Had Jones wanted to make the argument that he made a genuine mistake rather than knowing libel, he could have participated in discovery and trial rather than stonewalling and getting a default judgement.
Had he wanted to argue that he had made an after the fact retraction which reduced the damages suffered by the victims of his libel, he had the opportunity to make that argument, AFAIK, in the compensatory damages phase.
> Intent matters and after watching the trial I have very little understanding how the jury came to that verdict other than they just wanted to punish a bad person any way they could.
There is a reason punitive damages are called punitive: they aren't to compensate for harm, they are to punish, and thereby deter repeats of the action by the same or other parties.
Or in the years between when he started his smear campaign, and the consequences thereof finally catching up to him.
Between this and the Tim Eynman verdict[1] (Who pretty much followed the same legal playbook, up to filing for bankruptcy[2]), it's not been a great week for grifters.
[1] https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/judge-orders-eyman...
[2] And then trying to take back that filing. When he realized that you can't use it to hide your stolen money from the courts. [3]
[3] https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/bankruptcy-judge-a...
He did, and he made the argument, and played the video in which he claimed he retracted them to the jury.
The standard for defamation in the case of public figures (for which the parents of the Sandy Hook victims probably qualify because it's that broad) is "actual malice"--the speaker needs to either know that the statement was false (at the time it was made) or entertained serious doubts as to its veracity. For non-public figures, it's generally lowered to "reckless negligence". The other required element for defamation is that it has to be damaging--you need to show that you suffered as a result of the allegedly defamatory statement.
If it's at the point where the statement is causing people to issue death threats against you, it's not a "potentially genuine mistake".
That's true, but also somewhat irrelevant since Jones suffered default due to wilfully refusing to comply with court process; there was no trial on liability, only damages.
Huh? Maybe I missed something, but I'm pretty sure he was still claiming Sandy Hook was a false flag on Joe Rogan as late as 2020
Any suggestion that he's "admitted it was 100% true" are BS. He seems to be allowing (for now) that people really died and at least some of the families were not actors, which is an improvement, but he's not really caught up to reality yet.
A lot of the trial was spent trying to convince the jury that there was some ulterior motive behind the lawsuit, and he's been airing stuff suggesting that the judge and the plaintiff's lawyers are shadowy government agents.
Intent matters and after watching the trial I have very little understanding how the jury came to that verdict other than they just wanted to punish a bad person any way they could.
I think the world will be a better place if Jones and his gross idea of media, disappears, but I have a feeling he's just going to be made into a martyr here.