Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 2, 2022 - Depositions & Trials

03:08:02

Alex Jones Defamation Trial: Sandy Hook 'Hoax' Lawsuit - Day Five, Part Two

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Dr. Rubin, did you speak to the financial attorneys over the program?
	Yes.
	And what did you guys discuss?
	I noticed there were some things that I thought we might cover about the impact on the brain and the body.
	That was, I don't remember many other details.
	How long was the conversation?
	Two minutes.
	You testified to the jury earlier that for, Neal and Heslin and Scarlett Lewis finding out that a quarter of all Americans believe that they're liars was tremendously hurtful.
	I don't know.
	I think they probably had known that earlier.
	It was when Neil was singled out and attacked.
	And they found out that there was an increasing amount of talk about it.
	And people were harassing them.
	That it became very distressful.
	We were talking around like 2018.
	And they told me it became really a serious problem for them emotionally.
	So, as I take it now, what you said earlier about how they walk out on the street and they don't know which person might be somebody who's a Sandy Hook denier and how that causes them a tremendous amount of stress because of this pull That's not the primary reason that they're distressed.
	It's not just the poll.
	I mean, certainly thinking that many people with deniers adds to the problem, but the real problem and the tremendous fear they have is because of threatening calls, threatening messages, people confronting I think it was just that one quarter of Americans didn't believe it.
	That's not the problem.
	It's the anger and the venom and continual attacks.
	Let me ask you this.
	Was it Alex Jones who told them that there was a poll that said that a quarter of Americans didn't believe him, or was it someone else?
	I don't recall Alex Jones telling you.
	You think it was something they heard as part of this litigation?
	I don't know when they heard it.
	You said that Alex Jones 100% caused these parents' mental anguish.
	I don't think I said 100% of their mental anguish.
	The drop of it is from Alex Jones.
	What I was saying is that Alex Jones, using his pulpit and oratory, pushed the issue and kept repeating it in a very attacking way and stirred people up and then some of those people have I have followed and calls
	and shoving Neal and Nathan are very frightened.
	So as you sit here today, you're not expressing an opinion as to what percentage, if any, of the harassment suffered, if any, by the plaintiffs was caused by Alex Jones?
	I think Alex Jones Well, the question before was different than what you're saying now.
	Before, the question was 100% of their anguish.
	I'm saying that there are other things that are painful in life as well.
	But that, you know, they would not be, they would not have complex PTSD, they would not be suffering, they would be able to do positive things in life, enjoy things, sleep okay, enjoy normal activities and relationships.
	Had it not been for the Alex Jones driving many people to see them as these evil people.
	And so your position then is that it's Alex Jones' fault that they suffer mental anguish?
	Jury and lawyers, but that he is the root cause.
	That there is such a tremendous, this goes on and on, and that the statements became so intuberative, and that they were, suffered character assassination and vilification.
	If someone had simply left it, you know, we're not sure that this occurred.
	I don't think that And they knew that there were deniers earlier on, but it was after Alex Jones was pushing it and intensifying the rhetoric, and people then responded that they became much more fearful.
	And you would concede that you did not take the time to substantiate that anybody in fact responded.
	True?
	That anyone in fact responded?
	Responded by harassing the parents.
	You did not take any steps to corroborate that that actually occurred.
	True?
	It can't be answered yes or no.
	You know we're on national television.
	Yes.
	And if somebody watching you testify went out and did something to It's not standard practice for forensic psychiatrists to call up the police and see if the individual is making up what happened.
	It's standard practice, and what I write about in my article, I have a big section on malingering, is do the pieces fit together?
	Does the pattern of emotional harm or And is the problem that they're pointing Going
	and reporting to the police or taking a picture of everyone who shoved him.
	So I don't know how it could be corroborated in terms of absolute proof, but I do accept that it's happened.
	So let's go back to an earlier question that I don't think we got fully clarified.
	As you sit here today, do you know if Mr. Heslin and Ms. Lewis were ever exposed in the sense that they ever actually viewed an Alex Jones broadcast prior to do you know if Mr. Heslin and Ms. Lewis were ever I don't know if they did before 2017.
	Do you have an opinion on what percentage of the mental anguish that you have described is attributable to participating in this litigation?
	I do not know what percentage.
	I mean, they were extremely anxious and stressed before.
	Litigation is stressful, no matter what it's about, for everyone.
	Lawyers.
	So I don't know what percentage, but they clearly had serious harm before the litigation.
	You never met with them before the litigation, did you?
	No.
	So you're testifying to that just like so many other things based on post-litigation conversations that you had?
	It's not post-visit litigation, it's not over, but I spoke with the therapist who saw both of them.
	I listened to what he told me had been happening and how it was functioning at different points in time.
	And it made reasonable patterns that we know occur in medicine.
	And that's how it's, forensic evaluations are generally done.
	Do you know that in On Father's Day 2017, Alex Jones issued a video invitation to the Sandy Hook parents to contact them.
	So you don't know whether or not they ever received the message?
	Who received what message?
	The Sandy Hook parents ever received Alex Jones' message inviting them to contact them.
	I do not know.
	If they had heard him, and they had contacted him, do you think that that might have had a positive impact on their mental health, to have worked through this with him?
	I do not think so, because I don't think that Alex Jones was going to apologize.
	He hasn't, to my knowledge, he hasn't apologized now for what he's done.
	He's made multiple false statements, statements that have little basis, really no basis in reality.
	And I think that that would have used that as a media, from everything that I've seen about him, he would have used that as another media opportunity to be able to say, I spoke to the parents, and speaking to them, I know.
	And this knowledge that you have of Alex Jones comes from watching the videos that we have in evidence in this case?
	Yes.
	Earlier you said that Owen Schroer called Neil Heslund a liar.
	Do you recall that testimony?
	He said that it was not possible that Neil held his son within a day of the tragedy.
	I'm sorry that he...
	Did he not hold his son after the tragedy, within one day of the tragedy?
	Because you know that in fact Mr. Heslam did hold his son the day of the tragedy.
	Or that night at around 1:30.
	I wasn't there.
	I haven't called up the policeman.
	That's not really a job of the forensic.
	Get into that level of detail.
	My first thought, I was surprised when Mr. Schroyer said that this was, you know, not possible.
	The first thing that came to my mind was, of course it's possible.
	At some point, he may have stuck around and somebody may have let him.
	Even though, you know, people were told that they couldn't, that somebody may have let him out of pity, out of compassion.
	So your belief when you watch the video is that Owen Schroer's comment was directed at whether or not Mr. Heslund had held the body that day.
	Or that night.
	Directed at?
	I mean, that was a specific comment.
	I mean, I think the underlying statement was that they're liars.
	Now, harassment is a crime, is it not?
	I believe so.
	Stalking is a crime.
	Yes.
	And you would agree with me that it's not the defense's job to prove that the parents weren't harassed, is it?
	We're going into that.
	The legal issues now which are not part of psychiatry.
	You testified in 200 plus cases.
	You're probably pretty familiar with the burden of proof, aren't you?
	Your Honor, this is why I'm an object to an improper expert opinion.
	I mean, there's a million things you could object to and they're all the same.
	You testified that Miss Lewis said that she had a state-of-the-art surveillance system.
	She has a state-of-the-art, and she has a very significant surveillance system, and her anxiety is such that she won't use an air conditioner because she might not hear something.
	And she's had this surveillance system, security system, for a number of years?
	A few years, I don't know if they've had a thing.
	Now, since you took the time to review the videos, you know that there's less than 24, there's 23 hours and 39 minutes of video that Infowars released there's 23 hours and 39 minutes of video that Infowars released about Sandy Hook over the entire five year Isn't that true?
	Sustained.
	No, you asked a question that assumes facts that are not in evidence.
	And misrepresents the testimony that we have had in this case so far.
	That's not.
	Excuse me?
	Should I move on?
	You had better.
	You testified you reviewed the videos?
	No, I saw some of the videos during this trial and year four.
	In 2016, did Did Neil Heslin or Scarlett Lewis ever tell you that in 2016 the Sandy Hook controversy was thrust into the public attention again by the Hillary Clinton campaign?
	We did discuss that.
	Would it have been relevant to you if at the time that controversy had arisen, it had been 16 months since Mr. Jones had made any kind it had been 16 months since Mr. Jones had made any kind of a statement about Projection, Your Honor.
	It's misleading.
	That's not an evidence.
	I'll say that.
	Thank you.
	I'm showing you what's been marked at plaintiff's exhibit 31 in evidence.
	And I'm gonna direct you to the second to last entry on that.
	It says, it's for a video entitled The fight for freedom of information in Sandy Hook, is that correct?
	Yes.
	And the date on that video is July 8th, 2015?
	Yes.
	And the next entry States that the title of the video is Alex Jones Final Statement on Sandy Hook.
	Yes.
	And the date of that video is November 18, 2016?
	Yes.
	Objection.
	He's doing the same thing.
	He's just trying to use exhibit 31 as an exhaustive list knowing that that's not all the videos.
	It's the only ones that they've produced to us or that we had to find.
	So the questions so far are allowed, but I don't know if the next one will be.
	So I take your point, Mr. Andre.
	Do you have any idea how many hours we've spent in trial discussing Sandy Hook so far?
	Objection relevance.
	Same.
	Thank you.
	You testified earlier that...
	You disagreed with the... idea of sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never hurt you.
	Would you concede that sometimes important speech can be viewed as offensive?
	Yes.
	We briefly touched on the psychiatric concept of malingering earlier, too.
	Do you recall that?
	Yes.
	Would you agree with the definition of malignering as the intentional production of false or grossly exaggerated physical or psychological symptoms motivated by external incentives?
	Yes.
	External incentives can be monetary.
	Yes.
	They can be social.
	And by social I mean seeking approval.
	Seeking fame.
	Seeking meaning.
	I'm not sure what you mean by seeking meaning in this context.
	How about seeking revenge?
	Could be.
	You stated that you reviewed the depositions in this case?
	Yes.
	You reviewed Mr. Hesling's deposition?
	Yes.
	You saw where he says that he has a vendetta against Alex Jones?
	Yes.
	A vendetta is a blood feud, correct?
	I don't know what he meant by the word.
	I didn't ask him about that word.
	And it would be very crucial to ask him what he means.
	Did you ask him what he meant by that word when you read it in his deposition?
	No.
	I took it to mean that he was very angry that Alex Jones had done the things he had done and caused so much harm to himself and the mother of his child and also harm to TJ. That's JT. JT. You testified earlier that in the wake of a tragedy,
	people often look to find meaning in the tragedy, in the sorrow and loss.
	They seek to do something, to create something that they wouldn't have created without it.
	Some benefit comes out of what's basically a horrible thing.
	And part of that is because nobody likes to think that something that awful would happen for no reason at all.
	I don't know if that's necessarily the case, that it happens for no reason, that they try to make something good from it.
	And would you agree that people sometimes can be influenced in the causes that they embrace in the wake of a tragedy?
	Well, is it possible that in the wake of a school shooting, a bereaved parent would take up the cause of gun control in order to find meaning in the tragedy that they suffered?
	There are people who have done that in school shootings?
	In fact, Mr. Heston's one.
	I don't know.
	Yes.
	And, um, somebody could seek to find meaning in helping kids deal with emotional issues in school.
	True?
	Yes.
	And somebody could also find meaning in destroying Alex Jones.
	I'm not aware that Alex Jones was anything to them until, or of any significance even, until the continued vilification of Scarlet and until the continued vilification of Scarlet and Neil.
	Fast the moves.
	Thank you.
	Yes.
	Yes, Mr. Chairman.
	Dr. Lubbock, I'm going to ask you a few questions about the questioning and answer that you earlier gave.
	Mr. Raynault.
	First, I want to start off with Mr. Raynault asking if you were aware whether or not the Ellen Scarlett had reached out to Mr. Jones, so they could sit down and he could be a therapist.
	Do you remember that?
	I think he said Jones reached out to them.
	Correct.
	And he asked you if they had taken him up on that.
	Remember that?
	The man was taking him up on it.
	Them taking him up on it.
	Are you aware that Neil and Scarlett did in fact reach out, did in fact communicate with Mr. Jones when they started with this lawsuit?
	I believe so, yes.
	Are you aware that prior to that, they served him with an offer for him to retract these statements and correct them, and he never did that?
	Did you know that?
	Yes, I'm aware of that.
	Did Alex Jones say, okay, now let's sit down and talk about it?
	not I'm aware I want to talk about important How important is it for someone to lie about the murder of a bunch of situations?
	I How important is that speech?
	Well, it goes beyond not being important.
	Going back to my PhD in political science, you can't have a democracy in which there are lies floating around and people are telling different truths.
	You can have a democracy where people have different opinions, but not different facts.
	That tears the place apart.
	So it's horribly destructive to do that.
	Similar question.
	How important is it for an individual to intentionally inflict emotional distress on two parents who've lost a son for the better part of 10 years?
	How important is that?
	Well, it's important for the person who does it, because it generally will make them a lot of money if they're on TV.
	But it's not going-- but it's not to the benefit of society in any way.
	Were you in the courtroom when Ms. Lewis testified on Friday?
	Did you hear her testimony when she said that the video was about Sandy Hook and the vampires, Alex Jones' third most read article he'd ever published in the history of this comic book?
	It was one of the most published, yes.
	Look at the top of the list.
	Mr. Reynold asked you about how three billion people saw this content that Mr. Jones was spewing in the world.
	When Ms. Lewis said that number, did she say three billion people or did she say three billion views?
	Oh yes, she's talked about it very clearly.
	Three billion views that she didn't know how many times how many different people did it or how many were re-viewing as opposed to separate individuals.
	It is a staggering number either way, but it's much more believable if it was a pretty little use.
	Is that a new exhibit?
	Yes, Your Honor.
	So, a new exhibit would be 190. I think it's 119. I'll move it.
	Oh, well actually, you must have numbered some we haven't seen.
	So there's, the last one I have is 126. So 127. Is it okay if I stickered properly?
	She has stickers.
	Dr. Lubin, I've just handed you a copy of what is marked as exhibit one, plaintiff's Exhibit 126. 127. 127. Sorry.
	Yes.
	What is Exhibit 127, without telling us the contents of the document?
	Affidavid of Neal.
	And prior to your testimony today, have you reviewed that document?
	I don't recall it.
	I may have or may not have.
	thank you take a moment and read what's in and see if i have a fresh direct election on whether or not to see me I have seen this report.
	And, is it part of the materials that you relied on in coming to the opinions you provided earlier today?
	Yes.
	Your Honor, please offer exemption.
	Any objection?
	You're so, Your Honor.
	Do you have a copy for me?
	Yes, Your Honor.
	May I approach?
	Yes.
	I'm a little confused.
	You want me to respond?
	Yes.
	Under 703, an expert can rely on hearsay or other inadmissible evidence, and it can become, it can be disclosed to the jury if the probative value, or if the unfair prejudice is not outweighed by the probative value.
	There's zero unfair prejudice with this document.
	So he certainly can rely on it, no doubt, can talk about it, but I don't know about it coming into evidence as a standalone document.
	So where do you think that's in the rules?
	Your Honor, instead of admitting it, I can withdraw my admission, and we can just disclose it and we can put it up on the screen and go through it without actually admitting it.
	Well, he can talk about it and he can talk about everything in it if he relied on it as part of developing his expert opinion.
	Sure.
	But you can't show it to the jury unless it's admitted.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	But yeah, he can absolutely talk about, he can talk about the whole thing.
	Dr. Lubbock when you were being when you were answering questions earlier you were asked about timelines and Anything you've been seen before 2000 Now that you've reviewed the doc this document Can you tell me what
	Number four Can you read number four and tell us how that affected the fact that mr. Haslam had seen and was aware of this continent hoax prior to 2018 He was avoiding it.
	He did not want to get drawn in.
	And it's notable to me that he didn't approach Megyn Kelly.
	Megyn Kelly approached him.
	To avoid Getting drawn into a hoax, do you have to know it exists?
	Yes.
	How long, or was there a long period of time that Mr. Hesslin proactively sought to avoid getting pulled into the hoax in these conspiracies?
	Yes.
	Are we talking days, months, or years?
	Years.
	Until he finally spoke He agreed to go on Mayden Kelly after asked in 2017, roughly five years after, to hopefully stop the lies and hoping it would stop things.
	instead the opposite we'll go up to section 2 After reviewing section two, are you aware that Mr. Heslin was aware that the hoax that he was avoiding was being spread by Alex Jones?
	Yes.
	And when did the hoax start?
	When did Mr. Jones start his hoax?
	My recollection is there was very shortly after the days.
	Mr. Reynaud was asking questions about 2018, saying I never saw anything before.
	They didn't know anything about Alex Jones.
	Do you remember that?
	Um, I don't specifically recall him saying that, but they did know about him before.
	Why would Mr. Heslin go on a Megyn Kelly show to refute Mr. Jones' claims in 2017 if he didn't know any of those hoax claims existed?
	It wouldn't make any sense.
	Well, unless Megyn Kelly had called him up and called him, but he knew before.
	And probably wouldn't have gone on unless he knew there was a real problem.
	When someone lies about you, do you have to physically hear that person say it for its harm?
	Oh, of course not.
	However you hear it, you get it secondhand from people.
	That's even worse in some ways.
	You know, if someone lies to your face about you, it's painful, it hurts, but if you hear that someone's passing on rumors about you, and so that many people are now thinking this, that's worse.
	Did Mr. Heslin or Ms. Lewis have to watch an Alex Jones show and hear the lies for them to be harmed?
	No, not at all.
	Again, if you know that rumors have been passed around, it's worse than just one person saying something.
	Would you say it's even more worse when they're not just rumors, but people are physically encountering you?
	Of course.
	And harassing you about those messages?
	Of course, yes.
	Corroboration was talked about a lot.
	Remember that?
	Yes.
	You spoke with Mr. Crouch, correct?
	Yes.
	He's right here in the courtroom.
	He's coming up next, right?
	Yes.
	We're not going to hide him.
	Correct.
	Everything that Mr. Hesland and Ms. Lewis communicated to you, did you then go and corroborate it with somebody who documented it as it was happening?
	Yes, I did do just that with Mr. Crouch.
	And I saw a number of tapes myself of what Mr. Jones was saying.
	The last area I have is you testified in cases before, and sometimes are there other experts that represent the party that didn't and sometimes are there other experts that represent the party that didn't Almost all the time, I don't think of a case where there wasn't an expert hired by the other side.
	And when that happens, you review their materials and their testimony so that you can compare what yours looks like, right?
	Yes.
	Are you aware of any expert whatsoever that was hired by the defense that's going to testify in this case?
	I object to this line of questioning.
	Mr. Argin knows very well why that's the case.
	It has nothing to do with this.
	um I'm not sure how his conduct can be rewarded by me not getting to ask these I'm going to overrule the objection.
	I don't want to spend forever on it, but you can answer the question.
	To your knowledge, does Mr. Jones or his company, are they bringing an expert in mental health whatsoever?
	I would have hopefully been given the report by them if they were testifying, if someone had that report.
	Thank you, Dr. Lubin, I'm not going to want to mention.
	Mr. Reynold?
	Nothing further, Your Honor.
	All right.
	This time, for my jury, you know the drill.
	Remember, as always, all of my instructions.
	This is an individual exercise.
	You're not encouraged, you're just permitted.
	And we'll take it, let's keep it a short break because we've only been back 40 minutes.
	all right we can go ahead and head back now thank you all right um but let the jury get back into everything before you let's go to shut that door for me thank you Thank you.
	You may be seated.
	There should be a copy, one, I think only one, if you want some more, let me know of the charge so far on each table.
	Okay, so you can take a look at it.
	Your Honor?
	Yeah.
	Just to not disrupt the proceedings, I'm going to have to make that same motion again after talking to kids over.
	I don't know if you want me to handle that.
	I think you should stop me.
	That's a joke.
	Go ahead.
	Put it on the record.
	Well, I would move now for a mistrial under CPRC 4111.
	Okay, that's tonight.
	I have to just very briefly.
	I'd like to raise an objection right now to whatever your only wants to do about it.
	I'm not moving from this trial.
	But I'm very concerned about a series of things that have just happened.
	And I wanted to make sure that everybody knows on the same page.
	Mr. Raynaud had told the jury that there was 29 minutes total in Thor's videos.
	He claimed 51 minutes in a single video, so he knows that's not true.
	He tried to tell the jury about Ms. Lewis' testimony about 3 billion page views that she had testified that it was 3 million individuals, which he explicitly said was not and could not be determined.
	In fact, were people returning multiple times, attempted to mislead the witness in thinking that's what she was saying.
	He has routinely, every single day of this trial, broken rules that a first-year lawyer knows He has routinely placed any admissible material in front of the jury.
	It is from our perspective at this table that Mr. Raynell is actively trying for a mistrust.
	And obviously we don't want I am very upset that you have tried to imply to the jury that
	that we know how many videos about Sandy Hook were released by your clients, when we don't because they refused to respond to discovery.
	So I do not want you to do that again.
	And I don't want you to argue with me about it.
	That is the rule of this case.
	That's it.
	They didn't respond.
	We don't know.
	So don't couch it in that language.
	Your Honor?
	I'm still talking.
	I'm not really being asked to do anything except tell you to follow the rules, which I feel like I've done many times already.
	We've had multiple conversations about how I know you know what the rules are, and you know you know what the rules are, but you've chosen not to follow them on occasion.
	And I'm asking you again, follow the rules.
