WATERBURY, CT – A heated exchange broke out inside of the Waterbury Superior Courthouse between Alex Jones and the attorney representing the Sandy Hook parents on September 22nd during the damages phase of Jones’ defamation trial, leading to speculation that Jones’ comments from the stand did more harm than good in terms of trying to limit his damages.
In 2021, Jones was found liable by default in the defamation case regarding his past assertions that the Sandy Hook mass shooting that resulted in twenty children and six teachers being killed was an elaborate hoax. The reasoning behind the default judgment lodged against Jones resulted from him allegedly failing to turn over requested documents sought by the plaintiff’s legal team.
Thus, a six-member jury panel is tasked with determining how much Jones and Infowars’ parent company, Free Speech Systems, should compensate the Sandy Hook families under the claim Jones’ comments from the past were defamatory and inflicted emotional distress.
On September 22nd, attorney Christopher Mattei, who is representing the Sandy Hook families, was clearly hostile against Jones on the stand – presenting what was ostensibly an argumentative line of questioning that the judge failed to sustain even when Jones’ attorney cited the objection.
“That’s the real Robbie Parker, isn’t it…Robbie Parker is sitting right here, he’s real, isn’t he…And for years, you put a target on his back, didn’t you?”
With the judge overruling the objection to the line of questioning, Jones told the attorney that he has in the past “said” Robbie Parker’s name on-air, but Mattei continued to badger Jones with his characterization that Jones’ past commentary on the Sandy Hook massacre put “a target” on the backs of the victims’ families.
“You put a target on his back just like you did with every single parent and loved one sitting here, didn’t you?”
After another objection from Jones’ attorney regarding the line of questioning, the judge told the plaintiffs’ attorney to “move on,” but Mattei did anything but that – asking Jones, “There are real people, you know that, Mr. Jones?”
The judge failed to address Mattei’s clear defiance of her previous order, leading to Jones defensively answering with, “Just like all the Iraqis that you liberals killed and loved – just unbelievable. You switch on emotions on and off when you want, it’s just ambulance chasing.”
Things inside the courtroom began to quickly devolve from that point even further, with Mattei telling jones, Why don’t you show a little respect,” leading to another objection from Jones’ attorney that wasn’t acknowledged by the judge.
Mattei continued to make statements meant to shame Jones as opposed to asking a question, saying, “You have families in this courtroom here that lost children, sisters, wives, moms,” leading to Jones becoming defensive again by asking the attorney, “Is this a struggle session? Are we in China?”
For those unfamiliar with the term “struggle session,” it refers to the period of Maoist China where denunciations rallies (often called struggle sessions) were publicly held as a means to humiliate and torture purported “class enemies” who were accused of falling under one of the “Five Black Categories.”
Jones continued from there, having clearly grown frustrated with the attorney’s badgering, adding, “I’ve already said I’m sorry hundreds of times, and I’m done saying sorry. I didn’t progenerate this, I wasn’t the first person to say it. [Unintelligible] didn’t like being blamed for this as the left did, so we rejected it mentally and said it must not be true. But I legitimately thought it might have been staged, and I stand by that, and I don’t apologize for it.”
This then segued into a three-way effort to get a word in between Jones, the plaintiffs’ attorney, and Jones’ attorney struggling to get a cited objection entertained.