Karl versus Billy: Day 6

by ersatz_cats

We back, folks! Back for another round from the Brisbane defamation trial between disgraced gaming cheater Billy Mitchell and absolute legend Karl Jobst. With the plaintiff’s case out of the way, and Karl Jobst and David Race having already testified for the defense, Day 6 was just for the rest of Karl’s roster. On Day 5, both barristers pledged to pound through the rest of the testimony in a single day, and that they did! As a result, we got treated to a lot of establishing questions from our good friend KB, some desperate skepticism from his friend BB (as you’ll see), and yes, more procedural stuff for the folks who want that.

Meanwhile, not that I’m terribly important, but as your narrator, my interaction with the trial changed as well. I’m back home in the rainy Pacific northwest, sitting at my regular computer. I can’t give all those added in-person details I could before, but at least now I can laugh and cough and fart all I want without anyone giving me the side eye. My paper notebooks are off in storage, replaced by my Dvorak-enabled keyboard. Of course, at the speed some people talk, keeping up wasn’t any less of a workout for my poor hands. The change of medium also didn’t prevent my notes from turning into any less of a sloppy mess, with words like “inovleved” and “quetstoining” and “fortuinttously”. (Yes, those are actual things I typed into my live notes.) And while “Day 6” occurred on Tuesday in Brisbane, for me, it was Monday evening, from about 4pm to midnight. I did encounter some technical snafus with the remote viewing link, and as a result I have enhanced my almost-complete notes with those of some other fine folks who do not wish to be identified but whose contributions are very much appreciated. With that said, I do have full confidence that everything that follows is an accurate representation of how it all went down.

As usual, if you have no idea what’s going on, check out the previous updates here:

https://perfectpacman.com/2024/09/15/karl-day-0/

https://perfectpacman.com/2024/09/16/karl-day-1/

https://perfectpacman.com/2024/09/17/karl-day-2/

https://perfectpacman.com/2024/09/18/karl-day-3/

https://perfectpacman.com/2024/09/19/karl-day-3-4/

https://perfectpacman.com/2024/09/20/karl-day-4/

https://perfectpacman.com/2024/09/24/karl-day-5/

And all my regular caveats on these updates: I’ll be giving this one a little more polish than my all-nighter updates from Australia, but it will still be quick and raw compared to my usual fare. I am NOT going to reintroduce stuff from my previous “Karl vs Billy” posts, linked above, so I will assume you’ve read them. As a reminder though, “BB” refers to “Billy’s barrister”, and “KB” refers to “Karl’s barrister”. I’m normally very careful with quotes to make sure they’re accurate, but I can usually relisten to media to confirm. Since these are all one-and-done, there’ll be plenty of times where I capture what I think is the essence of what was said. “Anything in regular quotes should be considered word-for-word.” [“Anything with brackets means ‘Not word-for-word, but conveys the meaning of what was said.'”] (And even then, I’m human and can make mistakes.) Also, I’m just reporting what was said, without additional fact-checking; nothing should necessarily be taken as fact just because someone said it here.

A CRITICAL HIT

With the change of medium, the start of the proceeding felt much more sudden. I couldn’t mingle in the lobby (meaning, the physical lobby) and chat with folks and see who’s coming in and out. Nor could I just peer around the courtroom occasionally, with the single courtroom window restricted to views of the barrister bench and the judge’s chair, which would swap between them as needed. This window was also small, adjacent to the blank windows of others in attendance, and would be toggled even smaller when a document was put on display. But the platform did offer the opportunity to see who was present and waiting in the virtual lobby. Nobody had their cameras active, and most names I didn’t recognize, and may not have even been real names. William Mitchell IV (Billy Junior) was there, likely watching with his mom, as they had inquired about at the end of Day 5. However, reportedly, Mr. Mullet himself had returned to appear in person, which is probably a wise thing for a plaintiff to do.

Before we get into the witnesses, note that it seems as though Jace Hall was originally slated to testify in Karl’s defense. However, that ended up becoming a major legal quandary, with regard to an obligation in TG’s settlement with Billy back in January. You can read all the details about that here (along with a major blunder by Billy’s U.S. attorney Anthony Ellrod, lol). But in short, Jace did not ultimately appear in this case, nor was his testimony necessary.

First witness of the day was the content creator known as MoistCr1tiKaL. But that’s a fucking pain in the ass to type out every time, so I’m just gonna call him Charlie. We’re all used to seeing Charlie on his YouTube channel, disheveled, long hair everywhere, in a plain white shirt. But this was court! Recording and screenshotting was forbidden by court rules, so I couldn’t show you any pictures, but dude dressed up SHARP for the occasion. Nice suit jacket, washed hair back in a sexy man-bun, sitting in his usual chair you always see him in, gold YouTube award in the background.

KB began by asking Charlie about his occupation. Charlie described being a content creator, discussed his YouTube channel “penguinz0” which recently hit 16 million subscribers, and his Twitch channel. Of course, he had to explain to the normies what exactly Twitch was and how it worked. He also offered his Twitter and Instagram handles, and recalled his various follower and subscriber counts.

KB then asked Charlie if he had any association with the video game community in Australia or internationally. Note that this is a question that KB will pose to most of Karl’s witnesses throughout the day. While some questions are of course geared toward the individual being interrogated, the same foundational themes are established each time. In answer to this question, Charlie discussed his involvement with Moist Esports, and the salaries paid for competitors in games like Apex Legends, Rocket League, and Smash Bros.

KB asks Charlie if he knows who Billy Mitchell is. Charlie recalled hearing about Billy from his failed lawsuit against Cartoon Network, adding that he then began paying more attention. When asked about the movie King of Kong, Charlie said he first watched it about six years ago, adding that he rewatched it again last night. (lol)

KB asked Charlie what his understanding was of Billy’s reputation before and after watching the documentary. Charlie said he did not have a positive view of Billy before King of Kong, and that afterward, his opinion was that Billy is a narcissist, a bully, and an all-around bad guy.

Charlie confirmed he was aware of the dispute over Billy’s scores at Twin Galaxies. When asked of his understanding of Billy’s reputation just prior to that dispute, Charlie said Billy was already known as someone who would use lawsuits as a weapon. Charlie added that, when he heard of the Twin Galaxies lawsuit, he wasn’t surprised or shocked, adding that he figured this would be another case where Billy was lashing out because he didn’t like things people were saying about him. (Even as this unfolded, it did seem Charlie was conflating the TG score dispute on the website in 2018 with the legal proceedings filed later. However, KB proceeded with other questions.)

KB asked Charlie if he could recall other litigations Billy had commenced. Charlie said he had the most familiarity with a “previous” lawsuit against Karl Jobst, over an eight-second clip that was a joke, as well as the lawsuits against Apollo Legend, David Race, and Cartoon Network. When asked when he learned of those, Charlie recalled learning of them as they happened, that it was on his radar because he covers lots of gaming-related news and information. When asked how it was put on his radar, Charlie said it was mainly through mainstream coverage, and articles discussing it, as well as commenters on YouTube and Reddit discussing it.

KB asked, aside from the current case in which he was testifying, what was Charlie’s understanding of Billy’s reputation immediately after those previous instances of litigation. Charlie said [“Mister Mitchell’s reputation was, for lack of a better word, horrible.”] Charlie added that Billy was viewed for a long time as a bully, who is very manipulative and narcissistic, and that this reputation was solidified by the further lawsuits that kept coming up. Charlie continued, saying many in the industry saw Billy as a mean person and as a joke, adding that Billy was the punchline to many jokes for his behavior, and that people viewed him as a cartoon character with his blazer and Statue of Liberty ties.