	We are not going to take up sanctions in the middle of this trial.
	So if somebody wants to file a motion for sanctions, we'll take it up at the conclusion of the trial.
	If I believe Actions in front of me rise to the level of contempt of court.
	I will deal with that when it happens.
	Had I been in the room the day there was altercation, we would be in that situation, but I was not.
	Your Honor, the jury instructions that you just distributed said that the jury has to base its decision on the evidence adduced in the courtroom.
	Frankly, the number of videos Their length?
	This is evidence that is being induced in the courtroom.
	Yes, but what you said was not, we've shown the jury 29 minutes of clips where the word Sandy Hook appears or anything like that.
	It was, they released, in total, 29 minutes.
	That is not true.
	Okay, I can change the question.
	So don't, well, I'm not going to tell you what question to ask, because that is definitely not my job, but I'm telling you what question not to ask.
	Very well.
	Anything else?
	All right.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	20 minutes.
	Thank you.ódguhdgn
	Oh, it's okay.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Thank
	you. -
	thank you thank you
	um um
	um um
	um Thank you so much.
	Thank you.
	yeah yeah yeah yeah so yeah
	yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah
	yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah
	yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah
	yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	okay
	oh that's right
	good
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	You can sit down.
	Off the record.
	How many years have you been...
	Wait, is the doctor out of the room?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	How many years have you been treating Mr. Heslund and Mrs. Lewis?
	This is not for you, sir.
	I'm sorry.
	And Dr. Lubit is out in the hall, right?
	That's correct.
	Okay, okay, good.
	All right.
	And I'm sorry, I don't remember your name, sir, but your turn's later.
	I don't think I'm going to ask either of these questions, but I'll read them so you can hear them.
	Alex Jones has helped promote the idea that Sandy Hook was a staged event with crisis actors to do away with our guns.
	However, as per your own testimony, Scarlett Lewis keeps a gun for her own self-protection.
	What are your thoughts on the irony of that comparison?
	This is not a proper question for a variety of reasons, so I'm not going to ask it.
	Would Alex Jones' personal and public apology be more effective in helping Neal and Scarlett heal and recover from their mental anguish than any monetary compensation from him?
	I think it's probably a fair question.
	We can come back if you have an objection.
	In your professional opinion, do you think it was healthy for Mrs. Lewis to take up arms after the Satan Sandy Hook, right?
	Sandy Hook.
	Incident.
	if so why I don't know To your knowledge, did Mr. Heslin or Ms. Lewis feel as though a quarter of the population distrusted them?
	That's a lot of Neil and Scarlett's that Jen are placing.
	Have Mr. Heslin and Ms. Lewis discuss with you what good they would like to do or come from the tragedy at Sandy Hook?
	How do you think orchestrated campaigns of lies, such as we've seen in this case, are affecting our society?
	What are the signs that a person might be lingering?
	If the statements from InfoWars stopped today, how long do you think it would take for the healing to occur?
	Is it possible that forensic psychologists, academic researchers, news editors at all are able to set aside their own potential bias in their search for the truth in the same way that this jury is asked to?
	In your opinion, why would it be more important for a news organization to verify its claims and conduct investigations than a forensic psychologist?
	I don't...
	I don't know that he testified to that, but...
	Did your work with Mr. Posner involve the same defendants?
	I don't know if there's ongoing work there, or they're referencing something prior, so it might be a problem there.
	Alright.
	How many years have you been treating Mr. Heslin and Ms. Lewis?
	That's fine.
	Would Alex Jones' personal and public apology be more effective in helping Neal and Scarlett heal and recover from their mental anguish than any monetary compensation from them?
	I don't think this is a proper question.
	We cannot Order an apology.
	That's not what our judicial system does.
	It monetizes arms.
	And I don't know that he would know the answer anyway.
	So, I don't think that's a proper question.
	Is anybody going to argue with me?
	In your professional opinion, do you think it was healthy for Ms. Lewis to take up arms?
	That's literally what it says.
	Take up arms after the Sandy Hook incident.
	If so, why?
	I don't know that she didn't have a gun before then.
	I was just gonna say, I think that gun control and the effect of lies on society are probably not appropriate matters for them to apply on.
	I agree, Your Honor.
	So, are you saying you don't, this is a proper question?
	I'm a little confused.
	Okay.
	That's fine with me because I find it a little confusing.
	To your knowledge, did Mr. Heslin or Ms. Lewis feel as though a quarter of the population distressed them?
	That seems okay.
	Have Mr. Heslin and Ms. Lewis discussed with you what good they would like to do or come from the tragedy at Sandy Hook?
	Any objections?
	It's just to the extent that we have a motion in limiting and I think that there was already a statement about Giving all the money to charity.
	There was no statement.
	He just said...
	I was just going to say my objection would be that that seems like the kind of question that may elicit that type of an answer, and we've already heard that that's not an issue in this case, so I just want to bring it to a close attention.
	I think it goes towards punitive, Your Honor.
	I'm sorry?
	I think it goes towards punitive, Your Honor.
	I'm sorry?
	I mean, we have the motion of loony that says, you basically can't put on evidence that they're planning to start a charity, right?
	We have that.
	I think we have testimony from this witness that says people, and I think you elicited this, they strike up, you know, they care about things that maybe they didn't care as much about before, right?
	Like, What's it called?
	Social...
	I can't remember what it's called.
	But anyway, the stuff they do with schools and organ control.
	I think it's probably open at this stage.
	I don't know what they'll say.
	Are you worried?
	No?
	We're okay.
	All right.
	We'll ask it.
	How do you think orchestrated campaigns of lies, such as we've seen in this case, are affecting our society?
	We've objected to that, and I think What are the signs that a person might be malingering?
	If the statements from Inverwars stopped today, how long do you think it would take for the healing to occur?
	I mean, I feel like this is kind of within the testimony he's been giving the jury about I think it'll be alright.
	Okay.
	I think it's a fair question for this witness.
	Is it possible that forensic psychologists, academic researchers, news editors at all are able to set aside their own potential bias in their search for the truth in the same way that this jury is asked to?
	I don't know.
	I don't have a strong feeling about it.
	I don't really think it is.
	It's not one that I would wonder why no one was objecting.
	But it's not necessarily one I wouldn't exclude either.
	I've got it in the middle, so...
	I don't have a problem with it, but...
	I think it'll depend on if anyone agrees.
	We'll do it with the question.
	All right.
	In your opinion, why would it be more important for a news organization to verify its claims and conduct investigations than a forensic psychologist?
	I mean, to the extent that he testified to that, which he didn't, but I think he'll be able to clarify.
	I think he's talked around that, so I'm okay with that if you guys are.
	Alright.
	Did your work with Mr. Posner involve the same defendants?
	I don't know what difference it makes, but I think it's a fair question we're going to talk about.
	The only thing I would mention is, because of your MIO, I've specifically instructed the witness not to mention his other Posner info was sued.
	Because of your what?
	We have another.
	He is also the expert in Posner, depending before you.
	And because of your MIO, I've specifically instructed him not to talk about that.
	But he was asked about, Mr. Reynold asked him about.
	He has another one, too.
	Another different case.
	There was a small suit against Mr. Fetzer in Wisconsin as well that concluded with a modest verdict.
	So do we want to say...
	But I'm just worried because I think he's not going to...
	Sure, sure.
	So what if...
	I think that was the last question.
	We'll find it.
	And I agree.
	We don't want to...
	So we might want to say, did your testimony with Mr. Posner or in Mr. Posner's case?
	Because didn't he already testify?
	You could say in your case against Mr. Fetzer.
	Well, no, the jury doesn't know anything about that.
	This is from the jury.
	I mean, I'd be fine if it as long as I could tell him, you're not bound by not having to be able to talk about the Posner case in this court.
	Then you can answer the question.
	Otherwise, I think he's going to get crossed sideways because he isn't going to be able to talk about, yes, I am involved with Mr. Posner.
	Because he thinks he can't talk about that because I've told him not to.
	But the only thing they know is that he Didn't he testify?
	That he testified for free for the truth.
	But he's done work for other...
	Right.
	Right.
	In a case that involved Mr. Posner.
	And I think that's...
	So that's the only thing that jury knows.
	So that's what they're talking about.
	I don't know.
	Let's just not ask it.
	It's too confusing.
	Right.
	Okay.
	That's fine.
	That's fine.
	All right.
	Does anybody need to hear them again?
	No.
	Let's go on the record.
	We've just been discussing the questions for Dr. Lubit.
	And we've reached an agreement on which ones we're going to ask and which ones are not.
	Any further objections?
	Mr. Ogden?
	Mr. Reynold?
	Mr. Reynold?
	Mr. Reynold.
	Okay.
	We are ready for the jury and the witness.
	Thank you.
	All right, you may be you may be seated.
	Dr. Lubin, I'm going to read you some questions that have been submitted by the jury.
	Just answer them as if they came from one of the lawyers.
	Just listen really hard to the question.
	Answer the question as best you understand it or let us know if you don't.
	This is for the jury.
	Remember, if you don't hear your question, that's because I made a decision that there was a reason why I couldn't read it.
	Okay?
	You ready?
	Yes, ma'am.
	How many years have you been treating Mr. Heslin and Ms. Lewis?
	I have never treated Ms. Lewis or Mr. Heslin.
	I did a forensic evaluation and there's no doctor-patient relationship.
	And I will not be interviewing them at any other time.
	To your knowledge, did Mr. Heslin or Ms. Lewis feel as though a quarter of the population distrusted them?
	I believe so, that there was, especially Neal talked about just how many people out there, you know, and he would never know who and people would come up to him.
	And also, Scarlett withdrew from people not knowing, among her friends, what people thought any more, who she had people over who might be part of feeling that she was a fake and a fraud too.
	Have Mr. Heslin and Ms. Lewis discussed with you what good they would like to do or come from the tragedy at Sandy Hook?
	Scarlet has talked, there's her foundation, Choose Love, and trying to develop social-emotional learning programs at schools and to help children so that there isn't another Sandy Hook.
	Both of them have talked about the tremendous harm that The type of behavior that Mr. Jones is engaged in does to people and hope that their succeeding in the trial will dissuade people in the future is also the issue of their son's legacy and wanting that to be clear and for
	them to be able to try to put some closure on this period in which they were Invalidated and vilified and so many people were made to believe that they were bad people who lied and did bad things.
	What are the signs that a person might be malingering?
	That's something I'll write out.
	What we do as a psychiatrist, psychologist too, is to look at the pattern of What was the cause of the emotional trauma?
	Does it make sense that this cause could lead to a lot of symptoms?
	Does the pattern of symptoms make sense?
	So, and often people give strange patterns or they repeat over and over again just how terrible it was for them.
	No matter what question you ask, they just jump back and say how terrible it was.
	They're pushing the idea too much.
