
	AR-15 parts?
	I don't recollect that specifically, personally.
	What may refresh Rebecca's memory?
	Do you remember InfoWars selling a branded, engraved InfoWars AR-15 receiver on its website?
	I'm sorry, I just can't recollect that specifically.
	Okay.
	In other words, there are a large variety of products for sale on the Infowars website.
	It's not just one kind of product.
	Do you agree with that?
	Yes.
	Infowars also has an Amazon.com store, correct?
	I think so.
	It has an eBay.com store too, doesn't it?
	I don't have knowledge.
	Any knowledge of this today.
	OK.
	I can't.
	OK.
	Would you agree with me?
	I don't know, do you have the knowledge to know?
	This sale of the products off Inforrest website, that's the primary method of revenue for the company, right?
	Off of Inforrest store, yes.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Ms. Karpova, I want to turn now, I want to turn now, and we're probably just going to start to get into it.
	I'm just going to let you know for your own convenience and for everybody important.
	We're going to have to keep going until tomorrow.
	But I want to talk just for the end of today about the start of the coverage of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
	And so what I'm going to want to do Is talk to you a little bit about some of the videos and plaintiff's petition, and some of the documents that we've talked about before.
	And do you remember, sitting here today, you can verify for me, that on the day of the Sandy Ocean, as the news was coming in of the Sandy Ocean, I believe so, yes.
	Okay.
	One of the things that I'm going to bring you right now that I think might be helpful is I am going to bring you what's been previously marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 31. Why don't you take a look at that?
	Okay, and we can see here together that what this exhibit contains is dates and titles of episodes, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay, and I will represent to you That this exhibit represents, or the parties agree, are the videos that were either produced in this case, or were discovered by the planners in some capacity.
	These are the videos that we're talking about in this case.
	So I would like you to keep that up on the stand as a reference guide if you need to look something up.
	Okay?
	Because I know it's fair to have the videos in front of you.
	Do you agree with that?
	Yes.
	I want to ask you first, If you can look on there and do you see a video that was there on that list December 14th, 2012?
	Yes.
	Can you tell the jury what the name of that video was?
	Connecticut School Massacre Looks Like False Flag Says Witnesses.
	Connecticut School Massacre Looks Like False Flag Says Witnesses.
	That's what you said?
	Yes.
	Let's talk about a false flag.
	When we talk about something being a false flag, you would agree with me that, let's start simple, that that means whatever event it is, is not what it seems.
	That's the first thing we can agree, a false flag means, right?
	Yes.
	And I believe when you came to that position, you had discussed with me various other examples of what you believed might be false flags throughout history, correct?
	And in fact, Mr. Jones, on his show, has often claimed that certain events are false flags, hasn't he?
	And when I say a false flag, you will agree with me that in the parlance, the verbiage, the language, the rhetoric of conspiracy culture, a false flag means That an event like a mass shooting, a bombing, a mass casualty event, was in some way staged or faked by forces likely involved in either government or powerful figures.
	Would you agree with that?
	I don't agree with that statement.
	Okay, so according to you, a false flag does not necessarily indicate that an event was staged or faked.
	That's what you're saying?
	Correct.
	Okay.
	At this point, I'd like to show you a little clip from this video.
	Can we go ahead and play PBX 1A? This is a clip from the December 14, 2012 video.
	Now, I've got people calling in with all sorts of information on this subject, but get a hold of your cousin when she settles down and get her to talk to us for any other information.
	We need to know, were there any drills that day or the day before?
	Did she have anything about other shooters, or did she never saw the shooters?
	Well, I had to ask them if it was supposedly two, because they have a lot of security at that school.
	You have to ring the doorbell in order to get into the school.
	Yeah, of course, which is another sound effect, yeah.
	One of these federal model schools.
	The thing that just scared the daylights at me, I had a call right away, is I asked them, did they ever train for this?
	And my uncle said yes.
	Within this school year, since September, they have trained for incidents like this.
