Deliberations resume in trial over Jones' Sandy Hook lies
Six Connecticut jurors have returned for a third full day of deliberations in the trial over how much conspiracy theorist Alex Jones should pay relatives of victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting for calling the massacre a hoax
Deliberations resume in trial over Jones' Sandy Hook lies
Show all 4Support truly
independent journalism
Our mission is to deliver unbiased, fact-based reporting that holds power to account and exposes the truth.
Whether $5 or $50, every contribution counts.
Support us to deliver journalism without an agenda.
![Louise Thomas](https://static.independent.co.uk/static-assets/support-us/louise-thomas.png)
Louise Thomas
Editor
Six Connecticut jurors returned for a third full day of deliberations Wednesday in the trial over how much conspiracy theorist Alex Jones should pay relatives of victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting for calling the massacre a hoax.
The jury was to hear about an hourlong audio recording of the trial testimony of William Sherlach, whose wife, Mary Sherlach, the school psychologist, was killed in the shooting. The panel had asked late Tuesday to rehear the testimony.
Jones and his company were found liable for damages last year and the jury is deciding dollar amounts for each of the 15 plaintiffs, who testified of being harassed by people who say the shooting was staged in a plot for more gun control.
The jury must arrive at two compensatory damages amounts per plaintiff, one for defamation damages and another for emotional distress damages. They also will decide whether Jones should pay punitive damages; amounts the judge would decide later.
Each compensatory damages amount has to be at least $1, but there is no cap. The plaintiffs' lawyers have suggested total damages could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
The plaintiffs include an FBI agent who responded to the school and relatives of eight victims who died. Twenty children and six educators were killed.
Jones has bashed the trial as a “kangaroo court,” called the judge a “tyrant,” and described it as an affront to free speech rights. His lawyer told the jury that any damages awarded should be minimal.
Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.