	Talking to people at different times, which is something I did here, and seeing if people give the same answers.
	If someone is telling the truth, Probably, they're going to say the same thing, or almost the same thing at two different points in time.
	You separate the interviews out, they're likely not going to remember what they said.
	They're not taking notes on my questions.
	And then, a few months later, they're going to say something different, very likely.
	So all those things are looked at.
	I look at their emotions when speaking to me, and it's consistent.
	In one situation, a girl was claiming she'd It's actually used, and she was completely comfortable.
	And the way she looked, and I asked her how you're feeling, and she said, oh, I'm fine.
	For a 12, 13-year-old girl to be telling a male stranger that she had been raped is unlikely.
	And so that raised serious questions for me about where it actually happened.
	Sorry?
	That's alright.
	Is everything okay?
	Oh, it's my phone filling up.
	Oh, okay.
	You can pick it up.
	Oh, sorry.
	At the end it will fall down.
	Alright.
	If the statements from Infowars stopped today, how long do you think it would take for the healing to occur?
	I think it's going to, it takes more than just the statements to stop.
	When we've been, when people are injured, or think about our own feelings, responses to things, if someone stops doing something bad to us, hurtful to us, that's usually not enough.
	We need vindication, we need statements that this should not have happened, the person should not have done it, and it was a bad thing that they did to us.
	And that would help.
	The healing.
	Are they ever going to fully heal?
	I don't think so.
	This is a really traumatic situation.
	And, you know, I used the word complex trauma before.
	When traumas are repeated incidents instead of just one.
	And complex trauma, particularly damaging, is the ability to trust people in general.
	And that's very destructive to relationships, to work to everything.
	And complex trauma is much harder to heal than a single incident trauma.
	Is it possible that forensic psychologists, academic researchers, news editors at all are able to set aside their own potential bias in their search for the truth in the same way that this jury is asked to?
	We have to be careful about it.
	I mean, I've written an article just all alone focused on bias, and I've addressed again the articles I'm writing now.
	And it's important, very important to do one's best to do that.
	And it depends what we're talking about.
	When I'm basically asked general questions and I'm quoting myself from things that I've written before I got involved, I think that's fairly unbiased.
	It's not in any way based on the trial.
	I don't think it's biased to me to say that they have post-traumatic stress disorder because there's a list of specific symptoms and they have enough symptoms, they need the criteria.
	I've seen people ignore data or spin data heavily.
	I try very hard and never to do that.
	You can really minimize the risk of If you present to yourself competing hypotheses about what happened, then you look and see how the data fit each, and I tried to do that in every case.
	Rather than looking for data that just supports what your gut instinct says is true.
	In your opinion, why would it be more important for a news organization to verify its claims and conduct investigations than a forensic psychologist?
	It's simply not practical.
	It takes a huge number of man hours to go back and check on each fact.
	And you have people on each side of the case, and if the facts as you believe them are not correct, They were the ones who would be doing the research and saying, wait a minute.
	But, so, we do our best to look at different reports we have, such again, Mr. Crouch, who lived this all the way along, myself, interviewing him on multiple occasions, his emotions and The trauma and the symptoms he had feel it fitting together.
	And those pieces are what we use in forensic psychiatry as showing that we feel the person is more likely credible or not.
	And all the pieces fit well together.
	Everything that I do as a forensic psychiatrist indicates to me that I'm being told the truth.
	And I often felt that I wasn't being told the truth, but in this case I do.
	All right, thank you so much Dr. Lubit for your time and your testimony.
	At this time, you're free to return to whatever it is you need to be doing, whether that's in here or somewhere else.
	Don't forget your phone.
	All right.
	And who is our next witness?
	I just call Michael Crouch.
	All right.
	Mr. Crouch, come on up, please.
	Raise your right hand.
	Do solemnly swear or affirm, under penalty of perjury, that the testimony you are bound to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
	Thank you so much.
	Come have a seat.
	Here, you'll see there's water and glasses and microphones.
	I can't tell if you are also a little bit soft-spoken.
	If you are, you'll have to just scoot the chair up a little bit closer.
	Did you hear my instructions about letting the attorney completely finish their question and all of that?
	All right, then I'll try.
	I tend to repeat it every single time, but I'll give you a chance.
	We'll see how it goes.
	All right.
	Thank you so much.
	Go ahead.
	Can you introduce yourself, please?
	Yeah, I'm Michael Crouch.
	How are you doing?
	I'm okay.
	I'm a little nervous.
	You've never testified or been a long time ago, is that right?
	Maybe 25 plus years ago, yeah.
	That's the only other time you've ever taken away the same thing.
	That's right.
	Tell me what you do further.
	I'm a psychotherapist.
	What's a psychotherapist?
	So I work with patients and couples who struggle with depression.
	Where do you live?
	I live in Norwalk, Connecticut.
	How long have you been a psychotherapist?
	31 years.
	Is that something you get licensed for?
	It is.
	I am licensed in the state of Connecticut.
	Can you walk me through the education that's required to be a psychotherapist?
	Yeah, I have an undergraduate in psychology.
	And then I graduated with a Master's in Social Work from Columbia University in 1991. You and I have had an opportunity to spend a little time together this weekend and talk about some of the care that you had in Needle and Scarlett, right?
	Yes.
	Alright, so I know a few things about you.
	There was a gap between undergrad and when you went to Columbia.
	Tell us about that.
	My first career, and then what brought me from Kansas to New York City was I had about fifteen, sixteen years in theater, musical theater.
	You were working on trying to become a star.
	I was.
	I was.
	When I realized that wasn't going to happen, I moved on.
	You started taking care of people.
	I did.
	And they're both listening businesses.
	I'll just get this out of the way.
	We're not...
	Well, let me tell you, we're compensating you for your time, right?
	We are.
	Yes, we are.
	If I remember right, it's just whatever amount that you would...
	You're out from a day's practice that you had, right?
	That's correct.
	So you didn't charge me for being here this weekend, even though you were here this weekend, right?
	No, I did not.
	It's important for you to be here.
	It's really important for me to be here.
	It's part of my work.
	Part of your care?
	Yes.
	There's something we were talking about called the Trauma Recovery Network.
	Can you tell the ladies and gentlemen what that is?
	Yeah, back in 2011, there was a Christmas Day fire in Stamford, Connecticut, where 70 firefighters were involved both in the rescue operations attempts and the recovery operation.
	And there were three children who died and their grandparents.
	This was a house fire?
	This was a house fire.
	Do you remember what happened?
	From what I was told, that they had a fire in the fireplace, and one of the twins, their twin daughters who were seven and then a nine-year-old daughter, said Santa Claus won't be able to get down the chimney. said Santa Claus won't be able to get down the So the boyfriend, who cleared out the fireplace of all of the ashes, and put him in Bree's way, outside.
	And that breezeway caught fire.
	How did you get involved in that?
	On Christmas Day, there was a mix-up in the EAP with the city of Stanford.
	EAP. Employee Assistance Program.
	And so there was no response.
	And my understanding is that other mental health providers said we don't come out on weekends or holidays.
	When you say no response, you mean no response from mental health officials?
	That's correct.
	And there were 70 firefighters involved in that fire who needed some help, who were struggling with that.
	Now the loss of a child is always For the first responders to see you.
	Yes.
	So, and I just want to make sure we're clear, you were called out to talk with the 70 firefighters that had to deal with either trying to fight the fire or, when you said recovery, At this time, there was no trauma recovery network in Connecticut, is that right?
	That's correct.
	There were only three at that time, New York City, Western Massachusetts, and Arizona.
	So how did this 2011 Christmas fire at Stanford become a trauma recovery network?
	I got a call from a therapist who said, Michael, did you hear what happened?
	And I said no, and her husband was a captain on the fire department, and she said there was a Christmas fire, and there's no mental health coverage.
	So I went the next day, which was Monday I think, to talk to the assistant chief, find out what they were going to do, and they were going to have a debriefing the next day, And so I called three therapists that I knew, EMDR therapists that I knew, EMDR, eye movement, desensitization, reprocessing.
	Been around since the late 80s.
	So I called three, and all three of them said yes, and they were there the next day during the debriefing.
	And then Karen Alterich, who is one of the co-coordinators of the trauma recovery I wanted to start a TRN. So I did.
	Not knowing what I was getting into.
	And have you been involved in that TRN since that late 2011?
	Yes.
	Did you and your team help treat those firefighters what they were doing?
	Yes, we did.
	And we were Stanford-fired TRN and then Newtown happened a year later.
	Alright, so a year later this TRN, this trauma recovery network is already set up in place, right?
	That's correct.
	How does it get involved with what happened at the same age of elementary school?
	We went the next day, which I believe was Saturday morning, just to talk to the other psychotherapists in the Newtown area about what they were going through.
	At that time, there were only 10 of us.
	Some full-time, some part-time?
	All were full-time at that time.
	Just correct me if I'm wrong, it's not that you just treated folks whenever there was some major event, but even just officers on sort of their day-to-day, had a tough day with some traffic stop, things like that?
	Yeah, any time there are duty-induced issues, or family issues, or they're struggling with depression, anxiety, they can call us.
	So you're helping the first responders cope with what they do?
	With what they do, that's correct.
	I know you treated Neil and Scott, I'm going to get to that in one second, but just your work at San Diego, how many folks did your TRN treat for mental health problems that they had for that?
	Oh, my guess is between 2 and 250. You treated a handful yourself.
	I sure did.
	Both individually I treated about six and then a number of groups and things like that that we were involved in.
	And I think that's how Neil Huston ended up finding you, right?
	That's correct.
	When did you first start treating Neil Huston?
	In July of 2013. So about seven, seven and a half months after?
	Are you still treating him?
	I am.
	So he's been your patient ever since, right?
	That's correct.
	We're going to talk about Scarlett too.
	Scarlett didn't start with you back in 2013, right?
	No.
	She had been through a number of different therapists and came to me I think at Neal's suggestion around 2020. You're not still treating Scarlett, is that right?
	I'm not.
	Do you know how many times you've treated Scarlett?
	I saw her about 10 times.
	Was this during, so 2020, is this during the pandemic, so your treatment is Zoom?
	That's correct.
	I use a platform called Simple Practice.
	Okay.
	Because it's HIPAA compliant.
	Fair enough.
	But it's, you never got a chance to really sit down and be in the same room and connect with Scarlett.
	No, I did not.
	It's probably a silly question.
	You keep notes.
	Thank you.
	That's right.
	And as part of your sort of weekend assignment, did you look at those notes and try to refresh your recollection?
	I did.
	You also looked at the affidavit of Neal Hessen that we talked about with Dr. Lieber, is that right?
	- I did.
	- When you looked at your notes of your, is it sessions or treatment?
	- Whatever, sessions.
	- Sessions, okay.
	With Mr. Let's talk about Mr. Hesley first, then we'll move to .
	When you talk to, when you look back at your notes with Mr. Hesley, when was the first time you saw in your notes some issue about either Alex Jones or people profiting off of what happened at San Diego?
	Way back in 2013, when I first started with Neil, he said that there are a number of people who are Profiting off of what happened at his son's schools.
	And then he went on to say there are a number of people who are profiting off the loss of children.
	That was in 2013. When was the first time that, I'm just going to suggest, did that intensify as the years went along?
	A little bit, in that he was Certainly scared a little bit of what was going on.
	He was dedicated to the memory of his son, and he worked on gun control and mental health issues.
	Did you see where Mr. Heslin had said that he was trying to distance himself from that hoax controversy for the first several years?
	For the first several years, he said, I don't want to dignify any...
	That was the first time he used Mr. Jones' name, Alex Jones.
	He said, I don't want to dignify his false claims.
	The hoax?
	The hoax, that's correct.
	And so that was in, again, in 2013, he said that.
	Okay.
	Did it intensify in early 2018?
	Yes.
	Actually, that was the first time that he realized, because he spoke to Mr. Posner and he said, Mr. Posner said, Neil, they were using your name back in 2017 when he went on making Kelly.
	After the first time you saw the words, actually the words, Alex Jones and Jordan, What percentage of your notes thereafter had the word Alex Jones in?
	Ninety percent.
	It became an obsession?
	Yes.
	I'm going to talk to you.
	We're going to try to separate sort of two parts of time.
	I want to talk to you about before that 2018 when Alex Jones was really intense and then after, okay.
	So let's talk about before.
	And I know you started treating him seven months.
	Just walking through, how is he doing as the years go by?
	Well, I think, you know, whenever we lose a child, it's not easy, ever.
	But you could see the narrative changing.
	When it first happened, there was kind of scattershot.
	It's trauma.
	Scatter.
	What do you mean by scattershot?
	Meaning that he remembered all the bad things that had happened.
	And that he was not able to protect his son.
	How was, in fact, in the first six to eight months you treated him, his sleep?
	Sleep was better than it was right after the murder.
	But he was only getting two to four hours of sleep a night.
	As the years start going on, do you start to see improvements in this case?
	I do.
	I did.
	Can you speak up a little bit, Mr. Rivera?
	I'm sorry, you're kind of quiet and I'm having a hard time hearing your questions.
	I think I heard Dr. Lupitz say that you never get over the loss of a child.
	Do you agree with that?
	How did you get better?
	You can't find a place to put that loss.
	Was he doing that?
	Was he getting better?
	He was getting better in that he was beginning to remember all the things that he did with Jesse and all the things that brought joy You're going to have positive memories of Jesse.
	That's correct.
	Before, right after the murder, were the feelings much more negative.
	Just always remembering the murder.
	Remembering the murder, remembering the fact that he in fact dropped off his son and that he believed he didn't do enough to protect him.
	Did he start finding enjoyment in life anymore?
	That's a tough one.
	He found, yes, he was able to find a way to return to work.
	He was able to find a way, he was sleeping a little better.
	He was able to find a way to remember, have positive memories of Jesse and his relationship with him.
	Is that clinically significant to find, to start having these positive memories of your son?
	Yes, it is.
	In EMDR, we talk about how distressing is that memory, how distressing is what you remember about your son and how he died.
	And at that time, from 0 to 10, it was 22. It was hard for him.
	And you could see it decreasing maybe to an 8, A seven, so he was beginning to have positive memories, beginning to return to work, sleeping two to four hours, which is a little better.
	So those are things that would be significant.
	The healing process is underway.
	Is that fair to say?
	That is fair to say.
	When you first see the Alex Jones name in 2018, tell me what happens differently with Mr. Hesley.
	When you talk about obsession, you could see that all of a sudden there was a closing down.
	There was a focus on, "I've got to protect my son's legacy, my son's honor, my son's memory." How was he doing that?
	Well, he went on Megyn Kelly in 2017 and said, "Please stop.
	In your professional opinion, why did he go on Megyn Kelly?
	He was hoping that if he begged and pleaded, that Alex Jones would stop.
	Do you remember what his message to Alex Jones was at the end of that?
	Yeah, he said, you have You have a family, you have a son, or children.
	Enjoy Father's Day.
	He said, I can't.
	I don't have a son anymore, so I can't enjoy Father's Day, but I want you to enjoy Father's Day.
	He's compassionate.
	Very.
	Both Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis are very good people, compassionate people.
	Enjoy Father's Day because I can't.
	Did you understand that to be his message to Alex Jones that my son Jesse was real?
	Yeah.
	And he was.
	You know, it's technicality.
	He held Jesse, I think, at one o'clock in the morning.
	The day of the shooting was between 9.04 and 10 o'clock.
	So he held his son because he asked a law enforcement officer, please let me in to see my son.
	And the law enforcement officer allowed him to do that.
	After he talks to Mr. Posner in 2018, you continue to treat him all the way up until he's still your patient, right?
	He is.
	I'm sorry, I admit that after Mr. Heslund spoke with Mr. Posner in 2018, I want, if you can, to describe to the jury the differences in Neal's mental health after the 2018 meeting.
	When he realized that Alex Jones was not stopping, He became very focused on, I've got to protect, which is what all parents do, I've got to protect my son.
	I've got to protect my son's name, my son's honor, his memory.
	Because if Alex Jones, if he was spreading the belief, the lies, that Neil's an actor, That means that Jesse didn't exist, which is crazy.
	And that means if Jesse didn't exist and Newtown didn't happen, the Sandy Cook shooting didn't happen, then what he knows about his son It's crazy.
	Jesse was a hero.
	He saved lives.
	He yelled run.
	When Adam Lanza ran out of ammunition and was reloading, Jesse said run.
	Kids got out.
	Kids got out.
	and there are kids who are now turning 16 that wouldn't be alive today if he didn't yell run.
	He was six.
	He was six years old.
	But that's what Scarlett and Neil taught him.
	We don't quit until the job's over.
	And Alex Jones was trying to, when he said it doesn't exist, he's stealing that from Neal, right?
	That's correct.
	Stealing a belief that, and a knowledge that, because this was told to Neal, my understanding is it was told to Neal by kids who got out.
	Jesse saved our lives.
	He said wrong.
	So, yes, you're taking away from Neal and Scarlett what they know of their son, what they want to hold on to.
	How did that affect Neal's well-being?
	What did he start doing?
	In 2018?
	Yes, sir.
	When he realized that Alex Jones was not going to stop, he said, okay, the next step is to He went to Mr. Posner and he said, why do I keep getting death threats?
	Why do I keep getting people calling me and talking to me?
	And Mr. Posner said, he mentioned your name a year ago, Neil, and Neil didn't know that.
	Because he didn't want to dignify what Alex Jones was saying.
	I want to run that piece and have you watch it, if that's okay.
	Let's play us exhibit PX, PVX 23.
	Let's play us with PX.
	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 just misspeak on.
	So let's roll the clip first.
	Neil Hesslin telling Megyn Kelly of his experience 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.
	Yeah, I dropped him off in 904. That's when we dropped him off at school.
	Put his book bag.
	Hours later I was I'm body back Okay, so making a pretty extreme claim that would be a very thing vivid in your memory holding his dead child and 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.
	You have, it's easier on the families when you do that.
	There is a time and a place for a close and personal in the grieving process.
	But 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 your photographer, and I have very good photographers.
	It's going to be hard 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.
	for four years of research.
	Mr. McKay, did you hear the part in there where Mr. Troyer said, "You would remember if you held your dead kid, that is not something you would misspeak on." Yes, I heard that.
	He's calling Neil Heston a liar, isn't he?
	He's calling Neil a liar and saying that dead Jesse didn't die, that he didn't exist.
	that he didn't exist.
	He's not really saying that he didn't hold Jesse.
	He's saying he didn't exist, right?
	What did that do to Neil when he heard that?
	I don't know.
	You can say what it did to me.
	I watched this video and I thought, this guy has no feelings.
	He didn't check his facts.
	I would imagine that when Neil heard that, he was incensed.
	Again, somebody is calling him a liar.
	Somebody is saying that his son didn't exist.
	That's just...
	Did you see in Neal's affidavit where he said, after he found out about this, fear dominated my thoughts?
	Yes, I saw that.
	Is that consistent with your treatment of what you saw in your notes?
	Yes.
	When he realized that this was real, this was going on, you could see You could see Neil change.
	There was a lack of emotion, there was a lack of affect, and he was focused on, like, I've got to right this wrong.
	This is not right.
	How did he try to write that wrong?
	We're here today.
	He went on Megyn Kelly a year before to try to say, please stop.
	When that didn't work, I think he said, I've got to go take the next step.
	This is the system we hold people accountable in America, right?
	That's right.
	It's sort of what separates us from wild animals who fight each other to death, right?
	Right.
	There's criticism.
	You've heard the criticism that he filed this lawsuit and somehow making it worse.
	This is what he has to do, right?
	I think it's what he...
	Feels he has to do, yeah.
	If Alex Jones doesn't stop, then he has to do this.
	He's got to say, this is real.
	My son was real.
	I held my son.
	When he went on Megyn Kelly, he was reaching out to Alex Jones before he filed this case, right?
	That's correct.
	He was hoping that that would get him to stop.
	And he didn't.
	Did he discuss with you his fear for his own personal safety?
	Well, that's the new injury, is that now he not only is aware that there are a number of people, and I don't care if it's one or six billion, I don't care, but there are a number of people who are believing that Sandy Hook was a hoax.
	And so he needs to right that wrong.
	Is the realization that people believe Sandy Hook Elementary was a hoax, is that a new and separate and distinct injury from the loss of Jesse?
	I think the...
	You know, I think the loss of Jesse is a loss by its sake.
	You can't make that okay.
	He's not going to recover from that.
	We'll find a place to put it.
	The new injury is his own personal safety.
	And that there are people, yes, there are people that believe that Sandy Hook was a hoax.
	And he has to set that right.
	That became his sole purpose?
	That's his sole purpose, yes.
	I want to talk to you a little bit about Scarlett.
	I know you didn't get a chance to see her as well.
	I saw her only about ten times.
	Was that all in 2020?
	2020. Tell me a little bit about what she was going through.
	Things were out of balance.
	She was so focused on Chu's love.
	That was her focus.
	And that was how she was healing the loss of Jessica.
	Was staying focused on that.
	So there was a loss of...
	A balance, so a personal happiness.
	That didn't happen.
	She did like to have people over and have dinner parties, and she didn't do that anymore.
	She loved going out on her boat.
	That was her happy place.
	And she talked about how Jessie loved the boat.
	And all of that was taken away when she lost Jessie.
	Was she, was some of the obsession with work, was it related to her fear that it was caused by Alex Jones?
	I can only assume.
	She never really talked about that, but just things were out of whack.
