Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 4, 2022 - Depositions & Trials

02:25:25

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

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	...by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or both.
	A fact is established by direct evidence when proved by documentary evidence or by witnesses who saw the act done or heard the words spoken.
	A fact is established by circumstantial evidence when it may be fairly and reasonably inferred from other facts proved.
	12. You are the sole judges of the credibility or believability of each witness and the weight to be given to his or her testimony.
	In weighing the testimony of a witness, you should consider their relationship to the party, their interest in any, If any, in the outcome of the case, their demeanor or manner of testifying, their opportunity to observe or acquire knowledge concerning the facts about which they have testified,
	their candor, fairness, and intelligence, and the extent to which they have been supported or contradicted by other credible evidence.
	You may, in short, accept or reject the testimony of any witness in whole or in heart.
	As I have said before, if you do not follow these instructions, you will be guilty of juror misconduct, and I might have to order a new trial and start this process over again.
	This would waste your time and the party's money, and it would require the taxpayers of this county to pay for another trial.
	If a juror breaks any of these rules, tell that person to stop and report it to me immediately.
	Cause of action number one, defamation committed against Neil Peslin.
	You are instructed that Defendants Alex Jones and Free Speech Systems LLC committed defamation against Neil Peslin.
	You are further instructed that Defendants Alex Jones and Free Speech Systems LLC published statements that were false and defamatory concerning Neil Peslin on June 26, 2017 And July 20th, 2017. Published means intentionally or negligently to communicate the matter to a person other than Neil Heslin who is capable of understanding its meaning.
	False means that a statement is not literally true or not substantially true.
	A statement is not substantially true if in the mind of the average person The gist of the statement is more damaging to the person affected by it than a literally true statement would have been.
	Defamatory means an ordinary person would interpret the statement in a way that tends to injure a living person's reputation and thereby expose the person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or financial injury, or to impeach the person's honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation.
	You are further instructed that defendants Alex Jones and Free Speech Systems, LLC, knew or should have known in the exercise of ordinary care that the statements published on June 26, 2017 and July 20, 2017 were false and had the potential to be defamatory.
	Ordinary care Concerning the truth of the statement and its potential to be defamatory means that degree of care that would be used by a person of ordinary prudence under the same or similar circumstances.
	You are further instructed that at the time Defendants Alex Jones and Free Speech Systems LLC published the statements on June 26, 2017 In July 20, 2017, defendants knew the statements were false as it related to Neal Heslin,
	or that defendants published the statements with a high degree of awareness that they were probably false, to an extent that defendants, in fact, had serious doubts as to the truth of the statements.
	Under Texas law, defendants are responsible for all damages approximately caused by their actions, which were reasonably foreseeable, including damages, if any, caused by participating in this litigation.
	Question number one.
	What sum of money, if paid now in cash, would fairly and reasonably compensate Neil Heslin for his damages, if any, that were approximately caused by defendants' defamatory publications on June 26, 2017 and July 20, 2017?
	Approximate cause means a cause that was a substantial factor in bringing about an injury, and without which cause such injury would not have occurred.
	In order to be a proximate cause, the act or omission complained of must be such that a person using ordinary care would have foreseen that the injury or some similar injury might reasonably result therefrom.
	There may be more than one proximate cause of an injury.
	Mental anguish means the emotional pain, torment, and suffering experienced by Neil Hessler.
	Do not include any amount for any condition existing before the defamatory publications, except to the extent, if any, that such other condition was aggravated by any injuries that resulted from the defamatory publications.
	Consider the elements of damages listed below and none under.
	Consider each element separately.
	Do not award any sum of money on any element if you have otherwise under some other element awarded a sum of money for the same loss.
	That is, do not compensate twice for the same loss, if any.
	Do not include interest on any amount of damages you find.
	Answer separately in dollars and cents for the damages listed below, if any.
	A. Injury to reputation that Neil Heslin sustained in the past.
	Answer.
	And there's a spot for answer.
	Injury to reputation that in reasonable probability Neil Heslin will sustain in the future.
	Sorry, that was B. And there's an answer.
	C. Mental anguish that Neil Heslin sustained in the past.
	Answer.
	D. Mental anguish that in reasonable probability Neil Heslin will sustain in the future.
	answer. Pause of action number two, intentional infliction of emotional distress committed against Neil Heslund and Scarlett Lewis.
	You are instructed that Defendants Alex Jones and Free Speech Systems, LLC, committed intentional infliction of emotional distress against Neal Heslin and Scarlett Lewis in a continuing course of conduct from 2013 to 2018. Intentional infliction of emotional distress means the defendant acts intentionally or recklessly with extreme and outrageous conduct.
	To cause the plaintiff emotional distress and the emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff was severe.
	Extreme and outrageous conduct means that conduct has been so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.
	Under Texas law, defendants are responsible for all damages approximately caused by their actions which were reasonably foreseeable including damages, if any, caused by participating in this litigation.
	Question number two.
	What sum of money, if paid now in cash, would fairly and reasonably compensate Neil Pestlin for his damages, if any, that were approximately caused by defendant's intentional infliction of emotional distress from 2013 to 2018?
	Approximate cause means a cause that was a substantial factor in bringing about an injury, and without which cause such injury would not have occurred.
	In order to be a proximate cause, the act or omission complained of must be such that a person using ordinary care would have foreseen that the injury or some similar injury might reasonably result therefrom.
	There may be more than one proximate cause of an injury.
	Mental anguish means the emotional pain, torment, and suffering experienced by Neal Whistler.
	Do not include any amount for any condition existing before the extreme and outrageous conduct except to the extent, if any, that such other condition was aggravated by any injuries that resulted from the extreme and outrageous conduct.
	Consider the elements of damages listed below and none other.
	Consider each element separately.
	Do not award any sum of money on any element if you have otherwise, under some other element, awarded a sum of money for the same loss.
	That is, do not compensate twice for the same loss, if any.
	Do not include interest on any amount of damages you find.
	Answer separately and in dollars and cents for each.
	Each person for the damages listed below, if any.
	A. Mental anguish that Neil Heslund sustained in the past.
	And then answer and there's a line.
	B. Mental anguish that in reasonable probability Neil Heslund will sustain in the future.
	Question number three.
	What sum of money, if paid now in cash, would fairly and reasonably compensate Scarlett Lewis for her damages, if any?
	We're approximately caused by defendant's intentional infliction of emotional distress from 2013 to 2018. Approximate cause means a cause that was a substantial factor in bringing about an injury, and without which cause such injury would not have occurred.
	In order to be a proximate cause, the act or omission complained of must be such that a person using ordinary care, Would have foreseen that the injury or some similar injury might reasonably result therefrom.
	There may be more than one proximate cause of an injury.
	Mental anguish means the emotional pain, torment, and suffering experienced by Scarlett Lewis.
	Do not include any amount or any condition existing before the extreme and outrageous conduct Conduct except to the extent, if any, that such other condition was aggravated by any injuries that resulted from the extreme and outrageous conduct.
	Consider the elements of damages listed below and none other.
	Consider each element separately.
	Do not award any sum of money on any element if you have otherwise, under some other element, awarded a sum of money for the same loss.
	That is, do not compensate twice for the same loss, if any.
	Do not include interest on any amount of damages you find.
	Answer separately in dollars and cents for each person for the damages listed below, if any.
	A. Mental anguish that Scarlett Lewis sustained in the past.
	Answer.
	B. Mental anguish that in reasonable Presiding Juror.
	When you go into the jury room to answer the questions, the first thing you will need to do is choose a presiding juror.
	The presiding juror has these duties.
	A. Have the complete charge read aloud if it will be helpful to your deliberations.
	B. Preside over your deliberations, meaning manage the discussions and see that you follow these instructions.
	C. Give written questions or comments to the judicial executive assistant who will give them to the judge.
	D. Write down the answers on which you agree.
	E.
	Get the signatures for a verdict certificate.
	And F. Notify the judicial executive assistant that you have reached a verdict.
	Do you understand the duties of the presiding juror?
	This is a question for my jury.
	Yes.
	Everyone has nodded or said yes.
	If you do not, please tell me.
	Instructions for signing the verdict certificate.
	1. Unless otherwise instructed, you may answer the questions on a vote of 10 jurors.
	The same 10 jurors must agree on every answer in the charge.
	This means you may not have one group of ten jurors agree on one answer and a different group of ten jurors agree on another answer.
	Two, if ten jurors agree on every answer, those ten jurors sign the verdict.
	If eleven jurors agree on every answer, those eleven jurors sign the verdict.
	If all 12 of you agree on every answer, you are unanimous and only the presiding juror signs the verdict.
	3. All jurors should deliberate on every question.
	You may end up with all 12 of you agreeing on some answers, while only 10 or 11 of you agree on other answers.
	But when you sign the verdict, only those 10 who agree on every answer will sign the verdict.
	And then you'll see the original copy has my signature.
	Verdict certificate, check 1. Our verdict is unanimous.
	All 12 of us have agreed to each and every answer.
	The presiding juror has signed the certificate for all 12 of us.
	And there's a line for the signature and the printed name of the presiding juror.
	Or, our verdict is not unanimous, 11 of us have agreed to each and every answer and have signed the certificate below.
	Or, our verdict is not unanimous, 10 of us have agreed to each and every answer and have signed the certificate below.
	And then you will see there are 11 lines for signatures and printed names All right At this time, we are going to hear from the attorneys.
	And so the plaintiff will be Mr. Farrah.
	Is that all right?
	Yes, Your Honor.
	All right.
	Thank you.
	Please report.
	Yes.
	The truth lives at Infowars.
	That was at the very end of the video that the Dependents played today.
	That was the video that supposedly the idea was this is Alex Jones telling the world finally once and for all I think Sandy Hook was real.
	Believe me, I think it was real.
	But what you notice when you're looking at that video is he goes to his screen and he points out, FBI reports no deaths at Sandy Hook.
	He goes down and he says, no EMS allowed in the building.
	He said the police ate lunch inside.
	Lie, lie, lie.
	None of that's true.
	His effort to tell the world he believed Sandy Hook was real was filled with the exact same thing he has said for years at that point.
	The actual truth is, the day Sandy Hook happened, Alex Jones planted a seed of misinformation Horrific decade of misinformation in American history.
	And he just watered that seed over and over until it finally bore fruit.
	Cruelty and money.
	That's what it bore.
	When Neil and Scarlett heard about what was going on, different times early in 2013 and 2014, they had some choices to make.
	And the first choice was, let's try to ignore this.
	Let's not dignify this.
	This is crazy.
	People won't believe this.
	Nobody's going to believe that.
	This is real.
	Nobody's seen this type of level of misinformation before.
	They don't believe it could be happening to them.
	So they try to ignore it for years and it doesn't work.
	2017, we know that Neil went on a Megyn Kelly show.
	He was invited and he said, I don't think I really want to.
	And he decided, if I can appeal to Alex Jones' humanity, he's a father.
	He'll stop.
	He doesn't go on the show and say, stop it, Alex, that's a lie.
	Stop your misinformation.
	He appeals to his heart and says, I hope you have a happy Father's Day.
	I don't have mine.
	That was his way of saying, that's a lie, and stop it.
	It didn't work.
	They asked for a retraction.
	It didn't work.
	There was never a retraction.
	What Scarlett and Neil didn't appreciate at the time was that money was much more powerful than truth to Alex Jones.
	You heard Ms. Karplova testify.
	There are different truths.
	No, there's not.
	There's the truth, and then there's everything else.
	There may be different levels of truth at InfoWars, but not in reality.
	We don't have different levels of truth.
	We have one truth.
	There is one truth.
	Jessie lived.
	Jessie died December 14, 2012, at the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
	Jessie died a hero.
	He saved nine of the little kids that day.
	Jesse's life matters.
	His legacy matters.
	Mr. Bankston at the beginning of the case told you about two different rules we have in society.
	I'm going to add one.
	He told you you can't recklessly tell lies about somebody.
	He told you you can't recklessly tell lies about something important to someone.
	And here's the rule I'm gonna add.
	If you do, you have to pay for it.
	And that's what we're here to do, to make sure Alex Jones and his company pays for the reckless lies that they told about these folks.
	So why do we have these rules?
	Because speech is free, but you have to pay for your lies.
	That's what Mr. Banks had said in opening.
	You have to pay for the harm that they caused.
	If I go walk into a pottery barn and start smashing vases, nobody looks at me and says, well, just say you're sorry and go about your way.
	You have to pay for that loss.
	You have to be held accountable.
	Remember what Scarlett said just yesterday when she was talking about forgiveness.
	And she said, look, rape victims can forgive the assailant.
	But that doesn't mean that person isn't held accountable for what they did.
	This is obviously a civil case, but this is still your opportunity to hold Alex Jones accountable for the harm he did to Scarlett and the harm he did to Neil.
	So we follow the rules.
	This is how it works.
	This is from Fred Zipp.
	When you follow the rules, you check your sources.
	You do something to make sure the information that you're about to tell the world is accurate.
	If you're making accusations about people, there has to be solid evidence that that is true.
	And here's the thing, if you're wrong, and people are wrong, this isn't the first defamation case that's ever been brought in front of a jury, right?
	People get it wrong and you make a retraction.
	You minimize the harm.
	You minimize the damage.
	You don't keep doing it year and year and year, over and over and over again.
	That's chaos.
	We know the rules are broken.
	We know from, this is Ms. Paz, she testified via deposition.
	Ms. Karpova sat up on the stand that she was a corporate representative for free speech.
	Ms. Paz testified at deposition, she was also a corporate representative.
	And I know that may not mean a lot to you, but what it's saying is this is the company speaking because companies can't speak.
	So this is free speech systems speaking.
	What did she say?
	I don't think this is the question.
	I don't think we need to split a lot of hairs about what fake is or is not.
	Would you agree with me that the reason that we don't need to do this is because many, many times people on Infowars, including Mr. Jones, has unequivocally said that St. Luke is completely false, Totally synthetic.
	Manufactured.
	You agree with that?
	She said, I agree.
	Those are direct quotes on Mr. Jones' opinions, yes.
	We know we broke the rules.
	We know it from the jury charge that was just read.
	You were instructed that there was defamation against Neal Heslin and that there was intentional infliction of emotional distress against both Neal and Scar.
	And in case you're wondering why defamation with Neal, it's because he was singled out by name.
	Rob Jacobson.
	You remember him?
	He was a reporter who left.
	He testified, I heard them, I heard infowards making accusations based on extremely narrow cross-sections of information.
	Then I did my best to make the writers and the staff aware that what they were doing was speculation based on not enough information.
	It bothered me.
	That bothered me that I thought they had no concept of journalistic ethics.
	That's what he's telling the folks at InfoWars.
	And if you think for a second that he misremembered what he said, Adon Salazar confirmed it.
	I testify in a deposition.
	He was asked, did Mr. Jacobson ever advise you of his concerns about relying on Mr. Haldig as a source for reporting that Sandy Hook was a scripted event?
	He says, Mr. Jacobson, I think, did raise concerns, but I didn't really regard them because Mr. Jacobson had some wild theories about a lot of things, so they ignored him.
	What did Mr. Salazar actually want to do?
	he wanted to make bumper stickers and t-shirts that said, "Halbig was right." The seed was planted, the misinformation was planted the day of the shooting, December 14, 2012, Alex Jones is on air, and he's calling it a false flag already.
	He has no information.
	The media, because they're trying to get information out as they get it in, and that's a criticism.
	He says, oh, there's this many people that were killed, and that number changes as information becomes available.
	He says, that's the conspiracy.
	That's the thing that we should be worried about.
	Not that he goes on instantly and says, this is a false flag, that maybe it's CIA or FBI agents that killed these children, or maybe they didn't die at all.
	That's not what we have to worry about.
	We have to worry about the media to see an influence.
	We changed the number of deaths.
	The videos are in evidence.
	I'm going to go through a few.
	I'm not going to actually play the videos, but I'm going to go through just some of the things he said.
	2013, an inside job.
	That's inside his government.
	He thinks the CIA maybe.
	And one thing that has struck me this whole trial is this idea that There was a time Alex Jones thought the government killed the children.
	Then there was a time he thought it was a complete hoax and it never happened.
	And then there was a time he thought the government killed the children.
	He just said on the stand today that maybe the FBI killed those children.
	How is that any less painful to these people?
	How is it any less painful to hear, you're a crisis actor and this never happened, or you actually did have a child, but by the way, the government killed him for some political gain.
	That's not less painful to them.
	That's not an excuse.
	2014, total hoax.
	Photos of kids still alive, they said died.
	2015, synthetic.
	Completely fake with actors.
	This is Exhibit 31, it's been talked about a lot.
	You'll be able to look at the dates and the titles.
	Most of the videos are in evidence also.
	But if we just start looking, I'm not gonna show them all, just picking a few.
	2012, this is the day of the accident.
	Connecticut school massacre looks like false flags, says witnesses.
	The next year early.
	Why people think Sandy Hook is a hoax.
	A month later, children of Sandy Hook to perform at Super Bowl.
	A couple months later, crisis actors used at Sandy Hook, special report.
	Crisis actors used at Sandy Hook.
	This idea, as if it is a defense at all, that he didn't start believing that it was a complete hoax until 2014 or 15. In 2013, he says crisis actors used at Sandy Hook.
	2014, revealed Sandy Hook, truth exposed.
	Same year, bombshell, Sandy Hook massacre was a DHS illusion, says school safety expert.
	We all know who that school safety expert is.
	It's Wolfgang Holiday Book.
	September 2014, Sandy Hook deaths missing from FBI report.
	Because he looked at table eight, not table nine.
	May 2015, Sandy Hook, the lies keep growing.
	July 2015, government is manufacturing crisis.
	And that takes us to Owen Schroer.
	His June 25, 2017 telecast show, Hit Piece, Defamation.
	Mr. Schroer was on the stand and I went through a list of items that he didn't know before he ran.
	Never heard of Mr. Hessling.
	He didn't do anything to fact check the accuracy of his report.
	Nothing.
	Remember what he said?
	He said, I remembered I was walking back.
	He was there and he said, I could have done a better job.
	And I turned around and I said, you could have done a job.
	Because you did nothing to fact check that.
	Didn't watch the video clips.
	May not have actually even read the article first.
	Never heard of iBankCoin.
	Never heard of the author, Zero Point Now.
	I'm going to stop here for a second, because during the video that the defense played just today, Alex Jones, on that video, went to some report, and it had all these quotes that were good for him.
	Do you remember that?
	Things that he liked.
	And it was published by iBankCoin, and it was ran on Zero Hedge.
	You heard testimony.
	What Zero Hedge is, is a blog that you could post anonymous stories on.
	And if you remember, the story he was talking about was Zero Point Now.
	That was the author.
	So he's taking articles from a blog that anybody can publish on that are positive to him from an author named Zero Point Now.
	I wonder where that author works.
	He talks about In this trial, it talks about how Megyn Kelly was so unfair to cut the clips, how we've been so unfair when we cut clips.
	That's what he did.
	That's why we're here.
	This is Mr. Carver, the medical examiner.
	And you remember the question he asked was, what condition were the bodies in when the parents had to identify their children?
	And he goes on to say, well, we didn't do that.
	We didn't bring the children and the parents together.
	He's answering the question.
	That's not how they identified the children.
	That would be a level of cruelty that's hard to even imagine.
	If you just brought parents in to a moor, you just had them look around and they'll have found their child.
	They interviewed him and said, what was he wearing?
	I've got photographers.
	What do you say?
	The best photographers.
	Ones that can take pictures that aren't As horrendous as they have to be to make these identifications, and they cut it to make it sound like he never saw his kids.
	The Anderson Cooper interview with the McConnell family cut her answer in mid-answer when she says, I wanted to see my child, and then cut it off, and she says, but I decided not to because I wanted to remember her as she was.