KB asked if Charlie if he’s seen Karl Jobst’s video from May 2021. Charlie confirmed he has. KB asks for Charlie’s understanding of Billy’s reputation in the gaming community immediately after that video. Charlie said [“I don’t believe his reputation changed. It was in the exact same spot it had been for many years.”]

KB had no further questions.

BB began by lodging an objection, that Billy’s rep is being characterized by witnesses citing mainstream articles outside of what was pleaded in Karl’s formal defense. However, Judge said that one’s reputation is broader than just articles, and noted that earlier objections had been entered to articles being used as evidence of reputation.

BB began by asking Charlie about a YouTube video of his titled “He’s a Cheater”. BB asked Charlie to confirm it was produced earlier this year, following Billy’s settlement with Twin Galaxies. BB then played the following portion:

I’d like to start by addressing all of the individuals on Twitter that have been spamming me today, demanding that I give Billy Mitchell an apology. This is my official response to all of you:

Almost fell off the chair on the way down. Billy Mitchell does not deserve an apology because Billy Mitchell is not innocent. You are letting him manipulate and lie to you, as he has done for his entire career. I don’t think he’s even able to accidentally tell the truth about anything. If a single truthful statement left the lips of Billy Mitchell, he’d probably be set on fire instantly, smited by the Lord. His whole core being, his soul, is entwined with his lies.

Yes, that whole clip was played for the court, lol. BB asked Charlie if he indeed published that video because folks had contacted him, imploring him to apologize to Billy after the TG settlement. Charlie responded [“It was a few people on Twitter who had always been defending Mr. Mitchell despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.”] Charlie further explained that it’s normal on the Internet for some people to act like that even if they don’t genuinely believe the position they’re advancing. BB asked if it’s evident from that clip that Charlie does not have a lot of respect for Billy. Charlie confirmed he does not, calling back again to Billy’s reputation as a bully who files frivolous lawsuits against people he doesn’t like.

BB asked Charlie if he’s ever met “my client”. Charlie confirmed he has not. BB asked, therefore, if Charlie’s understanding of Billy comes only from things he’s seen online. Charlie said his first impression of Billy goes back to the Cartoon Network lawsuit, but did acknowledge he had no way of learning about that lawsuit except through online articles.

BB asked Charlie to discuss what he had referred to as “mainstream” articles. Judge then stepped in to ask Charlie directly what he means by “mainstream articles”. Charlie said it would refer to publications people would be familiar with, actual agencies, and that he doesn’t try to get his information strictly from the likes of Twitter. Judge asked if Charlie considers “mainstream articles” to mean newspapers and magazines, of it involves online media. Charlie answered that some of these “mainstream” publications do have magazines or other associated media, but that he prefers to read about it online.

BB then shows a series of comments replying to Charlie’s “He’s a cheater” vid, and another video called “He’s so desperate now”. I was not able to identify three of the comments based on my notes, but the other seven I was able to track down:

You may immediately notice there’s very little engagement with most of these. The random one about Jirard seems like an outlier, but I was able to figure out that it was actually one of the replies to that comment which BB was attempting to highlight.

BB attempted to tender this batch of ten comments into evidence, triggering an objection from KB. This resulted in one of the lengthiest procedural fights of this whole proceeding. Bless Charlie, he patiently sat there through it all, trying to appear attentive the whole time the barristers argued.

KB’s argument was that, if these replies to “He’s a Cheater” were going to be tendered into evidence, it should be the totality of the 5,840 replies to that video, not just the four or so Billy’s side has cherry-picked out of the whole. (Note that the current number of comments on that video is over a hundred lower than was stated in court, but the attorneys were reading the 5,840 number directly off the pages as they were previously screencapped.) KB also noted a secondary objection that the remarks amount to “documentary hearsay”.

BB argued that the relevance of these few comments in particular go to the “grapevine effect”. (Obviously these professionals did not stop to explain what exactly the “grapevine effect” means, but in short, it’s the concept that defamation from one source can spread out by way of repetition from others.) BB argued that, if KB wanted to tender the other comments as well, he should have pleaded and produced them.