	Well, that in and of itself isn't the proof of it, but they can use a drill to then bring in a Patsy.
	It could just be a Prozac head.
	We'll find out.
	God bless you, sir.
	I appreciate your call.
	Stand in contact.
	We're going to go to Rob who says email.
	Your Honor?
	I would object under the rule of optional completeness to just the input being played and ask that the entire segment be played.
	Your Honor, the rule of optional completeness is when the defendant can identify a statement in the offered matter and then identify a specific statement that would be the idea of the rule.
	So I just object that that's improper input.
	Yes, so that you are free to admit.
	The entire clip, or excuse me, video.
	In fact, it's already admitted, as you know.
	And so if your objection is to the playing of just the clip, we handled that in free trial, and your objection is overruled.
	My objection, Your Honor, is that if the jury were about to watch the entire video at this point, it would be apparent that Mr. Jones is...
	So you are free to play the rest of the clip during your time if you would like to.
	In that clip, we heard Mr. Jones talk about a patsy.
	Did you hear that?
	Yes, I did.
	A patsy is the fake perpetrator of a false flag who takes the fault.
	Do you agree with that?
	That's what a patsy is.
	You wouldn't agree with that specific definition.
	I'm sorry, I didn't hear.
	I wouldn't agree with that specific definition.
	Why don't you define for me what a patsy is.
	Someone who's being used.
	Being used.
	Okay.
	So in this case, whoever was being the shooter was being used.
	Who is he being used by?
	I don't know.
	Are you asking me personally?
	Sure, if you know.
	Who is Adam Lanza being used by?
	Do you know personally?
	I don't know.
	Let's play PVX 1D. I want to play you another clip from this episode.
	I said this is the attack.
	People have got to find the clips the last two months.
	I said, they are launching attacks.
	They're getting ready.
	I can see them warming up with Obama.
	They've got a bigger majority in the Congress now and the Senate.
	They are going to come after our guns, look for mass shootings.
	And then magically it happened.
	They are coming.
	They are coming.
	They've already taken over healthcare.
	The premiums are doubling.
	They're bankrupting that.
	They're already shipped GM to China.
	They are gonna gut this country.
	They're gonna shut down the power plants.
	They're gonna bankrupt us.
	They are re-educating us.
	Just like we were Ukrainians.
	They want the counties and the cities bankrupted and federalized.
	The feds themselves run by globalists.
	What does the new magazine say?
	You can get it by subscribing.
	You can get 12 issues.
	This man wants your guns.
	And I break down here, they're declaring war.
	On the Second Amendment period.
	They are declaring war on the Second Amendment period.
	They are coming after our Second Amendment.
	It has happened.
	They want to kill America in 2013. That is their goal.
	That is what they want.
	They are moving to do it.
	Send your tips.
	Uh, to Reel Ali Shams on Twitter.
	Tell me what you think.
	Comment in the articles.
	I'll be reading what you're saying.
	We'll have more reports Sunday, 4 to 6, and more reports tonight on the nightly news, 7 o'clock, PrisonPlanet.tv.
	Now, Ms. Karpova, in that clip we saw a magazine, right?
	Yes.
	InfoWars published a magazine, correct?
	Yes.
	On the cover of that magazine, who is that?
	Who was on the cover of the magazine we just saw?
	I'm not sure which part you were referring to.
	Did you see in the video Mr. Jones holding up a magazine during that clip?
	Who was on the cover?
	I can't.
	I'm on it now.
	Okay.
	Maybe refresh from memory that's President Obama?
	Sure.
	That's the man who's coming for their guns, right?
	according to InfoWord.
	Is that a question?
	Yes.
	Is that, yes.
	Absolutely.
	Can you repeat the question please?
	Sure.
	According to Infowars, Obama was coming for people's guns.
	- Correct. - I just don't.
	I'm sorry, I don't...
	I'm sorry, can you bring up the video, because I'm not sure Ms. Karpova sells this, and I think she uses it.
	Can you bring up the video to the end?
