Skip to main content

‘I’m Done Saying I’m Sorry’: Alex Jones Turns Cold Shoulder to Sandy Hook Families, Defends Calling Judge a ‘Tyrant’ in Connecticut Trial

Aaron KellerSep 22nd, 2022, 6:47 pm
 
Alex Jones appears seated in a witness chair.

Alex Jones testified in Waterbury, Connecticut on Sept. 22, 2022, in a civil lawsuit surrounding his original claims that the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre was a “hoax.” (Image via the Law&Crime YouTube Channel.)

Sandy Hook families have long blasted Infowars founder Alex Jones’s apologies for calling the massacre a “hoax” as belated and insincere. Jones himself has used his platform during their litigation to insult a bereaved father to millions of listeners.

On Thursday, Jones told a jury the he’s tired of repeating even those amends. He defended some of his allegedly renounced beliefs and an image that called the judge a “tyrant.”

The Waterbury, Connecticut courtroom was marred by objections, sidebars, and complaints that were at times so complex that Superior Court Judge Barbara N. Bellis ordered the jury to leave the room so she and the attorneys could sort out the ensuing messes.

Echoing the words of a Texas judge before her, Bellis reminded Jones: “This clearly is not your show.” She reminded him that the rules of evidence applied.

Jones several times blurted answers to questions despite the judge sustaining objections lobbed by Norm Pattis, his own Connecticut-based attorney. That issue was only partially solved after a request by Bellis for Pattis to object in a vociferous fashion so that Jones could hear him interrupt the flow of testimony.

The upshot, however, was a series of boisterous objections from Pattis.  Those clamorous incidents at times drew jocular reactions that foiled the thick and tense sense of animosity and vitriol that hung over the proceedings.

At one point, attorney Christopher M. Mattei, who represents the Sandy Hook plaintiffs, said Jones’ characterizations of the massacre as a hoax or plot resulted in years of heartache for the families he represents.

“You put a target on his back, just like you did every single parent and loved one sitting here, didn’t you?” Mattei asked Jones, while referencing one particular client.

“No, I didn’t,” Jones responded.

Pattis objected; Bellis told Mattei to move on.

“These are real people, you know that, Mr. Jones?” an increasingly irate Mattei prodded.

“Just like all the Iraqis you liberals killed and love, because you’re unbelievable,” Jones answered. “You switch emotions on and off when you want. You’re just ambulance chasing.”

That response did nothing to lower the temperature of the argument.

“You have families in this courtroom here that lost children, sisters, wives, moms,” Mattei then goaded.

“Is this a struggle session?” Jones responded. “Are we in China? I’ve already said I’m sorry a hundred times, and I’m done saying I’m sorry. I didn’t progenerate this. I wasn’t the first person to say it. American gun owners 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. I don’t apologize for it.”

The ensuing session was as close to a screaming match as one might see in an American courtroom and was captured on camera:

At another point in the proceeding, the judge yelled at Pattis for speaking over her:

The direct examination of Jones by Mattei contained many other bizarre questions and answers.

“Would you agree with me that your reputation is very important to you?” Mattei asked at one point.

Pattis objected; Bellis overruled him.

“No, I don’t agree with you,” Jones answered.

“Would you agree that protecting your identity from lies and falsehoods about you is something that you care about?” Mattei leaned in.

“I care about freedom,” Jones said.

Mattei reminded Jones that the answer didn’t fit the question, so he asked again.

“Yes,” Jones answered after being prodded by the judge to directly answer Mattei’s question about his standing in the community.

Before Jones testified, Bellis ruled that questions and answers about Jones’ bankruptcy, about Jones’ recent loss in a separate Texas civil lawsuit connected to the Sandy Hook Massacre, and about Jones being deplatformed on various internet sites would not be allowed in this proceeding.

Jones disagreed with some or all of those rulings and at times tried to veer toward discussing them while being questioned by Mattei. Pattis repeatedly argued that Mattei was opening the door to questions that would elicit responses about the forbidden topics.

“The world isn’t an easy place; when people become political figures, they get in their arena,” Jones said in response to one question.

Jones later clarified that he wasn’t attempting to claim that the plaintiffs got what they deserved by speaking out about the massacre that afflicted their families and their community.

Mattei also questioned Jones about his characterization of Bellis as a “tyrant.”

Mattei and the plaintiffs have alleged that Jones continued to spin conspiracy theories about the elementary school shooting in order to raise money from product sales.

Mattei asserted during earlier days of testimony that Jones monitored Infowars audience numbers and product sales and pursued lies about the school shooting because he realized it was making him a significant amount of money.

Jones has characterized the proceedings against him in both Texas and Connecticut as unfair.  He was found in contempt in both states — and had default judgments entered against him before trial — for failing to meet discovery demands in the civil litigation.  The question the jury must answer in Connecticut is the degree or damages, if any, for which Jones is liable.

A Texas jury ordered Jones to pay $45.2 million in punitive damages and $4.1 million in compensatory damages after litigation in that state.  The punitive damages award will likely be significantly reduced due a tort claims cap in the Lone Star State.

The entire day of testimony is on the Law&Crime Network’s YouTube channel:

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Filed Under:

Follow Law&Crime:

Aaron Keller - Deputy Editor-in-Chief

Aaron Keller holds a juris doctor degree from the University of New Hampshire School of Law and a broadcast journalism degree from Syracuse University. He is a former anchor and executive producer for the Law&Crime Network and is now deputy editor-in-chief for the Law&Crime website. DISCLAIMER:  This website is for general informational purposes only. You should not rely on it for legal advice. Reading this site or interacting with the author via this site does not create an attorney-client relationship. This website is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. Speak to a competent lawyer in your jurisdiction for legal advice and representation relevant to your situation.

You may also like: