Today, Dan and Jordan sit down with author and journalist Elizabeth Williamson (Sandy Hook: An American Tragedy and the Battle for Truth) to continue to discuss the verdict in the CT trial, and hear from Elizabeth what it was like to be there in the courtroom.
It's a little bit like standing in the four corners, you know, where you're like, oh, I'm in any state that I want to be right now, where you're like, this is the freest parking in the entire block.
Yeah, I mean, the families were the ones I really was thinking of because...
You know, once in a while, the group would be larger or smaller, but I would say for the most part, the families attended just about every day of the trial.
You could really see the toll that it was taking on them.
I mean, there were some family members that every time their child's name, for example, was mentioned in court, they would be very emotional about that.
And then hearing each other's stories.
I mean, sometimes there were spouses who...
They didn't know what the other one had gone through.
They hadn't heard that exact story told in that exact way, or they hadn't heard another relative's story themselves.
So you could really see how much...
Just grief and what a revelation some of this was even to them.
Yeah, that is a really, really interesting thing that I hadn't thought of and I imagine most people hadn't thought of because, you know, despite our desire to kind of view everybody individually in this case, obviously there is still that element of they're all sitting there with a shared event in their lives.
So you just kind of don't realize that, of course, they wouldn't have.
Just sat down in a group and gone through each individual story to each other.
And if you have, even if you're married to somebody or maybe you're divorced or whatever, but a partner, sometimes in the aftermath of a really terrible grief...
Sometimes you don't want to relive it.
Or even overburden the other person.
Be strong for them.
Maybe some of the intricacies of what you're going through don't necessarily come up.
A number of them spoke about how they tried to shield the other parent, for example, from what they were hearing or what they were seeing or the attacks that were coming at them.
And then the other thing, and I noticed this when I was writing my book, memories are faulty, particularly when people have gone through a big trauma.
They can't remember everything.
And this has been just about a decade.
Them working on those recollections and then replaying them, there were things that I think that some people in the room hadn't really remembered, although they may have known it at the time.
And so every time they'd ask a question, you'd try to game, you know, what does that mean?
You know, at one point they asked to hear the testimony again of William Sherlock, whose wife, Mary Sherlock, was the school psychologist who died at Sandy Hook.
And there was this, you know, Thought in the room.
Well, OK, let's think.
His name appears on the bottom of the jury verdict form.
Try and figure it all out and kind of game through it to see, well, what does that mean?
And one question in particular that the jury asked was this thing where they said.
What does it mean?
There's this kind of archaic language in the law in these sorts of cases.
And it's, what does it, you know, the instructions of the jury is, try to put the plaintiff back into the position when you, you know, levy these damages.
unidentified
Try to put them back into the position they were before the harm occurred.
So, you know, you can say, well, here's the income you would have had if that person hadn't broken, illegally broken the contract.
Or, you know, a personal injury, you know, you're paying for hospitalization and maybe special care and things like that.
But when it comes to defamation and, you know, reputational damage and things like that, and reputational damage to someone who has lost someone in this way.
How do you ever get them back to where they started?
It becomes almost a philosophical question.
Everyone was thinking, what are they thinking when they're asking that question?
Yeah, there's the analog of that in the comedy world, which is the comic who has to come out wearing the same shirt because they have a joke about the shirt.
You know, they have to, every show they do, they have to do the same.
I need to postpone this a little bit because I have to go be in New York City and I can't monitor this case and I don't trust anyone else to monitor this case or these deliberations so I can't be in two places at once.
And, you know, people were just listening to the numbers and all you could hear were, you know, people like myself typing these numbers in and, you know, trying to keep track of them.
And then I was typing in and in New York, they were adding and re-adding just to make sure everything was accurate.
You know, you started to see these sort of exclamations of, "Whoa!" and "Oh my God!" Yeah, the moment I think they showed the judgment, they immediately cut to Robbie.
And then one of the things he was doing in the courtroom prior to that was he was kind of Kind of like making nice to people in the room.