	I need a freeze frame.
	Ms. Karpova, I'm going to bring up the video so you can look at the magazine.
	Because I just asked you if under InfoWars view, Obama was coming for their guns.
	And my issue is, I'm wondering, is on this video, did you see the portion where he held up a magazine?
	With President Obama that said, this man is coming for your guns.
	Did you see that?
	I did see that.
	You did see that?
	Yes.
	So according to Infowars, on the cover of their magazine, and being yelled out by Mr. Jones, Obama is coming for people's guns, correct?
	That's the picture we're seeing, right?
	Is that correct?
	Yes.
	At the end of this episode, or the end of this clip we just watched, Mr. Jones, did you hear I'm talking to the viewers and saying, send me your tips?
	Did you hear that?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	InfoWars solicits tips from viewers through an official tip email address, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Infowars frequently uses third-party material that is submitted to the show, correct?
	Sometimes Right, and Mr. Jones was just encouraging them to do just that, right?
	Yes.
	And one thing we can agree on is on the day of the shooting, while we were still learning what was happening up there in Connecticut, Mr. Jones was already theorizing that this was a false flag, correct?
	I'm sorry, could you repeat the question?
	On the day of the shooting, first, and I think it may help for you to look at the title of the episode on the day of the shooting that's in front of you.
	On the day of the shooting, while we were still learning what was happening, Mr. Jones was already publishing videos that was making the claim, that was publicizing and spreading the claim that this might be a false flag.
	Correct?
	Yes, sir.
	Yes, okay.
	Ms. Karpova, I want to go forward just a couple days.
	So let's go forward to December 17th, 2012. Five days later, after the shoot.
	Do you see an InfoWars video that was produced on that day?
	Yes.
	Can you please read to the jury what that title of that video is?
	Creepy Illuminati Message in Batman Movie.
	Hints at Sandy Hook School.
	This is another video that was something you were to prepare on for your corporate deposition in this case, correct?
	Yes.
	You would agree with me that when it says, um, the Illuminati.
	In fact, let me just repeat this whole time.
	Creepy Illuminati message in Batman movie.
	Hints at Sandy Hook School.
	So first question.
	The Illuminati is A secret organization that exerts power over world affairs.
	Do you agree with that?
	I wouldn't completely agree with that.
	Why don't you tell us what Illuminati is?
	A secret organization that has influences over governments.
	media, Hollywood, law.
	So, the Illuminati isn't just a secret organization.
	It also includes elements of Hollywood Involve, and all these other things too, is that what you're saying?
	I'm saying it...
	In this...
	specifically in this definition it would refer to this hidden power that exerts influence that is usually...
	has to do with...
	Covert signage, satanic imagery, things like that.
	Okay.
	And in this specific video, the title here, what is being said here is that this Illuminati inserted a coded message into the Batman movie.
	Correct?
	Yes.
	And that Batman movie, I think you understand from this video, came out before Sandy Hook, right?
	So the allegation is, is that a secret world organization or some sort of secret shadowy forces inserted into the Batman movie a secret coded message revealing that that group was going to do something to San Diego.
	That's what the argument is here, correct?
	It's hinting at something to do with saying about school.
	Right.
	Do you know what I mean when I talk about predictive programming?
	Yes.
	And that's what this is, right?
	This is a theory or a claim that powerful forces Have to insert into pieces of media information that reveals that they are going to commit mass atrocities or fake events before they actually do them.
	Do you understand if that's what predictive programming means?
	I would disagree with that particular statement.
	Okay.
	Okay, and let me just make sure.
	We're five days after the shoot.
	Five days after.
	And InfoWars has decided to suggest to its audience that the Illuminati has inserted a secret Sandy Hook message into Sandy Hook months before it ever happened.
	That's what InfoWars is doing here, right?
	That's what they found, I guess.
	That's what they found!
	So InfoWars stands behind them.
	The Illuminati inserted a creepy message into the Batman movie?
	That's what InfoWars believes?