	She focused more and more and more on she was loved.
	Sorry.
	I think it's okay.
	What do you think Neil's life would look like if Alex Jones had never come in?
	Never said anything about him standing there?
	I think he'd still be grieving.
	He and Scarlett both would be grieving the loss of Jesse.
	But I do think that he would have found a way to return to life, have a more social life, have more of a work life, more balance in his life.
	I think he would have found a way.
	And, you know, Scarlett would continue to choose love because that's how she's healing.
	Would Neil still live in Connecticut?
	I don't know.
	But he would definitely have more balance in his life.
	Why is this trial, why is this case important to Neil and Scarlett?
	They have...
	They need to...
	To know and have the world know that their son mattered.
	That he lived.
	They were good parents, and so they still feel I've got to protect that memory and that honor of our son.
	That would still be going on, but they wouldn't be so scared as they are right now.
	They wouldn't have to fight this, or as significantly fight, this belief that Sandy Hook was a hoax.
	They're still protecting Jesse.
	They are absolutely still protecting him.
	Thank you, Mr. All right.
	Mr. Allen?
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	Thank you for appearing here, Dr. Crouch.
	You're welcome.
	I want to take you back to December of 2012, and when you first became involved in this tragedy.
	When the world found out what had happened at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, how would you describe the reaction at the time? how would you describe the reaction at the time?
	I think the world opened up and supported the people who had lost children, the teachers who had died.
	I think they tried to support them any way they could.
	And how did they do that?
	Oh my god, they sent hundreds of thousands of stuffed animals.
	I remember there was a religious group That showed up and were going to confront the families and the Hells Angels literally lined the streets and made sure that they didn't get close to those families during the funerals.
	The Connecticut, let's say the state government, did they support their families in the town of Newtown?
	They did.
	The state troopers, each of them took a family who had lost a child and stayed with them up to a year.
	You mean lived in their home?
	Didn't live in their homes, but made sure that they were there first thing in the morning and left when they went to bed.
	And for many of those state troopers, did that relationship end in, let's say, 2014?
	I don't know.
	I don't think so.
	I think it goes on.
	Do you know who the state trooper was that was assigned to Mr. Hussman?
	I do not.
	Ms. Lewis?
	I do not.
	Did President Obama come to you?
	I think he did.
	And I think the Governor came through.
	And do you know if...
	Do you know that Scarlett Lewis got to meet President Obama?
	I don't know.
	I do know that they missed Troop A, the state troopers that were there on that day and stayed in that room for up to a week.
	I'm sorry, they missed?
	They, for some reason, didn't stop there and didn't invite them to meet the president.
	Oh, and what effect did that have on the troopers of Troop Bay?
	It was devastating to them.
	It was sad.
	They felt like their government wasn't supporting them?
	I think so.
	You spend most of your time working with first responders.
	A significant amount of my time.
	Can I say that you have several YouTube videos there?
	I have one.
	One TEDx talk on Grit.
	If I can disagree with you.
	I think you have two videos.
	Yeah, there's a speech as well where you go through everything.
	You know, I don't know.
	Maybe so.
	In your speeches, and I'll just ask you now, you believe that post-traumatic stress disorder is treatable.
	I do believe that.
	And the method that you use is called EMDR. That's correct.
	And I think you said that it's been around for a long time.
	Since the late 80s.
	And how effective do you find it to be in the treatment of PTSD? Very effective.
	Some people it takes as little as three, six sessions.
	Others, it can go on.
	Others find it not helpful.
	You also say that PTSD is an injury that can be seen in the brain through injury.
	Correct.
	Please describe that.
	If you do a PET scan of the brain, it'll light up, you'll see red areas, and your brain is trying to figure out what happened and how to resolve it.
	If you've almost had a car accident, you might for 15 minutes or so go, oh my god, what just happened?
	And then you go, okay, I'm okay, I survived, and I'm alright.
	When there's a log jam, that's when you've got a problem.
	What are you referring to when you say there's a law of DNA? How do you see that?
	Okay, so when there is something that keeps the trauma, keeps the image present in your brain, then we have a problem.
	Have you ever done any forensic work?
	Would you think that conducting such a PET scan would be a useful tool in diagnosing somebody with or without PTSD?
	It would be a useful tool, I'm not the only one.
	You're familiar with the ESM-5?
	Can you explain to the members of the jury what that is?
	Yeah, it's a diagnostic manual.
	That we use to determine...
	In fact, the DSM-1 had 100 diagnoses.
	The DSM-5 has a little over 300. You can argue what that's about, but that's the difference.
	And it's how we diagnose.
	And there's a list of symptoms.
	And you work with it often?
	Almost routinely?
	That's correct.
	In order to diagnose PTSD, what symptoms have to be present?
	There are a number of them.
	Avoidance of something that reminds you or is similar to the issue that brought on the trauma.
	Some of those symptoms are similar to depression, problems sleeping, problems with concentration, problems with focus, those kinds of things.
	When we speak of trauma in terms of the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder, what kind of trauma are we talking about?
	There are a number of things and it's really how the individual responds to it more than the symptom.
	Is it fair to say that in the DSM they limit trauma to physical or sexual assault upon yourself or a loved one?
	I'm not sure about that.
	I think it would be physical, sexual, and emotional assault.
	So your testimony here today is that you believe that any type of an emotional assault qualifies for post-traumatic stress this morning?
	I would say so, yes.
	Would it be helpful to you to look at the DSM file?
	Might be.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	I don't have a problem, but if we had, I knew that this was the right DSM-5, it's obviously a website.
	I'd like to ask some questions, perhaps put in front of the witness and ask him some questions.
	Well, you're trying to get, you're trying to refresh his recollection with this document, so you have to know what you're showing him.
	So, can you not tell?
	I don't mind if he shows that this is it, but that's great.
	I'll allow that.
	All right, then you can show it to them.
	I don't know if this is the DSM number one.
	Let me tell you, it's not about -- in the DSM, it doesn't say the child rarely or men will.
	So this must be about children.
	If I may, I think it refreshed when you're reading about reactive attachment disorder.
	Okay, but, okay.
	But if, let me ask you a couple more questions.
	Does the, are you familiar with the, is it the American Psychiatric Institute that publishes the DSM? Yes.
	And if you, Do they publish it both in a print copy as well as digitally online?
	They do.
	And please take a look and see if that appears to be the digital version of the DSM-5.
	You know, I think this is an explanation of what the DSM-5 might I think this is an explanation of what the DSM-5 might It's very brief.
	The symptoms of trauma and stress are outlined differently in the DSM. How
	often do you visit with Mr. Essel?
	It depends.
	It's been weekly and it's been Monthly.
	It depends on the meal calls.
	Has it ever been more than once a week?
	No.
	And how much do you charge?
	195 per session.
	And you've been seeing him for nine years, ten years?
	I've been seeing him since 2013 for nine years.
	What intervention are you recommending for Mr. Hassel at this time?
	At this time, what we're doing is talking about what he's going through.
	We're not doing the MDR right now.
	Have you used the MDR? I have, yes.
	And have you had some success with it?
	I have.
	Do you hope to have more success with it in the future?
	I do.
	Do you believe that Mr. Heslin can recover?
	I believe that Mr. Heslin can Find a way to put memories of Jesse in a place where he can return to work.
	Well, he is working.
	Where his work will be...
	Actually, he may retire.
	But he will be able to have a life.
	And that's an achievable goal in your view?
	I think that is achievable.
	And when you talked before, I think you testified words to the effect of, or tell me if you agree, that it is, when you lose a child in this manner, it is something that in some way or another will haunt you for the rest of your life.
	I think that's true.
	And I think what's important, and I talked about logjams.
	Alex Jones is a logjam.
	What happened to Neil, that's a logjam.
	I wanted to get our timeline a little bit cleaned up because I heard 2013 and then I heard 2018. When did Alex Jones become an issue for me?
	I think he became an issue in 2013 When Neil was aware that people were claiming that Newtown had not happened.
	Then he really became an issue in 2018, when Neil realized that he was directly being attacked, viciously attacked.
	Between 2013 and 2018, Was Mr. Heslin actively engaged with rumination about Alex Jones or had he moved on?
	I think he was avoiding that issue and he said I don't want to dignify that issue right now.
	So had he moved on, I wouldn't say moved on is an accurate term.
	He had found a way to avoid, ignore what was going on.
	And he had exercised his power to choose to shut that down.
	Well, that's a symptom of trauma, isn't it?
	I'm gonna disconnect from something that is troubling to me.
	Isn't that healthy, though?
	It's...
	I would suggest no.
	Not in Mr. Hesslin's case, because it kept the injury alive.
	How...
	In your notes, how often do you see Alex Jones' name appearing between 2013 and 2013?
	I do not see Alex Jones' name because Neal was choosing to not dignify it, not go there.
	Did you write in your notes, Mr. Heslin is actively avoiding Alex Jones and dealing with that?
	No, because he didn't talk about it.
	And I, quite honestly, didn't know about Alex Jones until 2018.
	So based on your treatment of Mr. Hesslin and your personal contact with him, the first time Alex Jones comes up is in 2018.
	That's correct.
	As a...
	As Mr. Hesslin's therapist, you have an implicit and explicit contract with him to act in his best interest.
	As I see it...
	not necessarily as he sees it.
	And that is to, your relationship isn't defined by necessarily giving testimony in court.
	it's defined by whether or not Mr. Heslam is included.
	I guess you can say that.
	And as part of that, it's not your job to go out and investigate or question whether it's not your job to go out and investigate or question whether what Mr. Heslin is telling you during your sessions is the truth rather than
	I think my job is to listen to what he has to say and help him move towards a more functional life.
	And I guess what I mean, and maybe this will be a better question, after you have a session with Mr. Heslund, you don't go out and investigate if what he told you is true or not.
	No.
	That's not part of it.
	That's right.
	Can you tell this jury to a reasonable degree of medical certainty how much of Mr. Heslund's or Miss Lewis's emotional pain was caused by the murder of their son by the killer Adam Lanza versus the talk show host Alex Kempel?
	I think that Two separate questions.
	The loss of a child absolutely is devastating and causes grief and pain that I'm not sure as a parent you ever get over.
	But when I talk about logjams, so in 2018 when Neil realized that he was being targeted And that the credibility of his son and of Scarlett and Neil was being challenged.
	That's a new injury.
	So, from 2018 when he realized, oh my god, this is real and this is happening to us, I think Neil became very focused on getting Some honor and some clarity about his memory of Jesse.
	How much?
	I don't know.
	I could say 100%, I could say whatever.
	It's painful.
	And so what Alex Jones has said is painful to him.
	And he has said it's too painful.
	So what I'm hearing you saying is that you consider it to be a new injury.
	But that within the course of dealing with a patient, it's very difficult to take a particular constellation of emotional pain and put it into one bucket or into a different bucket.