You know, at one point, you know, Robbie Parker, during one of the recesses, was leaving the room and Norm was following him out the door and kind of like patted him on the back.
At another point, Pat Lodra, who attended many days of the trial, she was the former first selectman in Newtown when the shooting occurred with the equivalent of mayor.
You know, went up to her and said, oh, nothing personal kind of thing.
To sit in a courtroom and say, I'm done apologizing to families that were still weeping because they had just watched Robbie's entire tribute to his daughter the night after the shooting on video, you know, to sort of say, not sort of say, to literally say, I'm done apologizing is, you know, not strategic.
You know, they're usually primarily black, but they were kind of high heels and, you know, at one point black and white, sort of, you know, what you might call spectator pumps.
And some really interesting, you know, really nice looking shoes.
I was just noticing.
I'm kind of, I am a shoe person.
I was noticing that.
And then on verdict day, it was almost as if she knew because she was wearing these zebra striped.
And then I guess the second thing, and I apologize if this is bringing up something that's a sore subject, but there was a little bit of controversy with a tweet that you put out about Norm, and I feel like if I didn't bring this up, it would feel like I was not bringing it up on purpose.
So Norm said, I think, you know, it's probably best instead, and also I think strategically there are some lawyers who are commenting on Twitter who are more knowledgeable on the legal strategy.
And they were saying, It's favorable to his client if Norm would decline to do the cross like that and instead call his own client as the defense witness.
So he reserved the right to do that.
They made a deal with the family's lawyers where they would have the right to cross if Norm called him and he came back.
And so Norm said, he's not going to testify today.
He's going to come back next week.
And I will call him as a witness.
And this is agreeable to the family's lawyers.
And then they will have another crack at him, basically.
And what he said was, that'll lower the temperature in the room.
You know, I think it will be better.
So I interpreted that.
And having seen the juror's reactions to Jones's testimony the day prior, I interpreted that as, you know, Norm says, His client has damaged himself so much that you might want to give the jury a break.
So that makes it sound like, you know, that was what he told the judge when he did not.
So after the recess, he came back.
It was clear that, you know, Jones had seen this.
He called it to his attention or someone at Infowars, but maybe Jones.
And so he came back and he was just really angry.
And he was saying, I don't know why, you know, Elizabeth Williamson of the New York Times is covering this.
She's written a book about this.
And, you know, she shouldn't be in the courtroom.
And how anyone could have interpreted what I said as he's damaged.
And the judge cut him off.
And she was like, we're not doing this here.
That's not what this trial is about.
I've already told you, stop talking over me, something like that.
And so he tried again, and she stopped him, and then that was that.
And I thought, oh, if he's calling me out for something, I better see what the problem is.
So I followed him out of the courtroom.
And when we got in the hallway, I turned on my recorder on my phone because I wanted to hear what he had to say.
And he was like, I'm not talking to you.
And I said, well, are you talking?
So you just wanted to say that in front of the, you know, so my alternative to think if you have a problem with something I've written, I want to hear you out.
Or are you just saying that for the judge and for the cameras?
And he was like, He went into this big thing.
So we got into the elevator.
He had all of his files and his briefcase was really stuffed full of paper.
Yeah, so there's, you know, you can imagine Jones, you know, seeing this or someone on his staff seeing this and saying, is Norm Pattis talking to the New York Times and telling them that?
It's always really unfortunate that the real world plays by the semi-too-fully-responsible rules, where this is something that you obviously feel the obligation to and the professional responsibility to make a clarification and correction.
And then for people like Alex and his fans, this becomes proof of some kind of an intentional lie.
And it's just, I mean, I saw some of the responses to your clarification tweet, and it was not good.
I mean, we are, you know, this is a trial about truth and reality.
And so, you know, it's always helpful to cue as closely to those as you can.
So, you know, because he did not say that, I thought, okay, fair.
I'm going to change it.
So, yeah, so that I knew, you know, of course, this would be material for them, that, you know, this would be a chance for them to, you know, take a whack and, you know, that's what they do.