	She wanted to remember Grace with her long blonde hair and her bows in it.
	The article that's shown was written by Jim Fetzer.
	We've heard testimony about him today.
	He's mentally ill.
	You know we throw these terms around like crazy or whatever and it's it's It's unfortunate.
	He's a mentally ill person.
	He's a discredited Former professor from the University of Minnesota This past testified about him
	She said, prior to this June 26, 2017, part of the video, June 26, 2017, that discusses information from Mr. Fetzer, the company had in its possession an extremely large volume of emails from Ms. Fetzer, which clearly revealed to any rational person that Mr. Fetzer is not mentally balanced.
	Correct?
	She says, are you asking whether they're in our possession or whether, yes.
	They're in a position.
	They're on our email server.
	They knew before that he is not mentally well.
	That's why they never had him on the show.
	We have an email from Paul Watson.
	This is a year and a half before that article was It's promoted by the most batshit crazy people like Ritz and Fetzer, who all hate us anyway, and makes us look bad.
	There is no doubt they knew he was crazy.
	So they took a man who they thought was mentally ill, wrote an article, published it by an anonymous author on a blog, and ran with it.
	And this idea that they're just republishing that, you saw the video multiple times.
	Ian Shroyer is not just republishing it.
	He says, that's not something you would forget, holding your dead child.
	And he kept calling it a claim.
	He claims this and he claims that and he shows these other videos to try to prove it's wrong.
	And then he demands some sort of explanation from Mr. Heslin like he owes Owen Shroyer anything in the world.
	Final statement on Sandy Hook.
	Mr. Jones again testified just today.
	This was my attempt.
	This was going to be my final statement.
	I didn't want anything to do with it anymore.
	I wanted out of it.
	I was getting beat up by it.
	I went out.
	I'm going to tell the world I believe Sandy Hook happened and I believe these parents are real and that Jesse lived.
	What does he say at the very end of that?
	I'm a parent and my heart goes out to all parents that have lost children in these tragic events.
	And so if children were lost in Sandy Hook, my heart goes out to each and every one of those parents and the people that say they're parents that I see on the news.
	The only problem is I've watched a lot of soap operas and I've seen actors before.
	And I know when I'm watching a movie, I know when I'm watching something real.
	Let's look into Sandy Hook.
	I know when I'm watching a movie and I know when I'm watching something real.
	Let's look into Sandy Hook.
	That was his way of conveying what he testified today that it probably did happen.
	He couldn't even testify today.
	He said, this is my way of saying it probably happened.
	That's not saying it happened.
	That's saying it didn't happen.
	That's saying that they're actors.
	It's saying exactly what he said years before us.
	What is the impact when you break your rules?
	Because, you know, Mr. Bankson talked to me in opening.
	I think he's right.
	There's nothing that's ever happened like this before.
	Sure, there's been defamation cases.
	Articles in newspapers or magazines have been run that have something wrong.
	There has never been a continuous year-after-year campaign of defamation and intentional This is the first year to ever hear anything like this.
	This isn't a fender bender that Mr. Rinal kept talking about in jury selection.
	This is a decade of lies, a decade of deceit.
	It destroyed people's lives.
	Good people, people that chose love.
	He's made them live their lives in fear.
	Fear of actually being harmed or murdered by people that follow the lies That believe the lies and the hate that come from Mr Jones.
	You heard Scarlett testify, healing and fear are mutually exclusive.
	She cannot heal while she's in fear.
	She can't heal, the law suggests, while she stays in fear.
	One of the things that I thought was powerful from Scarlett when she testified a lot, And she talked directly to Alex and she said, Alex, every day in my life has been a little bit worse because you're, every day in her life, a little bit worse for what he's done.
	You heard from our expert, Becca Lewis, on misinformation and she told you that misinformation spreads six times faster than truth.
	Six times faster.
	So these lies are spreading across the country at an insane rate.
	People are taking action.
	They're confronting them all the time.
	Neil was asked by Mr. Rinald, he was asked, well how often, how often are you getting harassed?
	And he said, sometimes, you know, not for a month or two.
	Sometimes a dozen times in a week.
	The thing that caught my ear was sometimes he can go two whole months without being harassed.
	It's been nine and a half years.
	His house was shut up.
	His car was shut up.
	Somebody drove by his house, and to Neil's credit, he said, I don't want to speculate.
	It sounded like gunfire, but he yelled Infowars and Alex Jones, and he thought he heard gunfire.
	They harass him online.
	There's death threats.
	We heard the death threat from Mr. Posner.
	That lady went to prison.
	This idea that they can't say it's all from Alex Jones, she went to prison and was not allowed to get on Infowars.com as part of her punishment.
	It's all from Alex Jones.
	Becca Lewis talked about that.
	His reach is so much greater than anybody else's.
	There's nothing else out there close in the misinformation.
	Each time, even when Each time, they're confronted.
	They just reset the healing.
	They have to live the worst day, week, or month, that first painful part of their life, again, after Jesse's death.
	Every time.
	And some of it's innocent.
	You heard Neil talking about, some of it's innocent.
	Right?
	It's a friend.
	Man, did you hear that new crazy theory that Jesse never died, or that Jesse was killed by a CIA agent?
	Did you hear about that?
	That's not malicious, but it affects them just the same.
	Sure, that doesn't scare them, but it resets, and it resets that pain every single time.
	So they started devoting themselves to protecting Jesse's legacy.
	You heard Mr. Michael Crouch talk about, and we all know this, parents have to protect their kids.
	It's what we're here for.
	We protect our kids.
	Jesse's gone.
	They can't protect him.
	And there's some sense of guilt that they both clearly know.
	There's nothing they could have done.
	It's not their fault that Jesse was killed.
	But there's always a sense of guilt.
	So they are protecting his legacy in different ways.
	Neil is fighting the disinformation.
	He's here making sure we're going to fight.
	Scarlet as choose hope, choose love.
	Goes around the country trying to make sure these type of things don't happen again.
	What's hard for them is to know that the motive was money.
	It was money.
	If somebody makes a mistake, Off the death of your child.
	Someone's making money off of that by spreading misinformation and spreading lies.
	That absolutely hurts.
	You've heard Alex Jones talk about, today, $70 million in revenue.
	He testified to that.
	He testified on direct in 2012. That was his goal, if you'll remember, yesterday.
	He said, in 2012, I had a goal to get $70 million in revenue.
	He achieved it.
	through lies, through misinformation, through riling up a base of conspiracy theorists that all want to go buy his precovier now, buy his food.
	Alex Jones doesn't find value, or doesn't value Neil and Scarlett's pain he finds value in their pain sees value there is a complete inability to take responsibility It's just excuses.
	Today, there's no ability to take responsibility.
	Saying I'm sorry is not taking responsibility.
	It's not.
	Being forgiven by Scarlett isn't taking responsibility.
	I think she had the best possible analogy when she said, you can forgive the rapist, but he still has to be held accountable.
	I'm sorry's don't cut it.
	You caused damage.
	You caused harm.
	You have to pay for what you broke.
	And the thing I keep noticing is every I'm sorry has a comma button, right?
	It's never just I'm sorry for what I did.
	It's I'm sorry, but that Megyn Kelly, she went out and she got me.
	She entrapped me.
	Megyn Kelly's a reporter just like Alex Jones is.
	I'm sorry, but I'm not responsible.
	Whoa.
	Miss Pass testified this.
	Okay, but you did agree that InfoWars, its coverage did impact the grieving process.
	You just don't think they have any responsibility for it, right?
	What you say, that's correct.
	We hurt these folks.
	Our coverage hurt these folks.
	We're just not responsible.
	That's this whole trial.
	It's been one excuse after another.
	I'm going to go through the nine that I sort of heard.
	You may have heard a little bit different, but I think this covers the gist.
	I'm going to go talk about each one.
	Return a verdict of one dollar.
	That is not taking responsibility.
	What did Ian Shroyer say when he was asked the question?
	If you had it to do over again, would you do anything different?
	He said, yeah, I wouldn't air the piece at all.
	It has really negatively affected, not these folks, my life and career.
	This lawsuit has affected Alex Jones' well-being.
	I heard a lot about that today.
	Other people were spreading the lies.
	Less than half a percent of our coverage was about Sandy Hook.
	They should have called Alex Jones and worked through their pain with him.
	Believing Wolfgang Halbig's credentials was the worst decision InfoWars ever made.
	Neil and Scarlett are maligners who lied to Dr. Lubit and Michael Crouch.
	And Joan said he's sorry.
	Let's talk about each one of those.
	Return of verdict is one dollar.
	This is the jury charged.
	And you've been instructed that Alex Jones and Free Speech Systems committed intentional infliction of emotional distress against Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis.
	And in that definition of intentional infliction of emotional distress, just so when you get there you'll know, the emotional distress suffered by plaintiff was severe.
	You were instructed their emotional distress is severe.
	Has gone beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.
	Utterly tolerable for what we're doing in our community, our civilization.
	We can't do that.
	The idea of returning over the verdict of one dollar is, it's, Sconet said, every day he's made my life worse since shortly after Jesse died.
	Schroyer says, you want to ask the question?
	If you had it to do over, would you make any changes?
	He said, no, we're near the peace.
	It has negatively affected my life and career.
	He's in the same job making $130,000 a year.
	of the year doesn't sound too negative.
	That is a level of inability to accept responsibility It's hard to grasp.
	And there was a question I want to address.
	One of the questions Was whether or not Alex Jones would take responsibility for the folks that work for him.
	And he said, graciously, he said, yes, I absolutely would.
	I do want to make sure that if we look at the jury charge, though, For cause of action number one, it says, you are instructed that defendants Alex Jones and Free Speech Systems LLC committed defamations against Neil Heslin.
	It goes on to say, you are further instructed that defendants Alex Jones and Free Speech Systems LLC published statements that were false and defamatory concerning Neil Heslin Point being, the court has already instructed you, free speech systems and Alex Jones are responsible for Owen Schroer's defamation.