	I think that, again, there are two buckets here.
	One is the loss of a child, and that's always painful and will never really be healed.
	The other is the belief that, and the accusation that It didn't happen.
	That's painful.
	And that's a different bucket, and that bucket's full right now.
	I...
	When you testify about negation, that Alex Jones is negating the existence of Mr. Hesman and Ms. Lewis's son...
	Mm-hmm.
	I think it comes to the logic.
	I'm sorry.
	That's okay.
	You are basing that off of what Mr. Heslin and what Ms. Lewis have told you, and not on a dispassionate analysis of the evidence.
	I'm basing it off of, yes, what Neil and Scarlett have told me, but also what I have observed On the internet, in terms of watching Alex Jones claim it was fake?
	Since you are a member of the community and you did that, you went online to search out that claim.
	Can you tell us in what year and for how long Alex Jones said that it was fake?
	I don't know when you said that or when you started.
	No, I don't know.
	All right.
	Do you have a lot?
	Okay, I think we'll just keep going and do a break and questions all at the same time.
	Mr. Kress, did you sort of pick up on this theory that maybe Mr. Heslin or Ms. Lewis would not be honest with you?
	There was a challenge of that.
	Do you find that ironic in this case?
	A little bit, in that I know that they have been very honest with me that they trust me.
	They pay you money to help them, right?
	That's correct.
	Actually, I get paid by Sandy Hook.
	I get paid by the town.
	You were asked whether the EMDR is effective for PTSD. Is EMDR effective to treat PTSD if the PTSD is ongoing and complex and that trauma hasn't stopped yet?
	No.
	Nothing is, honestly.
	Thank you, Mr. Jay.
	Mr. Reynolds?
	Thank you.
	Alright, so then jury will combine.
	It's 3.46.
	We'll do a 30-minute break and question break.
	Remember all of my instructions about how these questions go and everything else, please.
	Thank you.
	You are excused.
	All rise.
	Thank you.
	Don't forget to shut the door.
	I'm sorry.
	That's okay.
	Everyone doesn't.
	All right, so at this time, give the jury a minute to walk past, but then I'll ask you to wait in the hall until you're called back in, okay?
	All right.
	Anything?
	Nothing.
	There we go.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Let's get to the bottom of the bag.
	Look at the top.
	We're going to take a long break.
	this one else okay
	yep
	so so so so so so so so so so so so
	so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so
	so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so
	so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so
	so so so so so so so so so so
	so so so Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Yeah.
	Thank you.
	One more.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Yeah.
	It's too late.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	I'm curious if there are.
	I feel like that was the time that there's one person who's just a little bit more than a student.
	.
	- Question was . - What were my thoughts for? - I mean, my question was . - Thanks.
	- We need to go down to the .
	- This is .
	- No, it's just . - What first . - What first . - Yeah.
	- Yeah.
	- Yeah, we need to . - I'm surprised .
	and now it's obviously so
	right
	so okay
	so okay
	okay
	yeah yeah Well, we decided to let you get going.
	Oh.
	different
	so the things that we talked about are actually the future so i've been keeping track of that better than 51.
	it's always coming today did you want something to be silenced?
	No, I don't want that advice for you.
	No, I just thought you used to have a list of everything.
	So, yeah, it's good, but only the things that we used in tribal are going to go back to the church.
	So, I've got that.
	So what I did was just circled the ex heroes.
	Yeah, it's really interesting.
	She wanted them all up there.
	No, but she told us that to each other.
	All the administrators would be up there.
	Whenever the jury starts liberating, there are only two months that I take it there.
	Who thinks you can track?
	So the only thing I've got to remember is to do.
	Okay, there you go.
	She's in control.
	Okay.
	I'll just try to get regular items.
	I'll do that to those.
	You can just like that on the board.
	That works, too.
	Okay.
	Go up here in there.
	Thanks, Hal.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	There's so much, too.
	It really is one of the covering files.
	There's all sorts of equipment.
	There aren't even here.
	They're doing great work.
	yeah oh wow
	what do you think yeah yeah
	yeah for crouch for sure five
	so you don't know what the answer is yeah
	Oh wow.
	Oh, wow.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Semi-daily?
	yeah you go How long is this?
	those last few questions. - I think I got a search. - I think I got a search.
	- We're getting, huh? - I think I got a search. - I think I got a search.
	- We're getting, huh?
	- Different?
	- Yeah, I'm not sure.
	- Yeah, I'm not sure. - I think I got a search. - I think I got a search.
	- Yeah, I think I got a search.
	- Yeah, we'll give you the same brand. - We'll give you the same brand.
	- Yeah, yeah.
	- That's gonna be really going to just work.
	- Yeah, let's please make sure that that anyone of us who doesn't get fucked up.
	- Yeah, I'll give them a really weird - Or is this just a suit with nothing under it? - That's what I challenge.
	- A suit with nothing under it?
	- Yeah, yeah. - It's something. - I'm just doing something.
	- Yeah. - It's something. - I'm just doing something.
	- Yeah, I'm just doing something.
	- Okay.
	- You're doing something.
	- Yeah, I'm just doing something.
	- Okay.
	- Okay, so let's just go to the next slide.
	- Okay, so let's just go.
	- Okay, so let's just go.
	- Okay, so let's go.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Oh, nice.
	Thank you.
	how old ladies thank you thank
	you thank
	you - I don't know.
	there's a position that was quite important.
	I kind of just let it be like, you know, you have a high impression of that? you have a high impression of that?
	It's not very interesting.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	yeah nevermind
	yeah
	all right dr.
	Crouch in the hallway yes you can sit down let's make sure the door's shut then off the record oh Do you think Neal and Scarlett are at all interested in the money that might come from this case?
	Besides this lawsuit, what other ways have you suggested that Neal cope?
	As a member of the Trauma Recovery Network and your association with the Sandy Hope community, are you familiar with any other parents or teachers or first responders?
	This is a very complex question.
	Who have been targeted with threats or actual violence by persons that claim Sandy Hope was a hope?
	Should we have judges to that?
	Did Mr. Heslin receive a PET scan to determine PTSD? If it is not an important method to determine PTSD, then what is the value of the PET scan ever used to be?
	We gotta shut the door.
	Are you still treating families from Newtown from this tragedy?
	I mean, he's still treating Mr. Hessler, right?
	Do you know if any of these families are infected from this case?
	I don't understand that question, so that one's out if it doesn't make any sense.
	Does the duration and quantity of instances dictate the degree of traumatic injury sustained?
	If not, can duration and quantity of instances magnetize the severity of the trauma inflicted?
	What would matter more to Neal and Scarlett, a public or private apology from Alex Jones and Infowars, or monetary compensation from him?
	How much difference has Scarlett Lewis' foundation Choose Love made in the lives of other children or their families?
	How is Choose Love funded, if at all?
	Alright.
	Do you think Neil and Scarlett are at all interested in the money that might come from this case?
	I mean, I don't know.
	The question's not necessarily a problem, but the witness is the problem, right?
	And it's usually the answer, if it's good.
	We have many of not going to charity.
	Right, not saying that they're going to spend it on charity.
	I mean, I think that that's a question that you can ask the plaintiffs when they're on the stand, but I don't know that this is a question to ask the psychologist.
	Besides this lawsuit, what other ways have you suggested that Mr. Hessling Cope?
	I think that one's fine.
	As a member of the Trauma Recovery Network and your association with the Sandy Hook community, are you familiar with any other parents or teachers or first responders who've been targeted with threats or actual violence by persons that claim Sandy Hook was a hoax?
	Seems alright.
	Did Mr. Hesslin receive a PET scan to determine PTSD? If it is not an important method to determine PTSD, then what is the value of the PET scan ever used for?
	I think those are all fine.
	Are you still treating families from Newtown from this tragedy?
	That seems fine.
	Does the duration and quantity of instances dictate the degree of traumatic injury system?
	Fine.
	If not, can duration and quantity of instances magnify the severity of the trauma inflicted?
	I think those are fine.
	What would matter more to Neal and Scarlett, a public or private apology from Alex Jones at InfoWars or monetary compensation?
	I think that's the same problem.
	How much difference I don't think he can...
	I don't think...
	I don't know.
	How much difference has Scarlett Lewis's Foundation Choose Love made in the lives of other children or other families?
	I just don't...
	I don't think he has any information about that.
	This is not the proper witness.
	Okay.
	And then, how is Choose Love funded, if at all?
	I feel like, again, maybe we'll ask her, but I don't think we ask him.
	Okay.
	Those are the only questions.
	On the record, we've gone over the questions submitted by the jury.
	Are you in agreement with those we've decided to ask Mr. Farah?
	Yes.
	Mr. Raynell?
	Yes.
	All right.
	Before we go to the jury, Mr. Paul's got one quick issue.
	Okay.
	Just, we're really close to the end of the day.
	We were going to call Jesse Lewis.
	That's what Jesse Lewis is, JT. And JT Lewis.
	Long story short, we're not.
	We didn't think that we were, we thought we were going to be at the end of the day, so we'd like to just, we have another 15 or 20 minutes, something like that, we're calling the jury charge, something like that.
	You want to let the jury go home early today?
	Yeah, and then start again tomorrow.
	We do need to talk about the jury, so I think that's probably fine.
	So you're not going to call them at all, or you're not going to call them today?
	We're not going to call them at all.
	Oh, okay.
	That's probably good.
	All right.
	I am assuming, while we're sitting here talking about it, that we are not going to, we've gone through all the depots.
	We have a witness for the second phase, right?
	We have two more witnesses left in our first phase.
	Okay, so the rest of the The rest of your witnesses, you're not planning a thought, just Mr. Hessler and Ms. Lewis?
	That is correct, Your Honor, and I don't expect for them, at least from the direct to be on for any extended period of time, so I think that we would be finished with our case in the first phase tomorrow about, you know, noon, at the very latest, the absolute latest, and probably before that, really.
	All right.
	And will you be calling any independent witnesses of your own, Mr. Reynolds?
	Independent, you mean other than my client you're on?
	I mean other than, are you going to call anybody in your face of the case?
	I still haven't decided.
	If I call the witness, it would be my client.
	Okay.
	Well, you're on a lead and know who's being called.
	May I make them tell everyone?
	So you have until five to decide.
	How's that?
	But I can tell that if I called any witness at all, it would be him.
	Well, you have until 5 to tell us what your plan is for tomorrow.
	Okay?
	Just like I've made them every single day, tell us who's going to be up next.
	That's the rule in this courtroom.
	All right, let's bring back the witness and the jury.
	You can come all the way back up there, please.
	Thank you.
	And then we're just going to wait for the jury to come back in, okay?
	Okay.
	Okay.
	All right.
	You may be seated.
	All right.
	So, Dr. Crouch, I'm going to read some questions for you to answer, and I need you to just listen to the question and answer it for the jury.
	Okay.
