Alex Jones defense sanctioned in Sandy Hook hoaxes trial – live


Alex Jones claims leftists are going to commit atrocities to blame MAGA

A Connecticut jury hears evidence to decide how much conservative radio host Alex Jones should pay the families of victims killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting after he continued to spread the conspiracy theory that the mass shooting that left 26 children and teachers left dead was a hoax.

Mr Jones will not be in the Waterbury courtroom on day one, but told his radio audience Monday night that he plans to travel to Connecticut next week for the trial, which is expected to include testimony from both him and the families of the victims. victims.

This is the second trial for Jones, who was ordered by a Texas jury last month to pay nearly $50 million to the parents of one of the murdered children.

There is a six-member jury and several deputies who will ultimately decide how much the conspiracy theorist should pay relatives of eight victims and an FBI agent who responded at the school.

Judge Barbara Bellis found Jones liable without trial last year after failing to hand over documents to the families’ lawyers.


The court breaks for lunch.


Mr Aldenberg recalls arriving at the school to see a uniformed trooper being led away from the site in a “hysterical” state, which he says is unusual as most law enforcement officers remain calm.

A state agent he knew from previous cases tells him the situation is bad.


Mr Aldenberg is asked to share his experience with the Sandy Hook mass shooting.

He has trouble speaking and starts to cry when he tells about the phone call to the SWAT team doctor about an active shooting situation in Newtown.


Witness: William Aldenberg, FBI Agent

The first witness called by the plaintiffs is FBI agent William Aldenberg. He testifies in a personal capacity today.

He was a first responder to the scene on the day of the Sandy Hook massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, in December 2012, as part of a SWAT team.

Mr Aldenberg seems emotional despite testifying in an official capacity many times.


Defense argues that when the plaintiffs say Jones “must be stopped,” they are exaggerating the damage he has done to them and they are exaggerating for political reasons.


Plaintiffs seek curative instruction from jury after defense tries to overturn default ruling

Mr. Pattis alleges that Jones was only asking questions, but Mr. Mattei raises the issue that since the standard verdict has already been handed down, the jury will be instructed that Jones intentionally caused emotional distress, lied intentionally and acted maliciously .


Pattis concludes his opening speech by quoting the famous Holocaust poem by Martin Niemöller. The poem was also mentioned at the Texas trial.


Pattis admits that Jones is often abrasive and offensive, asking, “When did political debate become toxic?”

He asks, “Is Alex making his viewers or is he the canary in a coal mine?”

Pattis talks about other events that Jones has called a false flag, such as the Oklahoma City bombing. He says Jones will testify about globalists and is “an angry populist” who also worries that chemicals in water could make frogs gay.

Mr. Pattis asks which messages from Jones should be taken seriously and why we should consider him the “slinger in the town square” from whom we should walk away.

Jones “feared that the government will use any pretext to disarm us,” Pattis adds, so on December 14, 2012, he did “the unthinkable” and spoke out.

Mr. Pattis states that if you try to silence Alex Jones in this case, “you will also be asking big oil to silence Greta Thunberg”.


There are a number of objections and Mr Pattis is warned to finish his opening speech or sit down after complaining that he never objected during the prosecution’s opening.


Mr Pattis says Jones will testify and he will tell you that by the time this trial took place, he had stopped discussing Sandy Hook.

He argues that plaintiffs have “turned their grief and anger” into political action: “they have become partisans.”

Pattis adds, “Are they exaggerating the damage Alex has done to them because they want to silence him for political reasons?”

There is an objection from the plaintiffs.