	There's two dates also because Alex Jones republished that on July 20th, 2017. This lawsuit has affected Alex Jones' well-being.
	I gotta say, the biggest defense I've heard is he's the victim.
	He caused all this pain to this family and he's the victim.
	Ms. Karpova testified, people think Alex Jones killed those children.
	No, they don't.
	Nobody thinks that, Alex.
	Nobody does.
	You killed their ability to get over the loss of their children.
	You didn't kill their children.
	He's the victim?
	What did he say when he was asked by Mr. Rinaldo about being And now people can say whatever they want about you, and everyone else can attack you, and you can't fight back.
	That's what he said about being deplatformed.
	That sounds exactly like what he did to these folks, right?
	Exactly what he did to them.
	They didn't have an ability to fight back.
	This is their fighting back.
	They told you, Alex Jones wasn't the only one spreading these lies, there's other people.
	What did Detective Jewish say?
	Remember, he talked about how He's still the lead detective because their role really became support the families.
	Support the families at all costs.
	There was a trooper assigned to every family for a year.
	And he was asked, have you heard of these other people?
	I said, no, I've only heard of Alex Jones and Wolfgang Holbeck.
	That's the only two.
	Owen Schorier testified, same.
	Alex Jones and Wolfgang Holbeck, it was spreading this information.
	And what did Wolfgang Holbeck say?
	He said, without Infowars, nobody would hear the truth.
	Wolfgang Halbeck had no ability to get his message out.
	His web of lies that he came up with, his 16 questions or whatever it was, the only way to get that out was through Infowars and Alex Jones.
	He didn't have a TV show or a radio broadcast or a website with any real traffic on it at all.
	Nothing.
	It's all through Alex Jones and Infowars.
	Becca Lewis testified.
	And she said, she was asked the question, more likely than not, for all these people getting this misinformation, the 24% of Americans that think Sandy Hook was either faked or in some way have questions about its validity, all these people, where did they get their information?
	And she said, in academics, we don't do a lot of absolutes.
	We just don't.
	This is what I can.
	It absolutely came from Alex Jones and it absolutely came from InfoWars.
	Less than 5% of our coverage was about Sandy Hook.
	I think the question that the juror asked, just because you commit crimes seldomly, does that mean you shouldn't be held responsible?
	Absolutely not.
	That's crazy.
	Of course you're held responsible whenever you break the law, whenever you defame somebody.
	You don't have to defame them 20 times.
	Just once, but that's not what happened in this case.
	Again, 27 hours of agreed-upon, agreed-upon coverage of Sandy Hook by informers.
	27 hours.
	I object, this is exactly the evidence that I've been trying to get in and that you excluded for 20 hours.
	Your objection's overruled.
	That's unprecedented.
	Like I said earlier, most defamation cases, one article that ran.
	27 hours of coverage over years.
	Doesn't help that it's hidden between 99.5% of other libelists and slanders and lies and misinformation.
	It doesn't matter that it's hidden in there.
	It matters what it did to these people, who heard it, and how they reacted, and how they came after them and attacked them.
	That's what matters.
	They should have worked through their pain with Alex Jones.
	Neil Heson called him a psychopath on the stand.
	Why would he call Alex Jones and want to sit down and work through their pain with Alex Jones?
	Literally, literally the last person in the world that this family would want to sit down with and work through their pain.
	Believing Wolfing Halbig's credentials was the worst decision Infowars ever made, that's what Ms. Karpova testified to.
	The word credentials I find sort of funny.
	I don't know how you have credentials that allow you to say children were kidnapped by a satanic cult and put on the Super Bowl stage for seeing to us and then taken off it.
	There's no credentials for that.
	We don't have like an apprenticeship program for that.
	But they knew.
	The thing is, they knew that he was not mentally well.
	Paz testifies to him.
	But you can agree that there are plenty of emails he sent in 2014 that the company did in fact read and thanked him for him.
	She says, yes.
	That are crazy.
	She says, yeah, that happened in 2014. Adam Salazar says the same.
	Well, actually, what Adam Salazar, remember, he put a lot of articles up to the Wolfgang.
	And he said, beyond listening to the interview and visiting the website you described, you did nothing.
	Further check Mr. Havre's credentials and credibility, correct?
	He says, yeah, that's correct.
	This is Exhibit 51. It was in a deposition with Mr. Salazar, and it's an email exchange.
	I'm not going to go through it all.
	From 2014, in March, It goes through all these reasons that Wilking is not credible.
	This idea that he was an expert in Columbine, not true.
	This idea that he's some sort of foremost school safety expert, not true.
	He just made all that up and people believed it.
	Nobody fact-checked any of that.
	This is the picture, the Super Bowl picture.
	For the kids at Sandy Hook, In February of 2013, Wynton sang at the Super Bowl.
	He says, this is Jesse Lewis' fake name.
	He sends that to InfoWars, March 2015. And Nico at InfoWars responds, got the Super Bowl pick, thank you for sending.
	This should have been a pretty good sign.
	We really shouldn't have him on the show.
	I don't think he's quite right.
	I don't think he's mentally stable.
	We should stop basing our weird conspiracy theory that Sandy Hook didn't happen from this guy, because he's really the source.
	He's the number one guy.
	This is why it's intentional infliction of emotional distress.
	This is intentional.
	When you start getting all the warning signs and you keep going after people, it becomes intentional.
	It's not a mistake.
	It's not negligent anymore.
	It's intentional.
	Neil and Scarlett are malingers who lied to Lubick and Mr. Crouch.
	So you sort of have to think about how that would work because Mr. Crouch said, The first notes about some sort of profiteering and conspiracy theories appears in 2013. So Neil has to think to himself, I think in three years there's going to be this election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and I think Hillary's probably going to run some hit pieces on Donald Trump, linking him to Alex Jones and his conspiracy theory.
	So if I want to take Alex Jones down in 2022, I need to start right now complaining about it.
	That's how you have to get there.
	conspiracy.
	He said he's sorry.
	Don't say sorry.
	Remember what Mr. Badandi said?
	He said, just Operation Cover Your Ass.
	I mean, if you're going to report something, make sure you got documented facts so we don't get sued.
	That was a big thing, you know what I mean?
	He said, and that was the term that they actually used?
	Operation Cover Your Ass?
	He said, yeah.
	That was Rob Du's term.
	Just make sure.
	Does anybody not think that those apologies are part of Operation Cover Your Ass?
	He realized the heat was coming.
	Lawsuits were getting threatened.
	You went to Operation Cover Your Ass.
	You just testified today that maybe the FBI killed those kids too.
	He was about halfway out and Mr. Banks interjected and said, what are we talking about anymore?
	And he says he's learned, he said he learned his lesson.
	I think Mr. Shroyer said Mass death, mass events since then.
	Staged hoax, staged hoax, staged hoax.
	It's not learning your lesson, it's doing the same thing over and over and over again.
	So what is your role?
	A couple things before we get to the actual role.
	You remember Christopher Daniels, he was asked, do you believe that calling somebody a crisis actor would be a horrible claim, right?
	He said, if it's false.
	Question, so falsely saying that someone is a crisis actor would be a horrible claim.
	He says, well, it depends on the context.
	I mean, you don't want to be called something that you're not, you know?
	Adam Salazar, I'm sorry, Adan Salazar, did it occur to you how families who have lost loved ones at San Diego would react?
	To an allegation that, in fact, their children were murdered in an event that was scripted and planned over two and a half years.
	Would that occur to you?
	No.
	I didn't think about that.
	So what is your role?
	We see things on the news all the time.
	We say, man, somebody should do something about that.
	That's not right.
	We should do something about that.
	That's your role.
	You get to do something about that.
	Right now, right today, do something about the harm that was caused by these folks.
	Your job is to determine the right amount.
	What is just and fair compensation for the harm that was caused to Neal into Scarlet?
	And if you remember back in jury selection, There was a question that was asked, is there anybody here that just cannot give over $100 million, regardless of what the evidence showed?
	A bunch of people raised their hands and they were talked to.
	None of those people were on the jury.
	And there was a question.
	Is there anybody here that can't give middle language damages?
	And a bunch of people raised their hand.
	Nobody here is on that jury, is on this jury.
	This jury is comprised of people that are willing and capable to give a large verdict if the evidence shows it.
	And the evidence absolutely shows it in this case.
	So what does it cost, Alex Jones and his company, to steal the last memory Neil Heslin had of Jesse?
	to steal it from me in the pursuit of selling more products.
	What does it cost Alex Jones and his company to spread lies and rile up a face and spread lies so vile that people actually came and accosted him and harassed him and sent them death threats and sent death threats to other people?
	shoot at his house?
	What does it cost to do that all in the goal of selling more pills?
	What does it cost to destroy reputations, not just in Sandy Hook or Newtown, not just Connecticut, not even just the United States, the entire world to destroy people's reputations, and the entire world all in the pursuit of selling more prepper gear?
	What does it cost when a mom can't even turn on her air conditioning at night in the summer for fear that she'll miss the sound of an intruder coming in?
	just to sell more gear, to make more money, to hit that $70 million revenue goal in 2012.
	What is it going to take to make sure Alex Jones and his companies pay for what they broke?
	You remember Mr. Crouch?
	He was on the stand that this is a psychotherapist.
	Mr. Renal asked him a question about the buckets.
	How do you differentiate the pain that these folks felt for the loss of Jesse, which is real?
	and Dr. Lubit and Mr. Kraus, once the book testified you never really get over the loss of a child.
	It's not the normal course of life.
	It's different.
	We can't really get over this.
	We can get better and we get functional and we start enjoying life and we start remembering the good things.
	And they were there, they were starting to remember the good things, but the question was, how do you separate those buckets?
	And Mr. Krause said, that's easy.
	This is a whole separate and distinct injury.
	Each one of those buckets has mental anguish and it has grief, and the one that Alex Jones caused him is full.
	That's what he said.
	And Dr. Lupin talked about that too.
	I was, I was, did it.
	I'm not even in trouble.
	The idea that you're not, you're out of emotions.
	You're all done.
	You're flat.