Well, he was already reprimanded for not standing up when he approached the judge or asked the judge a question, so he figured, if I'm going to stay down, I might as well lay down.
Yeah, I was a little surprised at that because some of his messaging to the media in the years leading up to the trial was sort of, well, these families think that they won't be examined themselves.
Well, they will be.
He had a lot of, well, we know he had a lot of their personal records and health records and things like that.
And the reason we know that is, of course, they were wrongly transmitted to the attorneys in Texas.
And he had to come up for a hearing on that because that shouldn't have been done.
But once the families were on the stand and testifying as to what they'd been through...
He had very little to say.
He didn't, you know, Robbie Parker and what Robbie has endured in this case over the years from Alex Jones, where he played that, you know, opening few seconds of Robbie Parker's press conference the night after his daughter Emily was killed at Sandy Hook.
Over and over and over again for years.
So Robbie was really at the center of this case.
And Alyssa Parker, Emily's mom, also testified.
And she's not a plaintiff, but the two of them just painted this nightmare of torment and death threats and people knowing where they lived and a man confronting Robbie four years after.
the shooting on the street in Seattle, and all of these things.
And Norm did not have a single question for either one.
The judge had said, you cannot talk about electoral politics.
You can't talk about political figures.
You can't discuss Jones's finances.
Because we remember in Austin in August, you know, he tried to say wrongly that he was bankrupt and that two million would be more than he could, you know, just about all or more than he could handle in terms.
You know, so on and so on.
So all of that was sort of off the table.
But, you know, lawyers try to, you know, get around that and defend, you know, in presenting their cases.
And so, you know, a couple of times in mentioning some of the family's charities, you know, he was talking about, well, basically, isn't this about gun violence?
Isn't this about gun control?
And isn't this about politics?
Didn't you?
Well, he mentioned this when the Wheelers testified because Francine Wheeler, about, I can't remember how long after the shooting, a month or two after the shooting, delivered President Obama's radio address on a Saturday.
And this was when the families were pushing for expanded background checks and that legislation wound up failing.
But as part of that effort, she delivered the radio address and Norm brought that up.
So it's a way to get both guns and politics back into the jury's minds.
And I think the calculus there may have been that there would have been some people on the jury who might have been sympathetic to that argument that, okay, so there was a political aspect here or something like that.
But I think as these stories mounted and as just the sort of horror of what some of these people had endured, Became more and more apparent.
I think, you know, Norm wisely decided that this wouldn't be worth it.
That, you know, trying to say, oh, well, you voted for Hillary Clinton is not going to cut it.
When you have jurors weeping at the idea that, you know, people who had just lost their loved ones were getting death threats, rape threats, people threatening to dig up their murdered.
And, you know, talking about defiling their graves, you know, saying, oh, wasn't this all about gun control?
It was just too powerful and too awful, you know, that...
Just to hear that day after day, what, you know, what these poor people had gone through and, and the kind of like, just, you know, the jury was watching them in the courtroom day after day, you know, just stoic and pulled together and consoling each other.
And it was extremely powerful.
And I think that's another reason that Alex Jones didn't return to the courtroom because We saw what happened when Scarlett Lewis, through an accident of timing, wound up confronting him and for 90 minutes addressing the answer.
To every question directly at Alex Jones and asking him, you know, why are you doing this?
And truth is so important to our society.
Truth is the bedrock on which our democracy rests.
You say you're concerned about the country and you're spreading things like this.
What's wrong with you, basically?
And I think at all costs, I mean, having watched him literally sweat through his shirt while she was talking to him.
I think the idea of sitting in front of 15 plaintiffs, I don't think he can do it.
It is a little bit like if Alex is directing the defense strategy inexplicably by himself, and somehow at the same time recognizes that him being on the stand is a bad thing for him, he doesn't realize that those two are essentially the same thing.
They're essentially the same problem.
Him being on the stand would be him defending himself in the exact same way as him creating this defense.