KB called the suggestion that he ought to have pleaded and produced the entirety of the comments “nonsense”, while pointing out that the video in question was never pleaded by the plaintiff. Judge offers to KB that he could tender other comments during reexamination.

BB continued to plead his case, saying again that the wishes to establish the “grapevine effect”, where people are replying on a later video, on an unrelated topic, and are continuing to comment on Billy’s alleged relations to Apollo’s actions. Judge said the grapevine effect goes beyond selective comments about one aspect of a client’s reputation, and that entering these comments would open KB up to tendering all of the comments upon reexamination. BB argued it depended on what those comments would go toward, and whether they directly relate to the grapevine effect. BB noted his objection to them being tendered toward the question of bad reputation, since those comments were not pleaded in that way.

KB then raised the question of republication, and whether the concept of a grapevine effect was adequately acknowledged in plaintiff’s pleading. (To clarify, each side must present a “pleading” at the start of the proceeding, basically summarizing what they intend to argue and what sorts of evidence they will use to argue it. This is what gives the other side ample opportunity to prepare opposing evidence and material to cross-examine opposing witnesses. So, in order for BB to argue that there was a “grapevine effect, he has to have included that argument in that pleading, which would have given Karl’s side time to prepare a defense against it. As best as I can interpret my notes, it seems BB’s pleading referred to “Republication”, meaning when people reposted Karl’s video, but that these comments don’t qualify as a “Republication” of the video.) Judge countered that nobody, or very few, on the grapevine are expected to republish the exact publication, but they do talk about it, and perhaps even distort it, and that the allegation is therefore that those conversations increase harm to reputation, and can be taken into account. Judge then asserts that BB has adequately pleaded the grapevine effect in this way.

KB then argued that this passage of the pleading lacks particulars, or any inference that the grapevine effect had any impact at all on Billy’s reputation. Judge remarked that he wouldn’t expect the pleading to include those sorts of comments from YouTube sites, but KB countered that he would expect it to when relevant inferences are being made. Judge said it’s rare for there to be evidence of the extent of the grapevine, but KB said he can imagine situations where there would be.

KB reiterated the problem is, BB put to a witness four comments out of over five thousand, and that the defense was told they could put the other five thousand to the witness in a situation where they had no notice. KB said it’s impossible in reexamination to put to this witness all 5,840 comments in hard copy, adding that if BB wishes to put those four comments to the witness, he should in fairness have to tender all the comments.

Judge expressed his understanding of KB’s line or argument, that it would show how much of an effect the contested video did or didn’t have, if it was only four comments out of 5,000 that were adverse. KB lodged notice that, if Judge was against tendering all the comments, his submission would be that BB cherry-picked those four comments and refused to tender the remainder, and that the court should therefore infer that the other 5,000-plus comments would be supporting Karl’s case – or, after admitting he misspoke, would not support Billy’s case.

Judge posed this question to BB, that if BB wants to rely on specific evidence to show the grapevine effect, he would ordinarily have to do so in the context of the entire grapevine and what was said, or otherwise the court would just make its own inference. BB agreed that’s normal procedure, but since Karl’s side called this witness late, they’ve done their research on his videos on Billy, and discovered comments that are actual evidence one normally wouldn’t have of the grapevine effect, which BB said was fortuitous in this case.

Judge pointed out that there could be comments in reply to those BB selected saying [“This is rubbish”], and that could also go toward the effect of the grapevine. BB then argued it’s not his job to prove the opposition’s case, saying if they had wanted and had done their work, they could have produced them, but that it’s not on his client to miss this opportunity. BB also pointed out that this is a witness they called, and that they could have asked him all this and they did not.