	They talked about seeing the different interviews from Neil from 2012, 2017, and one recent one, and he's flat.
	He's all out of emotion.
	The fear, the anxiety, the drive to keep Jesse alive, to keep his legacy, to not have it tarnished as some sort of false actor or fake or that he didn't exist.
	He's taking it all out of him.
	They're still protecting Jesse.
	That's what Mr. Krabs said.
	That's their job.
	He said that this verdict We'll tell the world that Jesse lived.
	That he was real.
	That he mattered.
	And that the lies are just that.
	They're lies.
	So what does it take to fix what he broke at number 24%?
	that 75 million adult Americans believe that Sandy Hook is staged, faked, or at least have some doubt as to whether or not it's real.
	A dollar a person that believes that lie.
	I said 75, 150 million, I'm sorry.
	150 million Americans.
	A dollar a person, for everybody who believes that lie, is the fair, it's the reasonable, it's the just amount.
	The weight of that many people.
	Every time, it doesn't matter where they go, they want to go on vacation to Miami or wherever they may be.
	One out of four people walk by, they don't know if they think that person is somebody who thinks any of it was a host, was a complete host.
	And of those, they don't know are any of them going to recognize them.
	And of those, are any of them dangerous?
	That's not a way to live your life.
	That's why they retreated.
	They don't have friends.
	They don't go do things anymore.
	I could have stood up here and said what Miss Lewis talked about.
	She said the InfoWars site had three billion hits from I think it was 2012 to 2019. Three billion hits.
	Not three billion different users.
	That's not what she said.
	She said three billion hits.
	You can't tell how many different users.
	You can only tell the number of hits.
	Could have said a dollar per person who clicked on that website would be fair.
	But it's 75 million for Neil.
	75 million for Scarlett, for what they've had to endure.
	For every day of your life being a little bit worse because somebody else exists and somebody else keeps spreading lies about you, intentionally, recklessly, maliciously. recklessly, maliciously.
	One of the things you may have noticed when you're reading through the jury charge is that Neal has the claim for defamation that Scarlett doesn't.
	So he's got more places to be compensated.
	He's got lots of reputational damages and middle language specific for that.
	I think he put $75 million to total for each one.
	So for Neil, that's $12,500,000 for each one of those spots.
	Scarlett only has two lines, so hers is 37,500,000.
	The impact.
	The impact of what they've done has lasted and continues to last its time.
	It's nine and a half years and it's going to keep going.
	It's not stopping.
	Even if Alex Jones stops talking about it right now, it's out there.
	Those people are still going to arrest him.
	That damage is done.
	It has taken years to get to this point, to get in front of you, for Neal to be able to tell this story and Scarlett to be able to tell her story.
	Years of fight.
	When you go back to around 40 years, it's a hard process.
	Stick with it.
	The truth matters.
	It's too important.
	Don't compromise the truth.
	Neil told you on the stand that Alex started this fight and that he intends to end it.
	Your verdict ends that fight.
	End this nightmare for them.
	Thank you, Mr. Farah.
	I think I think we should take a short break and then we'll come back.
	so let's take a 15 minute break 3:10 so remember you're still not all rise all rise all rise all rise all rise all rise
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	All right, you may be seated.
	Mr. Brainel, whenever you're ready.
	Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it's an honor to be standing here in front of you again about a week and a half after we first began this trial.
	Thank you.
	These last few days have gone by in a blur for me.
	And I'm sure they've gone by in a blur for you as well.
	You have a very, very important decision to make.
	And I don't envy you that.
	I don't envy you that.
	It's going to be hard.
	And I think the best way that I can help you to make that decision is by superimposing the facts and the law as they were from the court's instructions and from the actual evidence that we heard from the witness stand and that we got in the form of videos and in the form of documents.
	We are here to discuss actual damages.
	I'd like you all to remember Before this trial started, the court told you, instructed you, that there are two phases.
	This is phase one.
	Now is the time to decide actual damages, actual compensation.
	I understand that there may be some of you who believe that Mr. Jones needs to be punished for what he did.
	And you're gonna have the opportunity to send that message.
	But you haven't heard all the evidence yet so that you can send it.
	You're gonna hear more and you're gonna retire to deliberate again.
	And I'm gonna have the opportunity to address you again.
	And there's so much I heard during Mr. Farah's argument that is all about punishment.
	I'm going to talk to you guys about punishment when the time comes.
	But today, right now, I want to talk to you about actual damages.
	And actual damages require actual evidence.
	Not what you wish the evidence was or you hope the evidence had been.
	Now's the time when you can actually hold us to our word.
	I said during our opening statement, a lawyer's opening statement is not like a politician's speech.
	You get to hold us to our burden.
	Hold them to their burden.
	They brought this case.
	They need to prove it.
	On the bottom of every slide you're going to see today is the question in yellow.
	Where is the evidence?
	Over the next few minutes I want to talk about five different things.
	I want to review the facts as we learnt them from the witness stand, through the documents and through the videos.
	I want to review with you some of the key instructions that the court has already given you and that will guide you in your deliberations.
	And then I want to review the evidence specifically as it relates to whether Alex Jones caused Neal Nestle and Scarlett Lewis to be harassed.
	Whether Alex Jones caused Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis to suffer mental anguish.
	Whether Alex Jones caused damage to their reputation.
	And I prepared this PowerPoint Based on the opening statement, it seems to be a bit of a moving target.
	We had been at 75 million.
	Now we're at 150 million.
	There was some suggestion that maybe we should be at 3 billion.
	So I'm going to have something to say to you all about that.
	And finally, I want to talk to you about the verdict form, the numbers that we think are appropriate in this case, and what your verdict and what your verdict should be and why.
	Let's talk about the facts.
	What is it that are the facts beyond change?
	What are the things that we can all agree have been proven through the evidence?
	We can all agree that on December 14, 2012, Adam Lanza shot his way into an elementary school in Sandy Hook, Connecticut and murdered 20 children And six educators.
	We can all agree that that very day, two groups of people became intensely interested in what had happened.
	On the one hand, you had politicians and the mainstream media.
	They descended on Sandy Hook like vultures.
	Trying to get a story and trying to push a message.
	I talked to Mr. Hesslin about that.
	About whether death and murder should be private events.
	It's sad that we live in a country like that.
	But we do.
	And that is the price we pay in some ways for transparency.
	They came and they reported.
	And they reported irresponsibly.
	And a lot of the things that they reported turned out to be incorrect, and a lot of the things that they reported fed into a conspiracy narrative that was driven by people who were known as the truthers.
	People who'd been active since the Kennedy assassination, who had gotten online after September 11th, who included people like Wolfgang Halby,
	Steve Pechenik, James Fetzer, Dr. James Tracy, and hundreds or thousands of others that organized around Facebook and YouTube and other areas.
	Detective Drew has testified about it.
	Where was Alex Jones when that happened?
	He was 1500 miles away in Austin, Texas.
	And he was just as shocked as everyone else.
	I have endeavored every chance I could to play for you unedited, complete video.
	You all watched Alex on the first day.
	You watched that 51 minutes and you heard, I don't need to tell you.
	I don't need to remind you.
	You watched it.
	It's in evidence.
	I don't need to reframe it.
	I don't need to turn it into a video clip.
	It is there.
	So what do we know?
	We know that there was intense public interest and public scrutiny.
	We know that Alex Has a talk show where he invites guests, where he takes callers, and we know that he reported on what had happened at San Diego.
	And Alex doesn't trust the government.
	He doesn't trust the official mayor.
	You know, we heard during closing argument that Alex had said from the witness stand that the FBI killed the children?
	Y'all were here.
	He said that the New York Times had reported that an FBI agent interviewed Adam Lanza four years before the murders.
	We're here about facts that come from the witness stand, not what people wish they had said.
	So Alex ran with the story.
	And he made a mistake.
	He trusted the wrong people.
	He was going through a difficult time in his life.
	And he ran with a story that ended up being false.
	The court has instructed us about it.
	At the time, Steve Pachenik was somebody that he trusted.
	And Wolfgang Halbig, as far as he was concerned, seemed credentialed.
	He made a terrible mistake.
	But what happens next?
	That mistake was weaponized by the same political forces that had descended upon San Diego.
	And it was magnified and amplified throughout the 2016 election.
	We talk about, it's sad, we talk about people feeding off these children.
	Politicians, the news media, right?
	I mean, it's happening everywhere.
	And so it becomes this election issue, and that magnifies it.
	And let's get one thing straight that both Mr. Heslin and Ms. Lewis testified, and is corroborated by Dr. Crouch's patient notes, which are contemporaneous.
	Before 2018, Neither Scarlett Lewis nor Neil Heslund had ever watched a single Alex Jones broadcast.
	They hadn't.
	So, Megyn Kelly is running her hit piece.
	And we didn't get from the evidence why Neil reached out to her, or how that process worked.
	It's just a gap in the evidence.
	Because you all need to base your verdict on the evidence.
	So, I don't know.
	Perhaps it's fair to infer that because of the campaign coverage that had been given to the Sandy Hook event, he felt he needed to reach out.
	The point is, after that, Alex finds out what's going to happen.
	And he tries to intervene.
	He goes on his show, he accuses the mainstream media of Perverting what he's saying.
	What he no longer believes.
	He reaches out to Neil Heslund.
	Well, to all the San Diego families, right?
	He never mentions Neil by name.
	And guess what?
	Nobody listens.
	Why doesn't anybody listen?
	Because Alex's platform isn't that big.
	He's not Hillary Clinton.
	He's not Megyn Kelly.
	When he goes on, not that many people listen.
	I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to minimize his platform.
	He has a platform, but it's not the kind of national platform that they're talking about.
	And that came through in the evidence.
	He's got 40, well, sorry, now 80 employees.
	At the time, you know, 50 employees.
	And this is not the New York Times.
	This isn't CNN.
	This is a talk show in Austin, Texas.
	So Neil goes on the show and Owen Schroer, a young reporter, runs this Zero Edge piece.
	And the court has found that that piece was defamatory.
	What did we learn from the witness thing?