So one of the things that Chris Maddy, one of the lawyers for the families, mentioned was, and I just found myself actually even in the moment saying, I wonder what Dan and Jordan would think about this.
He was saying that one of the reasons that he thinks Jones didn't testify more is that It's really important to him to be on the outside calling this all a sham because he thinks that the more time he would have spent in the courtroom, and I don't want to misstate his message, but I think this was pretty close to what he was saying.
If he got close to this process, that it would sort of expose him as...
This guy who's just a huckster and selling products and doing it on the backs of these people and lying about this and having to acknowledge that he had been lying about this for years, that that would damage him with his audience.
And I said to Chris at the time, I don't know, because his audience seems to sort of accommodate a lot of...
I think that the audience is trapped, I think, for the most part.
And they can rationalize quite a bit that that happens.
You know, all it takes if Alex has a bad day is to say it was a good day and have Barnes come on and they can talk for an hour about how everything is unfair and if only he could defend himself.
If only he could say the name Trump and Hillary, then everything would be fine.
I think that what Maddie is saying makes sense.
To the outside world, I think he would be exposed as a liar and a con man and all this.
But that audience, they have so many opportunities to realize this outside of a courtroom.
Or when Alex was in front of the courthouse, he had his book in his hand.
Like, when he was interviewing with local news outlets.
He's flown back to Connecticut, doesn't testify, instead does these press conferences where he's clearly trying to put product placement for his book on the local news.
And it's like...
If the audience can't see through a lot of that stuff, I don't know what hope there is for anything more explicit.
Yeah, I would say if Chris had just said the more time he's in the court, the less time he's selling, I think that would make more sense to me than anything else.
So, yeah, so it sounds like, yeah, that was a sort of debunking argument that, you know, something that Lenny Posner, who really began this whole effort to call Alex Jones to account, you know, learned early on that debunking doesn't really work.
And so the idea of, like, exposing, oh, Alex Jones will be exposed as, you know, a person who lies and sells products on the back of tragedy, etc.
It sort of, in a way, reminded me of how difficult it is to talk someone out of a conspiracy theory that they have already fully embraced.
That his audience is, as you said, Dan, captive.
They're in.
So their choice is to accommodate.
But to repudiate him, I think, I don't know what that would take.
Well, and I think that so many of the people, obviously we've heard much more explicit stories about this as it relates to QAnon, but a lot of the people in the audience are financially in the hole because of Alex.
Maybe not in debt, but they've spent a lot of money.
They're committed in that way.
It would feel dumb if they realize, oh, I've been scammed for all this.
Or they've alienated family members, loved ones, isolated themselves and insulated in a A bubble of people who are amenable to Alex Jones conspiracies.
Well, I mean, it's a little bit like no matter how many times I prove the Earth is more than 10,000 years old, I'm not going to convince a lot of people, you know?
So, without, you know, betraying any individual confidences, I think, just, and, you know, I don't like to speak for the families as a group, because that's just not right.
From what I gathered, first of all, a gigantic exhale in the room.
Just a sense of, wow, we kind of took back our story.
We were able to tell the world what happened.
We were able to explain by explaining what happened.
We were able to explain.
The dangers here of this sort of culture of disinformation and lies for profit and, you know, and explain that this is a phenomenon that's not confined to Alex Jones and has really in the decades since Sandy Hook occurred again and again.
And, you know, he himself, and this was a point I made in the story I wrote about the verdict, you know, he has been a part of most of the Highest profile viral lies over the decades since Sandy Hook.
Whether you're talking about Pizzagate or coronavirus myths and anti-vax stuff and the Great Replacement Theory that drove the violence in Charlottesville and certainly the 2020 election conspiracy theories that led to the violence at the Capitol on January 6th.
I think that their sense was by speaking about what happened to them and how this all got started and how long it's lasted, they were speaking to that and really trying to help.
Not only claiming their story and saying this is...
As Robbie put it in the press conference afterward, he found his voice.
He was silent about this for so long because he didn't want the abuse to get worse.
He was really worried about the safety of his family.