KB then lodged a new objection, pointing out that BB referred to these comments as “evidence” in his case, and that none of it was disclosed. (I got the sense that BB screwed up by referring to the comments as “evidence”, which qualified it as something different than the other sort of “credit” material they surprise witnesses with.) Judge countered that it didn’t have to be disclosed, and it wasn’t in his possession. Confused, KB replied that it is in BB’s possession. Judge asked KB when his side told the other party they would be calling Charlie to testify, to which KB said it was the 19th of September. (That was “Day 4”.) Judge said he’s not sure the plaintiff has to disclose a public document, which the defense had access to as well. Judge likened it to going to a library and collecting photocopies of relevant books, and the argument that they would have to be disclosed. KB countered that, when it is in plaintiff’s possession and they’re using it as evidence to further their case, then it’s subject to disclosure. Judge said [“Unless it’s under legal privilege”], to which KB offered there’s no indication these are covered by legal privilege. Judge then noted a distinction between BB’s copies of the comments, and the comments as they exist online. KB offered BB to instead tender the website address, rather than copies of the comments, adding that he would withdraw his objection because it would point the court to all of the comments. Judge referred to this as “the best evidence rule”.

When asked for his response by the judge, BB noted that the witness has already acknowledged the comments as responses made to his video. Judge then asked BB [“Isn’t it like submitting a document that has a whole heap of deleted parts?”] (I love how “heap” is such a common word in Australia that even judges casually use it.) BB noted that it has been done, where certain paragraphs from depositions were tendered. Judge noted there was no objection to that, and that if the other party wanted the whole deposition tendered, they could have insisted on it.

BB asserted that he is entitled to tender those specific selected comments, that the witness has confirmed the appear to be replies to his video. BB noted that’s all he can do, adding [“I don’t know who these people making these comments are. ‘Robocotto71’, am I supposed to call him?”]

Judge finally allowed BB to tender those comments, notifying KB that if he wishes to tender the entirety of the other comments, he can do so, noting he can grant the opportunity to recall the witness later if he needs time to do so, as long as the testimony can be finished today. Ten pages showing comments from Charlie’s videos were then entered into evidence.

Keep in mind, this argument is not over. But at this point, we finally got to return to testimony. BB continued by establishing the other video, “He’s So Desperate Now”, and playing a clip from that as well (at around 1:00):

And over the years, he’s made a habit out of suing anybody who even so much as mentions him and cheating in the same sentence. Meanwhile, for the last few years, I have directly called him a cheater, and I’ve received nothing. Billy, where’s my present from Santa Claus? Where is your little fresh fucking pitiful lawsuit. I don’t know why he refuses to engage in a legal battle with me, when he is so happy to do it with everybody else.

BB asked Charlie if it’s fair to say he’s dangling bait in front of Billy to sue him. Charlie replied that he wouldn’t call it “bait”, reiterating that Billy doesn’t like criticism.

BB asked Charlie to confirm that he’s called Billy a cheater for some time. Charlie said that is true. BB added [“In an attempt to get him to sue you?”] Charlie said, [“No, it is the truth. There is overwhelming evidence to prove he cheated.”]

BB asked Charlie if Billy has sued him. Charlie said he has not.

BB asked how many times Charlie has called Billy a cheater. Charlie said it is impossible to know, adding [“I’ve said a lot of less than savory things about him while covering his cheating, and I’ve called him a cheater multiple times.”] BB asks to confirm that Billy has still not sued him over those videos, to which Charlie says Billy has not.

BB asked [“That doesn’t sound like the type of person who sues anyone who calls him a cheat, does it?”]

Charlie said [“It’s in line with Mr. Mitchell’s behavior. He likes to sue people he has more resources than. That is mine and most of the gaming community’s impression. He targets people he can outspend in a court of law.”]

BB then asks Charlie to confirm that does not include everyone who calls him a cheat. Charlie says again, [“If he doesn’t think he can outspend them, I don’t think he sues them.”]

BB asks Charlie if he accepts that there have only been two lawsuits arising from allegations of cheating. Charlie says, out of the lawsuits he can recall, he can accept that. (Editorial note: The actual number is four, and that’s if you don’t count the ones against Karl Jobst and David Race.)