	Neither Neil nor Scarlett knew about it.
	They had no idea And I put it to you that it is fair to infer from the evidence that someone,
	something, weaponized Neal and Scarlett's grief and convinced them that Alex Jones was responsible.
	I asked them both on the stand, did you review the videos?
	No.
	And I'm not saying that they should, right?
	But I asked them, how did you come to this conclusion that Alex Jones is the root of all that is wrong with your life?
	And the only answer they had is that that's what I've heard.
	That's what I'm convinced of.
	You all sitting here Have the chance to actually examine that.
	And that's what actual damages are about.
	It's about examining whether Alex's actions and his words actually cause harm.
	The most important evidence in the case are the videos.
	Right?
	The complete, unedited videos.
	They are a contemporaneous record of everything that Alex said.
	The plaintiffs have excellent papers.
	And they've spared no expense.
	They chose the case that they wanted to put on.
	And the case that they wanted to put on did not have 27 hours of video.
	I changed this because it changed during their closing.
	I did have a nice PowerPoint.
	I have received some criticism from my flipcharts.
	I hope everybody can see them.
	Between 2012 and 2018, in evidence, we have 18 hours and 43 minutes of data.
	What did we get from the witness stand in terms of how much time InfoWars is broadcasting?
	Alex Jones testified, and so did Darya Kalpova, that during the early years it was 7 hours a day, and that went up to 10 hours per day in 2017. If you take 18 hours and 43 minutes, and you divide it by the amount of time, 11,947 hours that they were on the air, that gives you 0.16%.
	I propose to you...
	We've spent more time talking about Sandy Hook during this trial than Alex Jones or his organization spent in six years talking about it.
	And they want to tell you that that drove people insane?
	You don't have to reject.
	It's the same reason we don't know what all the videos are.
	We've established that.
	In evidence.
	In evidence, Your Honor.
	That's all, but not, we don't know, in the world, we don't.
	Your Honor, I'd object to the commentary on the evidence.
	Your job and your instruction from the court is to base your verdict on the evidence that has been admitted and the testimony that we've received.
	They chose what case to bring.
	We don't want to be here at all.
	They have the burden.
	0.16%.
	And not only that, as we know, Mr. Heslin and Ms. Lewis, I'm sorry I called the mute on Scarlett earlier.
	That might have not been respectful of me and I apologize for it.
	Mr. Heslin and Ms. Lewis did not see any of those audio podcasts.
	They both testified to me.
	Let's talk about the law.
	In your jury instructions, there are several pieces that I would like to bring particular attention to.
	The first...
	This was something we talked about during the Word of Honor.
	Do not let bias, prejudice, or sympathy play any part in your decision.
	I put it to you that most of the presentation we've had thus far has been about bias and prejudice and sympathy.
	We entered this courtroom already having lost.
	That's why we're here just about damages.
	Yet that is what we hear the least about in this courtroom.
	Why is that?
	Because Mr. Heslin and Ms. Lewis are tremendously sympathetic people.
	They are.
	My heart goes out to them for their loss.
	They are tremendously sympathetic.
	But that has no role in the dispassionate oath you took to decide this case based on the facts.
	Similarly, thinking that Alex isn't a good person or hasn't done the right thing, if some of you all think that, should play no role in deciding whether there have been actual damages and to what extent, and whether they have been proven.
	Because now we can talk about what's been proven.
	It's on the second page of your jury instructions.
	Sub point two.
	Base your answers only on the evidence admitted in court and on the law in these instructions.
	Truth may be an amorphous concept outside this room.
	But in this room, truth comes from evidence, actual evidence that's been admitted.
	Truth is not true.
	This is a long one, proximate cause.
	You'll see it on every one Starting on page five, each one of the questions, the second full paragraph is proximate toss.
	And I'll give you a moment to read it for yourself before I continue.
	There are two aspects of proximate cause that I want to bring particular attention to.
	One, proximate cause means a cause that was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.
	A substantial factor.
	18 hours and 43 minutes over 6 years.
	Reasonable foreseeability.
	The act or omission complained of must be such that a person using ordinary care would have foreseen that the injury or some similar injury might reasonably result there.
	Ask yourself how reasonable is it for a talk show host in Austin, Texas to believe that 18 hours and 43 minutes of coverage that we have in evidence would cause Texas to believe that 18 hours and 43 minutes of coverage that we have in evidence would cause
	Pre-existing condition.
	We all know what that is.
	It's the horrific death of their child.
	I can't imagine the pain and suffering and anguish that comes from me.
	Dr. Crouch testified that it's not something you ever get over.
	I think he's absolutely right.
	So ask yourselves.
	Take that, when you go back to the Liberator, Think about that.
	Think about proximate cause.
	Think about pre-existing conditions.
	and follow the evidence as you heard it from the witness stand and as it came in through the videos.
	Let's talk about the evidence.
	Let's talk about the evidence.
	You know, This can be a stressful profession.
	And I have a hobby.
	I shoot a bow and arrow.
	It helps me to just concentrate on one thing and clear my mind of everything else.
	Now, I go to a range to do that.
	If I went to my range and shot for a couple of hours, And then sometime later, the owner of the range came to me and said, hey, there's been some damage to the range, and we think you did it.
	I'd say, well, how do you know?
	They'd say, no, no, no.
	We think you did it because you shot a lot of arrows.
	And I'd say, well, did you look at the arrow?
	Did you examine it?
	Well, no.
	And I say, okay, well, was anybody else out there shooting at the same time?
	They say, no, we don't care.
	You were out there.
	And then finally I say, well, you haven't looked at the arrows.
	You haven't looked at if anybody else was out there.
	And the answer is, well, someone told us you did.
	You say, who?
	Who told you this?
	Well, I don't know.
	That's kind of like the evidence we got in this case.
	Did Alex Jones make these statements?
	Yes, he did.
	And he genuinely apologized on the witness stamp, repeatedly.
	He said that they fell short.
	And I heard your questions to him.
	Are you going to change this?
	Have you changed this?
	What are you going to do so that this doesn't happen again?
	And he answered those questions truthfully.
	And his employees answered those questions truthfully as well.
	Corroboration.
	I spent a lot of time with Dr. Levitt talking about corroboration.
	Hey, Dr. Levitt, you're saying all these things Did you take any steps to corroborate them?
	Did you interview the neighbors?
	Did you ask for a police report?
	Did you do anything at all to substantiate that these things had happened?
	No, no, no.
	And one of you asked him, if I remember correctly, one of you asked him, Hey, Dr. LeBitte.
	I mean, words to this effect.
	Hey, Dr. LeBitte.
	If media organizations should substantiate their sources, why shouldn't forensic psychiatrists?
	And he just said, well, that's different.
	That's different.
	If the lawyers don't prove it, then you can throw out my entire opinion.
	Where's the evidence?
	Where's the evidence?
	Again, look to Dr. Crouch.
	First mention of Alex Jones, 2018. And he said he had nothing before that.
	I put to you, use your recollection, Dr. Crouch was handed an affidavit And asked to testify.
	His notes, his contemporaneous interviews, did not reflect this pattern of harassment that has been discussed.
	Again, where is the evidence?
	Also, go back to the number of hours.
	You'll have the exhibit.
	Look at how many Lewis testified that when she was at the wake for her son, she heard somebody talking about a conspiracy.
	You know that Alex Jones wasn't saying that the children hadn't died?
	Wolfgang Halby He actually is the only person we can say definitively ever did anything to Scarlett Lewis and Nielsen.
	We've got two emails from him.
	bear in mind this is a man who supposedly sent thousands of emails where are they where are the recordings We heard testimony that Scarlett Lewis has a sophisticated home security system.
	That's all we heard about.
	We didn't get any records.
	We didn't get any video.
	This case has been pending since 2018.
	If there were the kind of pattern of harassment that we're talking about, where's the evidence?
	And critically important also is the fact that the evidence shows that Alex Jones never said Scarlett Lewis's name.
	And And Owen Schroyer said Neil Heslund's name for the first time in 2017. They never published their addresses.
	Never even thought about it, really.
	There's no evidence.
	If people, if, and there again, we're speculating, if people were Where did they get that from?
	You have the videos to watch that the plaintiffs put in evidence.
	Is that more consistent with Alex Jones having directed some kind of harassment?
	or with people like Wolfgang Halbeck who are mentally ill, obsessed, acting on their own.
	Unfortunately, in a free society, there is risk associated with choice.
	We live in a community where some people just are unbalanced and are going to take action on their own.
	Is that reasonably foreseeable to every broadcaster?
	Most importantly, There was no call to action.
	Look through the videos.
	None.
	Mental condition.
	This is where a pre-existing condition comes in, and where you can also ask yourselves, who is responsible for who is responsible for the benefit?
	Is it Alex Jones or is it someone else?
	Follow your oath.
	It's not going to be popular.
	But zero evidence It's just like that auto accident we talked about during Board Iron.
	You have the auto accident.
	Somebody gets hurt.
	We talked about this.
	They say, hey!
	You break it, you buy it.
	If you lie about somebody and you hurt them, then you pay for it.
	How do you know?
	Show me the receipts.
	Show me the lost wages.
	Show me the healthcare costs.
	Show me the costs associated with therapy.
	Who asked those questions in this court?
	I did.
	That is evidence for you.
	And it came from our side.
	Because we're interested in truth.
	Not in edit video clips and supposition.
	Remember, you will have an opportunity to decide who are the damages.
	We are here about actual damages.
	And you all are smart people.
	You wouldn't be on this jury if you weren't smart people.
	We want smart people.
	We want people who are going to be diligent.
	People who are going to look at the evidence, who are going to follow their oath to decide the case on the facts.
	Damage their reputation.
	Again, where's the lost job opportunity?
	Where's the credit line that wasn't extended?
	Where's the social organization that was denied his membership?
	We had no evidence to corroborate that anyone thinks less of New York, in his community.
	Zero evidence equals minimal energy.
	Ask yourself, who's really responsible for these parents' pain?
	Is it Adam Lanza's mother who bought him the gun?