	You can watch it and see what it says.
	I think that I'm going to overrule that objection because this question is responding to Ms. Karpova's current statement about what enforced free speech systems, I assume, believes today.
	So that's true, right?
	You're saying that's what they found.
	There was a creepy Illuminati message put in the Batman movie predicting Sandy Hook.
	Are you asking me as a corporate rep right now?
	Yeah, I'm asking because you prepared on these videos and you just testified, yes, that's what they found.
	That's what I'm asking you.
	You confirm that.
	The Infowars people found and published this video, do you believe today shows a creepy Illuminati message in the Batman movie predicting Sandy Hook before it ever even happened?
	I disagree with what you just said.
	Okay, so, but they did, the Infowars reporters at least, they found that.
	At the time, that's what they found.
	And that's what they put out to their audience five days after Sandy Hook, correct?
	Correct.
	Do you see a video that took place two days later, on December 19th, 2012?
	Yes.
	And you would agree with me that that episode was called Sandy Hook Second Shooter Cover-Up.
	Correct?
	Yes.
	Now, let me see if we agree on this.
	I don't know if we agree.
	But I feel like we should both be able to agree right now there was no second change.
	Correct?
	I wasn't there.
	You've been at Infowars since 2015. Yes.
	You've been exposed to all the Sandy Hook stuff since then.
	You've been a producer, right?
	Yes.
	To be able to look at that jury and tell them confidently, there was no second shooter.
	That's what I'm asking.
	Your Honor, I'm going to object to this as argumentative.
	She's here to testify to her personal knowledge of things.
	This question is only inappropriate.
	I'm a little confused as to how-- Are you asking her personally?
	Is she confident that there was- Yes, now this is a personal question based on her last- She can answer that question.
	Years of InfoWars.
	She can answer that.
	Based on that experience, that's what I'm asking.
	Can you answer?
	Her years of experience as a producer at InfoWars, yes.
	She can answer that question.
	Since the new information has come up, it appears that it was not the second shooter.
	What new information are you talking about?
	The years that you're referring to.
	Yeah, so from 2015 to now, there was apparently a piece of new information which made it clear to you there was no second shooter.
	What new information was that?
	Things aren't clear to me.
	I'm just telling you the best I can from the very little coverage that we have done.
	I'm just going to try to revisit back to make sure I understand your testimony because I believe that you testified to me that now you can agree there was no second shooter and the reason you can do Again, I'm saying I wasn't there.
	I can infer things.
	So now let's talk about this December 19th video seven days after the shoot, right?
	Yes.
	And already, seven days after the shooting, InfoWars is telling its audience that there was a second shooter cover, correct?
	That's what they believed at the time.
	That's what they were telling their audience, right?
	And are you going to testify for me under oath that you have personal knowledge that the people who created this video on December 19, 2012 believed in?
	Are you going to testify to that under oath?
	It calls for speculation.
	Are you going to testify to me under oath?
	No, it does not.
	Does she have personal knowledge that they believed it?
	She might.
	She might not.
	- Yeah, overall.
	- Understood.
	- Yes.
	- Okay, so you know personally who produced this, right?
	I don't.
	But you're going to tell us you have personal knowledge that whoever it was knew it was true, or believed it was true?
	That's how we do things.
	We report things we believe.
	In all my experience and informers.
	Okay, so this is just your inference based on how you think informers operate.
	Is that correct?
	Yes.
	Let's move forward a couple days.
	December 21st, 2012. InfoWars published a video called Part of Gotham Renamed Sandy Hook in Dark Knight Film.
	Correct?
	Lower Part of Gotham.
	Okay, yes, sure.
	Lower Part of Gotham.
	Renamed Sandy Hook in Dark Knight Film.
	That's a side one?
	Yes.
	This is, again, talking about the Coney d'Illuminati message?
	In the Batman movie?
	Right?
	Yes.
	Again, just a matter of weeks after the shoot, correct?
	Yes.