BB then returns to the same video to play a segment from about 6:00 to about 6:30, wherein Charlie makes fun of one of Billy’s Cameo videos. Charlie casually comments on various reviews on Billy’s Cameo page, concluding with a joke:

If you give him anything under five stars, you’re faced with a lawsuit at your door the next day.

BB asks Charlie to confirm that this is about the website Cameo, where celebrities can be paid to offer short videos for celebrations and birthdays and such. Charlie confirms this, adding that the site has since opened registration to anyone. BB then asks Charlie to confirm that the reviews he was scrolling through were from people who bought this product from Billy. Charlie said it does appear to be purchasers, but that it’s possible some are not legit, due to the botting problem faced by any online service. BB asked Charlie to confirm those were positive reviews, to which Charlie confirmed.

BB then had them resume the video, wherein Charlie interacts with off-screen comments from chat:

Why does he keep claiming to be the ultimate gamer ever? Brother, that’s not what he’s claiming. Are you not listening? He’s the video game player of the century, not the ultimate gamer, that’s a totally different title, which he could have easily gotten if he wanted to. But he was too busy fucking your mom, and every other God damn groupie that was on his meat after he got the Donkey Kong record, so now he settles for just being the video game player of the century. And thank heavens for that because, if he went for the ultimate gamer too, there’d be no women left for the rest of us. So God bless that he held himself back. I’m surprised he stopped at the century. He gave himself the title. Yeah, he could have gone for video game… player… of the forever… (laughs)… Yeah, I mean, there’s definitely other ways he could have done that. The eternal lord emperor of gaming, yeah, you’re right. I don’t know why he stopped at century. Kinda lame, actually. Like you said, in 76 years, they’re gonna be a new video game player of the century that’ll be crowned, and it won’t be him. Well, actually it might be him. He’ll be huffing his own fucking fart fumes to keep himself alive for the next 300 years.

Oddly, BB didn’t follow up with any immediate questions about the video. For a moment, it seemed he just really wanted to watch that bit again.

BB then asked Charlie to confirm he’s never met Billy, or seen him at any conventions or expos. Charlie confirmed he has not. BB posited that, Charlie has therefore never seen how Billy is observed with people he interacts with at expos. Charlie noted he has seen Billy interact with people at events in King of Kong, but confirmed he has not seen this in real life.

BB then asked [“You really don’t have high regard for my client based on this video, do you?”]

Charlie replied “I do not have a high regard for Mr. Mitchell.”

BB then asked Charlie about another video he made, where he watched Karl’s “biggest conmen” video and commented along the way. Charlie confirmed he has done that sort of thing before. BB then shows a screenshot from the video he’s referring to, which I’ve approximated here:

When asked about the video, Charlie pointed out that it was from some other channel, which uploaded it from a stream he did. When BB attempted to tender the video into evidence, KB objected saying the video has not been properly identified, and that the witness claims it is not his video. BB argued that the video was identified as originating from Charlie’s stream. Charlie then attempted to explain what a reaction video is. BB asked Charlie to confirm that this was published by a channel called “Daily Dose of Penguins-Zero”. Charlie confirmed that was the case. BB then asked Charlie to confirm that was his channel, to which Charlie said [“No, I don’t know who that is.”]

BB asked Charlie to identify it as one of his videos. Charlie then explained, he never made it as a video, that it appears to be from a live stream he did on Twitch, where he watched Karl’s video on stream, and then someone else uploaded that segment to YouTube as their own video.

BB then asked [“So that image is from your stream of watching Mr. Jobst’s video?”] Charlie said [“Yes.”] BB continued, [“And someone took that stream and uploaded that stream?”] Charlie answered [“Yes, someone I do not know.”]

BB was clearly caught off guard by this turn of events. Seems he may have been getting strategy advice from Billy Junior. After this exchange, BB declared he had “nothing further”. Following some banter with the judge about whether the document was properly identified, BB agrees to take it back. I guess doing this was like a “fast effect” in Magic: The Gathering, because after that, even though BB had clearly declared he had “nothing further”, he was then allowed to resume questioning Charlie again, without any objection.