	Is it Adam Lanza who murdered her and then murdered 26 children?
	Is it the mainstream media misreporting the facts and events around Sandy Hook?
	Is it the truthers who are out there waiting for events like these to happen?
	Or is it the talk showers?
	Life is complicated.
	This job is complicated.
	Think about proximate cause.
	That instruction that is before every one of those questions.
	Was Alex Jones broadcast a substantial factor?
	And was it reasonably foreseeable to him?
	I forgot to mention, how about our electoral system that magnified and broadcast?
	That's not something Alex Jones did.
	It's something a campaign politician did in order to paint their opponent.
	What fault do they bear?
	Megyn Kelly, what responsibility does she have?
	150 million dollars.
	The next step is to make the product of the product.
	The product is a product of the product.
	It's their job to ask for a lot of money.
	It's your job to decide the case based on the evidence.
	There's a concept called anchoring.
	And the idea of anchoring is that if you say a really, really big number, people are going to work off of it.
	So if you say $150 million and then you guys go back and say, oh man, I don't think they proved it.
	I don't think they proved it.
	So why don't we give them 10% of it and award $15 million.
	That's not how this process works.
	They have the burden of proof.
	They start from zero, and they work their way up from there.
	And it's very creative.
	I mean, they're 24%.
	They brought in Becca Lewis, who's working on her Who read selected excerpts from other people's publications and then cited a study that if she'd taken the time to Google it.
	I asked her about this.
	If she'd taken the time to Google it, she would have found out that it's widely discredited.
	She admitted that there was an article by the Atlantic.
	Ask yourselves, is that number reasonable?
	I mean, there's 12 of you.
	Do three of you think Sandy Hook never happened?
	It's not reasonable.
	It's not right.
	And think about what $150 million represents.
	A person making $100,000 a year would have to work for 1,500 years to make $150 million.
	It would take 18 generations To make $150 million.
	And that's assuming you didn't spend anything.
	Let's say you saved half your money.
	3,000 years.
	32 generations.
	This isn't a real number.
	You know, I asked my son about $150 million.
	And he said, you know, that would weigh 33,000 pounds.
	The equivalent of eight fully grown elephants.
	This is a hard part.
	Of my presentation.
	And I took a long time thinking about this.
	And I went back and forth in my mind as to whether I would say these words and show you what I'm about to show you.
	And ultimately, the reason I'm going to is because I believe in the process.
	I am committed to what we're doing right here.
	to 12 individuals, members of the community, deciding a case based on the evidence and holding people to their burden of proof.
	Question one.
	Defamation.
	What amount of money you paid now in cash would compensate Neil Heslund for the damages that were approximately ours by Alex Jones?
	You see you got two dates up there, June 26, 2017 and July 20, 2017. Those are the dates of a defamatory publication.
	Have we even seen the July 20th, 2017 one?
	Injury to reputation that he sustained in the past.
	Thank you.
	He didn't even see Alex Jones' show until 28.
	One dollar.
	Not proven.
	Injury to his reputation that Neil Heslund will sustain in the future.
	This trial is being broadcast to the, I mean, the eyes that we have around us.
	I think Neil Heslund can walk out of here with his head held high.
	He's told the world his story.
	Alex Jones has told the world his story.
	He sat on that witness stand.
	Alex Jones did and said, I believe those children died.
	I am very sorry for the coverage that we gave.
	There is no reputational harm going forward.
	Not proven.
	Not proven.
	Mental anguish that Neil Heslund sustained in the past.
	Thank you.
	Proximate cause.
	Is his mental anguish the result of what Alex Jones did?
	Ask yourselves, was he a substantial factor?
	18 hours and 43 minutes over six years.
	It's an average of three hours, Three hours per year.
	That was the evidence they chose to bring.
	Not proven.
	I don't like this.
	But this is what the law requires.
	And you'll have your chance if you want to punish Alex Jones.
	you'll have your chance.
	Mendel Angler's in reasonable probability that Neil Heslin will sustain in the future.
	I hope to God that this process has been good.
	I hope to God that you've gotten some level of faith.
	I really do.
	Both of you.
	What's been proven?
	Ask yourselves, what's been proven caused by our extremists?
	You need actual evidence.
	I'm not going to belabor the point.
	These are repetitive.
	Question number two relates to intentional infliction of emotional distress.
	From 2013 to 2018. First paragraph.
	He never even watched his videos.
	That was the evidence we had from the witness chair.
	How can we say that Alex Jones caused more than minimal damage when Mr. Heslin didn't even see his broadcast?
	We don't have a single...
	I mean, there was a...
	I actually wrote this down.
	I don't know if it's a name, or something.
	The plaintiff's attorneys referred during their closing to harassment online.
	Do you recall what Neil Heslin said about how much he likes computers?
	I do.
	He said he doesn't even like his cell phone.
	He's not a computer guy.
	What type of online harassment are we talking about?
	Was that proven?
	Is there actual evidence of that?
	No.
	How about in the future?
	Ask yourselves, what are we doing here?
	I said before, I hope there is closure.
	I hope this sordid, sad story comes to an end in the next couple of days, after you come back with your verdict on criminal justice.
	But there's been no evidence that there will be future mental anguish that was caused by him.
	Mr. Hesslin is clearly very, very upset.
	and I think that is genuine but that is not what you base that he is upset is step one You need to be sure that this man caused it.
	Scarlett Lewis, 2013 to 2018.
	No contemporaneous records.
	She testified that she spent at least, I think, $50,000 in therapy.
	Thank you.
	no contemporaneous records.
	Four years that this litigation was pending, that there is every incentive to preserve everything.
	And we have an email from Wolfgang Hall.
	I think overall we had two emails.
	I think there was one from 2015 that somehow made its way into InfoWars possession through one of those email emails.
	2019. One email.
	They admitted it separately.
	They put two different exhibit stickers on it, but remember when I asked about it?
	It was an attachment to a single email.
	Not proven.
	Future mental anguish damages.
	Not proven.
	I understand these numbers.
	I understand your job is hard.
	And maybe I would even understand if you said, you know what?
	We feel like we should give them some money for mental health treatment so that they can continue.
	I don't think it's supported by the evidence, but I can see that.
	The evidence shows that plaintiffs have been victimized.
	Four times.
	By Adam Lanza, by politicians and members of the mainstream media, by the truthers, and by those people who took their grief and weaponized it.
	And I'm profoundly sorry for that.
	I think it is a sad reflection on the state of our nation.
	There's a couple things that came out during Mr. Farah's closing argument that I think are worth addressing because I don't want there to be any confusion.
	Thank you.
	Mr. Farah made reference to Wolfgang Halbig's disgusting Super Bowl picture from, if you look at it, odd.tv.
	I elicited from several witnesses.
	That picture never made its way out there.
	There is a line in the videos where it says Sandy Hook children perform at Super Bowl.
	It's in 2013. We had evidence that they did perform at the Super Bowl.
	And InfoWars covered.
	Look a couple before there.
	I think you have one that's...
	Sandy Hook's survivor remembers fallen hero.
	Again, they got to pick the evidence they brought in here.
	They picked the worst things they could find.
	And if you take their video clips and add them together, It's not 18 hours and 43 minutes.
	It's 90 minutes.
	90 minutes over six years.
	They say, Alex Jones may not be to your particular taste,
	but millions of Americans tune in to be informed, to be entertained, to have their voices heard.
	Verdict.
	The word verdict, it comes from the Latin.
	Verdict.
	To speak the truth.
	Speak the truth in your verdict.
	Because you're deciding for them.
	and for all Americans.
	Do you want to choose what you get to watch and listen to, or do you want a plaintiff's attorney to decide for you?
	There was a Lutheran minister named Martin Nemoer in 1930s.
	He was imprisoned in a concentration camp.
	And when he got out, he reflected on the fact that he had stood quiet.
	And he said, first they came for the communists.
	And I said, I'm not a communist.
	And didn't do anything.
	Then they came for the trade unionists.
	And I said, Then they came for the Jews, and I said, I'm not a Jew.
	And when they came for me, there was no one left.
	It's been an honor to talk to you, to present our side.
	I look forward to addressing you again on the issue of punitive damages.
	I have a lot to say about what the right number is.
	I look forward to that opportunity.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	I think we probably need another very short break.
	I remember all of my instructions.
	Let's try to keep it to ten minutes, please.
	All rise.
	Well, I think you're going to bring it back over.
	It's fine now.
	Okay.
	All right.
	You ready?
	No.
	We have a failure over there.
	Okay.
	Alright.
	You may begin.
	Sure.
	We apparently are still living in this Alex Jones conspiracy world.
	Where nothings is what it seems.
	That somehow, I assume, lawyers here weaponized Neal and Scarlett to try to take down Alex Jones.
	We weaponized them.
	To take down Alex Jones.
	Like, we're the deep state now.
	In this weird conspiracy theory.
	Where you guys were handpicked by the clerk.
	And the judge is part of the deep state.
	And this is a script, a literal script, as they said on the show just a couple days ago.
	That's the conspiracy theory that's spinning in this room right now.
	Because that's the conspiracy theory that Alex Jones wants the world to believe when you return a verdict and you say, this is not what we do in society.
	We don't tell lies about people.
	We don't hurt people.
	That's the spin that he wants to put on it.
	That's what just happened.
	That's what that closing was all about.
	That they lied to Dr. Lubit and Mr. Crouch about their treatment?
	Mr. Krabs said in 2013, Neil talked about conspiracy theories, about people making money, profits off his son.
	They have called them liars for 10 years to make money, and they sat here and called them liars to save money.
	That's what just happened.
	You appreciate the irony of that.
	Anything to make money or to save money, anything that will stomp on absolute They have to pay for what they broke.
	That's what they have to do.
	The Fool videos, they're in evidence.
	I don't understand why the defendants keep saying that.
	I don't want to play you an hour or two hours of a Fool video of all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories.
	We focus on the Sandy Hook ones.
	That makes a whole lot of sense because this case is about Sandy Hook.