And he finally got to a point when he saw that Parkland parents were receiving the same kind of abuse and that just horrible statistic that today.
Nearly 20% of Americans believe that every high-profile mass shooting is a plot by the government and is fake.
You know, they were able to sort of say, hey, this is something really serious that is not only impacting us.
This is not a one-off.
We were a foundational story in what is now a phenomenon.
And the fact that they were able to raise that, I think, was really satisfying to them.
And we owe them our gratitude for that, because as you could see from watching the proceedings, it did not come easily for them to, you know, it was extremely painful for them to, you know, raise that alarm and, you know, and relay and recall what had happened.
Yeah, so I think in that sense, you know, and again, sticking with what Robbie was saying afterward, you know, that they sat there, they went through it, they told the truth, and everybody on that stand, and these are Robbie's words, not mine, everybody on that stand told the truth except for one person.
What I find so interesting about this is that it is...
You know, like when Mark Bankston and we talked a couple of days ago, and we were all talking about how we were worried about how the judgment would go.
We were worried what the verdict was going to be, whether or not he was going to send a message or whatever.
But by doing this, the trial itself to me kind of reinforces just how bad Alex is.
Without...
Allowing Alex to poison people's minds with all of the other shit, with all the politics and the emotional bullshit, all the things that can get them angry and distract them.
Without that...
There is no misinformation.
A reasonable group of people and, you know, there were Republicans on the jury.
The reasonable group of people will look at that shit and go, that is a monster.
It is only by Alex Jones's ability to inject those things that we get to where Alex Jones is in trial.
And the other thing, too, that I was thinking about while you were discussing this, Liz, is that for each one of these parents, there are a hundred, a thousand stories that we haven't heard of people who are hurt by these misinformation things.
Whether it's somebody who lost a loved one because they refused to get vaccinated or wasn't careful at all with COVID.
There's so many stories that end up going never heard.
And it's great that this allows that story to be told in a large setting where people will hear it.
When you talk about setting a precedent, the largest judgment in American history by a factor of 10, that's a 56-game hitting streak level of, you're not going to break that record for a long, long time.
And I think he probably is undisputably the biggest during the, especially the years right after the shooting.
If you need any evidence that their argument that it's getting worse is true, there are so many more, and it's now debatable whether Alex is the worst.
Yeah, no, I mean, I think maybe the biggest probably thing that Alex is really responsible for is without him demonstrating the popularity, I don't think Tucker could go as far mask off white nationalists as he is right now, you know?
We've talked about this, I know, before, but the idea that when he was getting his start, there was that sense of...
He's just a clown.
He's a goofball.
He's very theatrical.
He's fun to watch.
But at the same time, he always had those ties to these sort of far-right extremists like Stuart Rhodes from the Oath Keepers.
And, you know, I mean, the first demonstration of how persuasive he could be was when he raised $90,000 to rebuild the Branch Davidian Church after the Waco siege.
You know, he was a hero.
And John Ronson has been wonderful.
By the way, John Ronson listens to your show a lot.
I don't think anything, because I think people would be quite rightly, or maybe not rightly, I'm sorry.
They would have been marginalized, the voices that are like, take this seriously.
In the same way that, what was it, in 2009, there were people within intelligence agencies that were like, You gotta worry about some of these Patriot groups that are popping up.
And their warnings, and I don't remember the guy's name, damn it.
But there was a guy who did an interview about how, like, all this stuff that's happening now, you could see the kernels of it.
If you can always point to other people criticizing you for being a secret agent for Israel, then you can distract from any legitimate criticism and just combine those two together.
That's so interesting because when I called people, this was years ago when I first started working on this for the book.
I called people who had been associated with him in those early days, and a shocking number of them were like, you know, he used to be more anti-Semitic than he is now, and I'm really mad about that.
It was just like, what?
Out of all the possible critiques, I didn't see that one coming.
And before we part ways, I should say, you are in Wisconsin now because you're at a book festival, and you will be appearing at various book festivals over the next till the end of November-ish?