	And let me know if you don't understand it.
	We'll try to move on, something like that, okay?
	Jury, same instructions as always.
	If you don't hear your question, that's because I made that decision, and you can direct your frustration in my direction.
	Ready?
	Besides this lawsuit, what other ways have you suggested that Mr. Hesslin cope?
	Wow.
	Again, I think, you know, council talked about two buckets.
	There's coping with the death of his son, and then there's coping with somebody who says he's a liar.
	So I'm not sure there's another way to cope with that.
	I think he's tried to cope with When he talked to Megyn Kelly, he tried to cope.
	He tried to say, please stop, and that didn't work.
	So, in terms of that logjam, I don't think there's another way to cope.
	In terms of the death of his son, I think that the grief is complicated, and I think that we will return to EMDR When the logjam is out of the way.
	And hopefully we can find a way to get him to re-enter his life.
	And the same thing with Scarlett, to find some balance for him or her.
	As a member of the Trauma Recovery Network and your association with the Sandy Hook community, are you familiar with any other parents or teachers or first responders who have been targeted with threats?
	Or actual violence by persons that claim Sandy Hook was a hoax?
	Only in dealings with the parents, and as a co-coordinator of the Trauma Recovery Network, there are other clinicians who struggle with that, who have dealt with the belief that That they're liars, that this didn't happen.
	And I think that they are all watching what happens in this trial.
	Did Mr. Heslin receive a PET scan to determine PTSD? No, he did not.
	No, that's okay.
	I was going to say, there's a second part.
	If it is not an important method to determine PTSD, then what is the value of it?
	What is it used for?
	It's not that it's not an important way of determining PTSD. It's one of the many ways.
	We can do a PET scan and you can see that there's a block.
	And it's relatively new, PET scans, in terms of seeing the brain and where there is injury.
	PET scans, I've just started to hear about them over the last ten years or so.
	If EMDR has been around since the late 1980s, PET scans are relatively new.
	I don't use them, one, because it costs money.
	Because if you listen to the symptoms, you know that someone has been traumatized and to what level they are.
	Does the duration and quantity of instances dictate the degree of traumatic injuries sustained?
	Could you read that again?
	Of course.
	Does the duration and quantity of instances dictate the degree of traumatic injury sustained?
	Um, you know, it's just another trauma.
	Um, so, uh...
	And it may be different.
	As a car accident, it's the same as another form of trauma, sexual abuse.
	The death of a child is one trauma.
	I think I testified to that.
	The belief that That you're a liar and that Jessie didn't exist is another trauma.
	And that will require treatment for that specific incident.
	Can duration and quantity of instances magnify the severity of the trauma inflicted?
	I would say yes, that if there are numerous instances of the same trauma, for instance, in sexual abuse, if it went on for a number of years, then yes, I think that trauma is more severe, as opposed to a single instance trauma.
	So, yes.
	Dr. Crutch, those are the questions that I have for you.
	I want to thank you for your time and your testimony.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	And you're free to go back down.
	So, the lawyers and I had a brief conversation during the break.
	We are expecting We have some expectations about how the day tomorrow will go.
	And to get there, we have some work that we need to do outside the presence of the jury.
	Given the late time of day, what I've decided to do is just release you today to go home.
	And we'll start again tomorrow.
	So I'm hoping you'll arrive at 845 just like normal, ready to go.
	Remember all of my instructions.
	No news, no social media, no conversation, no research.
	Thank you, and I'll see you tomorrow.
	All rise.
	And I think Ms. Mattishek-Steele has something to go over with you, and if you'll just shut that door, the last one through, I appreciate it.
	Thank you.
	Alright, you may sit down.
	We can, I think, go off the record.
	This is an informal conference, so we can go off the record and you can relax.
	Let me do the time before we do anything else so I know where we are.
	Here we go.
	Do you need more water?
	The plaintiff side is used 14 hours and 50 minutes.
	The defense side, 8 hours.
	Jury and work without the jury, 5 hours and 40 minutes.
	That's where we are on that.
	All right.
	I've given you...
	So, one second, I'm sorry.
	I'll finish that later.
	Alright, I've given you version one You'll see down at the bottom, I make a little V dot whatever version one, so that we are always all in the same one.
	So make sure here it says V dot one down there in the footer.
	Charge a court.
	This is my current proposal, so I don't know if you...
	As far as the text of the entire charge?
	Yes.
	I love it.
	I have no problems.
	No objections.
	Well that was easy.
	Yeah, from our side that's pretty easy.
	I did want to raise one instruction or to instruct the jury on an element of law that I think has been confused, particularly in this last series of women's.
	And one is the idea that any pain and distress that the plaintiffs may have suffered due to participating in advancing the lawsuit itself is somehow not the defendant's fault.
	And that either we inflicted that on them or they inflicted that on themselves.
	But the defendant is responsible under Texas law for all damages which are reasonably foreseeable from its wrongful conduct.
	And that would include the vindication of that conduct in a court of law.
	We would like an instruction that says something along the lines of, and we may need to work on this, but is that damage caused by participating in this litigation were foreseeable to Mr. Jones from the defamation and IED committee.
	We think otherwise we're going to send the jury back into that room with a false impression of Texas law that they did this to themselves by bringing this to us.
	Can you say all of that?
	Not all of it.
	Just the part.
	The instruction part?
	Yeah, just the instruction part you're suggesting.
	Here's what I came up with.
	Sure.
	It was damages caused to the plaintiffs by participating in this litigation was foreseeable to the defendants due to the defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress they committed.
	And again, yeah, we would say, and is therefore part of the convincible damages of the weapon.
	Well, I think I'll need you to send me that written down, because I had started it from a different direction, so I couldn't quite get everything you said.
	Absolutely.
	Any other instructions you think he'll be requesting?
	And do you want this, are you requesting that this go in the charge as a legal instruction?
	It's one of my instructions.
	Are you requesting it be delivered to the jury in some other format?
	I would leave that to the discretion of the court.
	I certainly think it could be done during the sort of introductory last instructions you give before the charge of the court separately, or it could be in the charge of the court.
	From our perspective, that form doesn't make a lot of difference to us, so I think it's your discretion.
	So, what I think it most closely resembles Is an instruction, for example, on a code in the state of Texas.
	And those would typically appear in the charge.
	In itself.
	So I'm open to hearing the argument, but I'm thinking that it makes the most sense to include it as an instruction of the law in Texas in the charge.
	That would be my belief as well.
	I think that would be the most appropriate way.
	I think it's the most analogous to something like that, where I've taken judicial notice of a code.
	And then I will say for the record that I will get this...
	We're not on the record.
	That's right.
	This is an informal charge conference.
	For everybody in the room, I will get this written down on paper and give it to everybody at 5 o'clock.
	Okay, that's fine.
	Right around here tomorrow morning.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Anything else?
	Nothing from plaintiff's side.
	All right.
	Anything you want to talk about during the informal charge conference?
	And I do want you to talk about everything.
	I do not like it when lawyers save issues with the charge to the formal charge conference.
	The formal charge conference in this courtroom is an opportunity to briefly relate things that have already been discussed and decided for the record if necessary and to otherwise just express agreement with the charge in the form it is in.
	Does that make sense?
	As I mentioned earlier, we were going to ask for there to be a separate line for each defendant.
	I understand the scope of the default is within your honor's discretion.
	So I'm not sure just looking at the page itself that the default has the alter ego finding.
	Your Honor will decide.
	I thought we had already discussed this in pre-jury trial conversations where I made it clear that in fact it was part of the petition, it was part of the default Alex Jones equals free speech systems.
	Understood.
	The other thing I'd just like to say about that, hopefully it'll clear it up and we won't have to do anything on the charge conference, is the default most certainly includes the conspiracy claim.
	And under the conspiracy claim, once they're both found for the conspiracy of defamation, now they're jointly and separately liable, and so there would be no reason on the charge to separate it.
	And that's where we looked into why we didn't do that in our submission.
	Right.
	Well, we also have a...
	We have all of the business language, that's right.
	What else, Mr. Reynold?
	I have nothing else to say.
	Okay.
	Do you have a response to Mr. Bankston's suggestion regarding the instructions to Texas law and damages that may, that the juror may think come from bringing suit?
	I haven't done the research, Your Honor.
	I will look at it tonight.
	Okay.
	That's totally fine.
	If, and I don't know that we will, but if we finish with evidence tomorrow, and I guess it's not five, but it's pretty close, If you do not put on Mr. Jones, that's what I assume you're mentioning, you mean when you say my client?
	Correct.
	You're not planning to put on somebody else for the corporation?
	No, you're not.
	Other than Mr. Jones?
	Correct.
	Alright, so if you put on Mr. Jones, I don't think we'll finish in time for closings tomorrow.
	But if you don't, we might.
	I don't know.
	We might not.
	But let's say we do.
	We will, we will close.
	So that might restrict a little bit of the time.
	So I'll need you to tell me how much time you need and want for closing.
	Because what I hate to do, I hate to lose, like waste two hours.
	But I also worry, based on openings and all the other stuff, that two hours might not be enough for closing.
	So, I don't know.
	Do you have thoughts about that?
	Oh, also, who's doing open and who's doing closed?
	You're doing both?
	Both open-closed and closed-closed.
	Okay.
	And you know about fully closing in your open-close.
	all of non-rears are like, what is she talking about?
	Okay, because that's important.
	Okay, all right.
	Do you have a time restriction between the open and the closed?
	In other words...
	So, at this stage, looking ahead to the time...
	So, deliberation doesn't count against anybody.
	We've got...
	So, tomorrow is Tuesday.
	Let's just assume closings are Wednesday mornings.
	Okay.
	So, they take the whole morning.
	So then...
	There's a day and a half of attorney trial time for the second base.
	So with that, I would say, if you just keep that in mind, you keep the numbers I've been giving you in mind, I'm not going to limit you.
	I will give you whatever time warnings you like, but I'm not going to tell you your closing is 30 minutes and that's it.
	I'm just not going to do that.
	You've got the time you've got.
	You can use it if you want to use it.
	That's your job.
	My job is not to let you go over the total time, and I won't.
	My question is a little bit different.
	Some judges say, for instance, if you're going to use an hour for the opening, close, you're going to only do 10 minutes, like 10% or 50%.
	That was, I know you'd fully close, but as long as I fully close, there's no limit on that.
	It's rebuttal.
	Sure.
	So it's limited by what Mr. Reynold says.
	Right.
	But other than that, no, I don't.
	Any questions about closing?
	Well, now we have 19 minutes.
	Are you going to put on Mr. Jones tomorrow?
	Can I use my 19 minutes to make a phone call?
	Sure.
	You could go out there.
	Okay.
	Sorry.
	I thought that was obvious.
	Don't do it in here.
	I'm not going to leave, but I won't talk about the case.
	I'm just going to send an email.

▲