	Let's go just past Christmas, New Year turns over, and it's January 10th.
	It's been just less than a month since the shoot.
	On January 10th, 2013, InfoWars produced a video that day, correct?
	Yes.
	And that video was entitled, Professor Claims Sandy Hook Massacre MSM Misinformation, right?
	Yes.
	The MSM, that means mainstream media, right?
	Yes.
	And Infowars likes to view itself as opposed to big, like a CNN, right?
	Or a MSNBC, right?
	Yes.
	And it was here that a professor was brought on to claim that the public was being given misinformation about Sandy Hook, correct?
	Yes.
	That professor is Professor James Tracy, isn't he?
	I believe so.
	And he was interviewed about his claims about crisis actors, wasn't he?
	Yes.
	A crisis actor, you would agree with me, has two different meanings, right?
	Would you agree with that?
	I'm not sure what you're talking about.
	So would you first agree?
	That, for many years, there have been organizations where they will have actors who will help participate in a crisis drill, where if there was, say, police officers who were training for a mass crisis and they need to learn how to put on the tourniquets, there are people you can pay to be actors in that crisis to help them train.
	Do you understand that that's a thing?
	Yes.
	You also understand that in the conspiracy world, that when someone says crisis actor, that can also mean that a person is being paid to play a role in a faked event.
	You understand that, right?
	I don't know if they're being paid.
	Sure, they might do it for free, won't they?
	Could be a lot of reasons they could do it.
	I'm not sure.
	Sure, but let's go ahead and make it simple.
	A crisis actor is someone who is in a fake event pretending to be something they're not.
	Correct?
	Yes.
	And InfoWars, less than a month after the shooting, was already recruiting people I want Mr. Tracy to come on the show and have him on to talk about crisis actors.
	Do you agree about that?
	I would disagree with that.
	Okay.
	And is your problem with the word recruit?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Let's just say the simple part.
	InfoWars asked James Tracy to come on the show, right?
	I'm not sure if he was asked or if he wanted to be on the show.
	Sure.
	Okay.
	So one of two things happened.
	Either James or Tracy got ahold of Infowars and said, I want to be on the show.
	And Infowars took a look at him and what he was saying and said, sounds good.
	Or Infowars went to James Tracy and said, hey, we've seen what you're saying.
	We want you on the show.
	One of those two things probably went out.
	And that was less than a month from the shooting.
	That Infowars was actively promoting the idea, on its show, that crisis actors were used in San Diego.
	Do you agree with that?
	I don't agree with that.
	I think it was gathering evidence that they could find whether it was for it being some sort of defense where government was involved and also was looking for the opposite evidence.
	It was just gathering information.
	Let's move forward five days.
	January 15th, 2013. InfoWars published a video entitled, Sandy Hook AR-15 Hoax?
	Still no school surveillance footage.
	Correct?
	Yes.
	Let's move forward just another week or so to January 27th, 2013. InfoWars published a video at that point called, Why People Think Sandy Hook is a Hoax.
	Correct?
	Yes. 48. 29.
	Mr. Pova, I would like to hand you what's been marked 267-48.
	If you remember seeing this email in your deposition.
	Okay.
	Yes.
	This email relates to the emails in this case.
	Do you agree with your father?
	Yes.
	Concerned Sandy Hook.
	Yes.
	And her parents' complaint.
	Correct?
	Would you just give me a second?
	Sure, you can redeem her.
	- Not yet.
	Yes.
	Your Honor, this time we've moved to admit plans for you.
	Any objection?
	Your Honor, the bottom half of the email contains a hearsay statement.
	Okay, that's all you have to say.
	I know you gave me a notebook.
	For some reason, we only put the depositions out here.
	I'll ask my staff for the notebook that I know you did give me.
	But do you have another problem?
	I sure do.
	I have one right now.
	I'll be happy to.
	And going forward, I'll have the place to go.
	I think we have it in the back.
	Would Gerardo like to see my next one?
	I'll just have to see a copy.
	We'll let Mr. Banks do it.