	Why would I play you his conspiracy theories about frogs being gay?
	Why would I play that to you?
	That doesn't make any sense.
	You don't want to see that.
	I don't want to see that.
	They're in evidence.
	You can watch them if you want.
	More importantly, Mr. Rinald could have played them at any point he wanted to.
	He could have played them to you.
	He did once.
	He played a 51 minute, the very first witness that he got up.
	He played a full video.
	And I think he realized that was a horrible idea.
	That didn't help my client at all.
	It just showed How many people he will stomp on to get more clicks to sell more pills.
	That's all it shows.
	If you want to watch them, they're here.
	I'll take his word for it, it was 18 something hours.
	So we showed you, what did he say we showed?
	Nine minutes, 10 minutes?
	Yeah, that's the part.
	Those are the parts where he defames people and he intentionally inflicts emotional distress on people and it affects them.
	And this idea, this idea that they didn't watch him, yeah, they don't watch his show.
	Big shock.
	What did Mr. Crouch talk about?
	He talked about that.
	Finding out someone lies to you secondhand is worse because you know what it means?
	The lie is spreading.
	If someone comes to your face and just lies to you and no one else hears it, it ain't great.
	But it's definitely not as bad if someone comes over to you and says, hey, there's a guy on a national broadcast, actually, take it back, worldwide broadcast, lying about you.
	That hurts.
	Because the lie is spreading.
	By definition, because you didn't hear it from the horse's mouth, definitionally spreading.
	The number of times this idea of he's apologized has come up is troubling to me.
	What is he apologizing for?
	His lawyer just stood up and said $8 should take care of their pain, the harm, so he clearly doesn't think he hurt these people.
	You clearly don't think you hurt them if you think it's worth $8.
	He said they've been victimized by four different people.
	And then he listed them off.
	And I was like, well surely the last one's Alex Jones, right?
	You can't possibly list people that have victimized Neal and Scarlett and not say the word Alex Jones, the name Alex Jones.
	He did.
	What's he apologizing for?
	That's why an apology doesn't matter.
	It's not real.
	It's never been real.
	It's fake.
	It means absolutely nothing to Neil and Scott because they heard it.
	it means absolutely nothing to Alex Jones because he doesn't mean it.
	He made this excuse that he was tricked by the truthers.
	He's the Pied Piper of the truthers.
	They're following him wherever he goes.
	And he spews hate.
	That's what gets people riled up.
	That's what gets people to their house.
	That's what gets bullet holes through his car.
	That's what gets death threats.
	This.16% of the time That's 99.84% of the time he's not defaming or inflicting Emotional distress on him.
	Congratulations.
	If I was in court in a criminal case, I said, Judge, 99.8% of the time, I don't steal anything.
	Nothing.
	That's not a defense.
	That's crazy.
	It doesn't matter what he does all the other time.
	It matters what he does when he's defaming people and when he's intentionally inflicting emotional distress on people.
	That's what matters.
	When he's spreading lies about the parents of Sandy Hook, that's what matters.
	that's why we brought you those videos.
	Pre-existing condition, I can't, so.
	He says they're not harmed, but if they are harmed, it was from something else.
	And he has this weird thing about the bow and arrow and that nobody examined the arrows.
	People examined the arrows.
	Dr. Lupin examined the arrows.
	Mr. Crouch examined the arrows.
	And he said, they are broken.
	They are injured.
	And it came from Alex Jones.
	Nobody else came.
	They had the ability to call somebody on the stand and say, no, no, no, no, hold up, hold up.
	Hold up.
	They're not either hurt or, their damage is clearly from the loss of Jesse, not the lies spread about them in a worldwide forum.
	19 hours or 18 hours of lies spread in a worldwide forum, that's not what hurt them.
	They didn't do that.
	There's a reason.
	There's no psychiatrist or psychotherapist in the world that would say that.
	They have separate and distinct injuries.
	There's no question.
	And you know the easy way to know it?
	Fear.
	Jesse's murder didn't cause them fear, it caused them unimaginable grief that they started to recover from.
	Fear is caused by Alex Jones and him weaponizing, we talk about weaponizing, him weaponizing mentally unstable people to go after him.
	fear tells you there's two separate and distinct injuries.
	This is a quick aside.
	The July 20th, 2017 video that they said they never played?
	It's because they destroyed it.
	That's why we never played it.
	They didn't tell you that.
	What does $150 billion mean?
	Mr. Ranallo talked about that?
	Yeah, about six months of revenue.
	It enforced.
	That's what it means.
	Ms. Karpova testified and she said one thing that was interesting.
	She said, words are Alex Jones' weapon.
	This verdict is your weapon to right a serious wrong that happened to Neil and Scarlett.
	Mr. Anall said twice.
	I hope this is a verdict you can look back at 20 years and be proud of.
	Yeah, so do I. I hope you look back at this verdict for years and you're proud of it.
	So go do it.
	Alright, thank you.
	In a moment you will retire to the jury room.
	Select your presiding juror who will read the charge and then begin your deliberations.
	We will bring you the original charge, which is the one that should be signed by the presiding juror if the verdict is unanimous, or signed by the 10 or 11 of you if it is not unanimous.
	We will also bring all of the exhibits to you in a few minutes.
	You should not be concerned if the exhibits are not in sequential order, and if there are any redactions, don't let that worry you either.
	Those are decisions that have been made in the admission of that evidence.
	After you select your presiding door, I need to let my judicial executive assistant know who that is.
	Now, I want to be really clear.
	You are finally going to be able to discuss what you have heard in this room.
	You must all 12 be in the room Anytime there is any deliberations or discussion.
	So if somebody needs a break, everybody takes a break.
	You are free to work all day long, including through lunch.
	I think that's been our routine so far, so we'll probably continue it, but we can talk about that.
	If you take a long break, do let us know, so say more than 15 minutes.
	It might affect what we do out here.
	Anything else?
	Any questions about that part?
	It's 436. My guess is you're not going to get Much beyond a presiding drawer today, and that's fine.
	You can start as early as 8.30 tomorrow.
	Alright?
	So you're excused and when you're all together you can talk about the peace.
	Thank you.
	All rise.
	Get all going.
	And just shut the door behind you please.
	You may all be seated.
	At this time, I do need one council from each side to come up and verify the exhibits for me, please.
	Just as a reminder, I'll need you to state on the record that you examined the exhibits and that those I'm just going to confirm.
	Please do.
	Yes.
	And you might want to have Mr. Banks with you.
	We can pull off the record for a minute.
	What is it?
	No, the title that was on that file.
	Make sure you turn your phone off, please.
	Okay, we don't have titles on our files.
	We don't have descriptive titles on our file.
	Why don't you just title it Defense Exhibit 67. Yeah, let's do that.
	I'll upload this to my office.
	Should I go get it?
	You guys have a picture?
	I think I'm right back.
	I know it should be here so I don't know what happened this this is the courts Okay, so that's exhibit 67?
	It is.
	It's very small.
	Would you like me to put it?
	I have a bag in there.
	Why don't you have it?
	Do they have one bag?
	I can put it in a separate bag.
	Did you bring these bags?
	Yes.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Why don't you label the bag the things that it's the first place?
	Thank you so much.
	Thank you.
	Okay, let me go get my...
	All right.
	All right.
	That's alright.
	Everyone in the gallery can relax.
	And the lawyers do.
	Okay.
	Thank you so much.
	I'm going to do it this way.
	This would be plenty of 60. Hang on.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	Defense exhibit 67. That's all I got.
	And then I have some 40 minutes.
	Pulling test exhibits.
	You're asking me which ones were submitted?
	All I'm asking are total six things.
	Okay.
	actually come on and we are here so we need to be removing the weight of 60 from this list your response um
	I guess that's the first second March, right?
	was it April yes yes all right
	let's go back on the record Okay, so both sides have had an opportunity to examine all of the exhibits.
	So we'll start with Mr. Bankston.
	Do you verify that you examine the exhibits?
	Those that are being taken to the jury room are all admitted, should be taken to the jury room.
	All necessary redactions have been made.
	I agree, Your Honor.
	Alright, same question, Mr. Reynold.
	I agree, Your Honor.
	Alright, then we go back off the record.
	Let's hand all of those exhibits to my court.
	Steele.
	And, yes, okay.
	Good.
	Alright, okay.
	The jury is allowed to deliberate until 5. So they'll probably work all day.
	So I do require one minimum.
	This is the minimum requirement.
	One council for each party.
	So one of you, one of you, must be in the building at all times while the jury is over.
	Parties are not required to remain in the building.
	They're not required to be here when the work is read.
	That is between the party and the council.
	For this week, you can continue to use this space, you can continue to use the other space we've provided for you.
	If you have not already given my staff your cell phone numbers, I need to know now.
	Let me think, what else?
	I can't really think of anything else.
	The reason you have to be here is if they have a question.
	You have to come in here and talk about it and all of that.
	My question was, when we are informed that the verdict is in, if I wanted to have plaintiffs off-site, how long would they have to be here before the verdict is in?
	Like 10 minutes.
	Yeah, it's pretty fast.
	But you can continue to room, use the space we've provided.
	I appreciate that, Your Honor.
	Yeah, yeah, that's fine.
	Any other questions?
	I'll find out.
	My guess is 8.30, but you don't have to be here because it's not going to go that fast.
	I let them come at 8.30.
	I mean, one reason you don't have to be here tonight, to be totally honest, is that's when I get here.
	So, they finish at 8.45, everyone waits.
	I get here just a few minutes before 9 most days.
	All right, I'm going to just write down my numbers here and then Also actually I have another hearing on Friday
	I'm not really sure how we're going to work that out, but we'll figure it out.
	but they'll wait this they'll wait for us anything else Why don't you just give it to me?
	Sure.
	I'm happy to carry it.
	I rewrote it in order of who is most likely to answer a phone call.
	Okay, good to know.
	I might have guessed that.
	Did you already give somebody on my staff your cell phone number?
	Let me write it down.
	I left my wallet in a book on them.
	Sure, that's fine.

▲