	I wasn't here in the building all last week.
	So that's why I don't have my notebook up here.
	It's not anyone's fault.
	I mean, it's my fault.
	You can make it my fault as a problem.
	Okay, let me just look at it.
	Alright, so hearsay objection to the second half?
	To the, let's say, the original message.
	All right.
	And your response is that it's not offered for...
	Not offered for the truth.
	Those facts are already established.
	It's offered to show notice to enforce that it goes to their actual notes.
	So I'm going to overrule the objection and plaintiff's 48 is admitted.
	Thank you.
	Ms. Karpov, do you have a copy of 48 in front of you?
	Yes, I do.
	Your Honor, I'm going to publish 48 to the jury.
	All right.
	We see an email here.
	From a gentleman, his inbox says Lynn Posner, and his signature line says Lenny Posner.
	You're aware that Lenny Posner is the father of Noah Posner, a victim of Sandy Hook?
	Yes.
	In fact, you've done research regarding Lenny Posner, you personally.
	Personally, I have not.
	Okay, well, maybe that's...
	for the purposes of your corporate deposition, you fulfilling that role did research on Menopausner.
	Okay.
	One of the things that you know about Menopausner is that he was upset with the way Enforger was covering his story.
	You know that, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	I'm going to read you this email here.
	And this is written to writers at InfoWars.com.
	And Mr. Posner writes to Alex.
	And he says, Alex, I'm very disappointed to see how many people are directing more anger at families that lost their children in Newtown, accusing us of being actors, Haven't we had our share of, say, pain and suffering?
	All these accusations of government involvement, false flag terror, new world order, etc.
	I used to enjoy listening to your shows prior to 12-14-12.
	Now I feel that your type of show has created these hateful people, and they need to be reeled in.
	Many positive.
	I read that directly?
	Yes.
	All right, I'd like to show you the response.
	Can you zoom that up for me?
	It's from Paul Watson.
	You know Mr. Watson?
	Yes, I do.
	Editor at InfoWars.
	Yes.
	You would agree with me that over the years, Mr. Watson did not like what other people at InfoWars were doing as a concern.
	Do you agree with that?
	Correct.
	Mr. Watson wrote back to Mr. Posner, and he said, Sir, we have not promoted the actor's thing.
	Let's start there.
	You would agree with me That just days before this, InfoWars had Professor Tracy on to promote the actors thing.
	You would agree with that?
	Promoted obviously speculating.
	Okay.
	Looking for answers.
	And Mr. Watson then says, in fact, we have actively distanced ourselves from it.
	That's not true, is it?
	I'm not sure who Paul Watson is speaking for here.
	Sure, but I don't care who you're speaking for.
	It's not true, is what I'm saying.
	When he says we, you can assume he means infowars, right?
	You know that.
	Yes.
	And it's not true, is it?
	Infowars haven't actively distanced itself from the actor's thing.
	Quite the opposite.
	Correct?
	Well, I think Alex was looking for answers.
	Object.
	Object non-responsive.
	Sustained.
	Ms. Carpova, what I'm asking you is when you bring on, to promote to an audience of millions, an informer brings a person on, whose theory is that the parents are crisis actors, that's not actively distancing yourself from the actors thing, is it?
	Correct.
	Let's talk about March 27, 2013, just a little bit further.
	Are you moving off of this exhibit?
	I am.
	Yes, we can take that down.
	It's 4.58.
	I think this is a good breaking point for the day.
	So for my jury, please remember all of my previous instructions, including the ban on news.
	Um, and discussions and everything else, alright?
	Um, we will start at 9. I do need my jury to get here by about 8.45 so that we are able to start on time tomorrow.
	Thank you so much.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	I'm going to shut the door behind you, please.
	Thank you.
	You may be seated.
	Do we need anything else on the record?
	All right, we can go off the record.
	A couple of things.
	Mr. Maglilo, I'm going to have to ask you not to lean on the bar between yourself and the jury.

▲