BB asked Charlie to clarify something he’d said earlier, that at the time of the Twin Galaxies dispute, Billy had a reputation as a serial litigant. Charlie confirmed, [“Mr. Mitchell’s reputation of using lawsuits had been established for quite some time.”] BB clarified that he’s asking abut Billy’s reputation just before and just after the TG dispute, to which Charlie said he couldn’t recall exactly. When BB asked about this again, KB objected, sharply pointing out that this inquiry is relying on a moment wherein KB asked Charlie about the score dispute, and where Charlie responded as though the question were about the later litigation, which were two different occasions. Judge remarked that he’s not entirely sure about the difference between the dispute and the litigation himself, but agreed his notes also represent that Charlie’s answer was in reference to the litigation. BB said he was also looking to clarify this point as well.

BB again asked Charlie about what timeframe he meant when he referred to Billy as having a reputation as a serial litigant. Charlie said he doesn’t recall exactly what time period this was solidified, just that Billy had such a reputation that went largely unchanged for many years. BB asked Charlie to confirm the TG dispute arose around February to March of 2018, but Charlie could not recall exactly when.

BB said [“I’ll put it to you this way, on the 2nd of February, 2018, would you accept that those proceedings Mr. Mitchell was involved in, other than the one against Cartoon Network, had not commenced at that time?”] Charlie said he doesn’t recall, other than that Cartoon Network was the first of those. BB asked Charlie to confirm that when Billy commenced proceedings against Twin Galaxies in April 2019, prior to that Billy had only commenced litigation against Cartoon Network. Charlie said he doesn’t have enough info to say.

BB followed up, [“So at either of those two times, the litigations you referred to against Karl Jobst and Apollo Legend and David Race, those could not have been part of what formed your opinion at that time, could it?”] Charlie responded, [“My opinion of Mr. Mitchell being a bully?”] BB said [“Of Mr. Mitchell being a litigant who used court proceedings against his critics?”] Charlie said he was unsure.

BB again declared he had nothing further.

Before beginning reexamination, KB noted a logistical issue with collecting the thousands of other YouTube replies for submission, adding that he’s trying to be conscious of the fact that there are multiple other witnesses waiting in line. KB suggested he could have the material collected during morning tea break, and could receive instructions during that time, and thus may want to call the witness back. Judge observed the problem that it could be getting late where Charlie is, and that he could want to fall asleep. KB noted that, by pushing up other witnesses who are also in the U.S., some of this logistical work could be done in the background as much as possible, resulting in the least inconvenience.

Charlie did seem unfamiliar with court procedures, given that at this point he politely interjected, seeking to clarify his earlier answers. He said that there was a misunderstanding of the timeline being asked about, and that he was simply speaking to the broad subject of Billy’s reputation in the gaming community. Judge informed Charlie that KB would have the opportunity to ask him further questions arising from those matters, also taking the opportunity to ask Charlie if he would be available for yet further questions later in Charlie’s evening. Judge instructed Charlie to simply listen to KB’s questions and answer them, clarifying that he may have to stand Charlie down rather than excuse him.

KB asked Charlie again about the timing of Billy’s reputation as a serial litigant, and whether this changed after Jobst’s video in May 2021. Charlie said it did not. KB asked Charlie about one of the clips shown earlier, where Charlie referred to Billy cheating, asking why he said Billy was a cheater. Charlie said [“There is overwhelming evidence to suggest Billy Mitchell is a cheater.”] KB asked why, in the same clip, Charlie said Billy had a habit of suing everybody. Charlie replied [“There is also substantial evidence of Mr. Mitchell using lawsuits to silence people he doesn’t like. If you go to any comment section, you will find many references to Mr. Mitchell’s use of lawsuits.”]

KB asked Charlie about his reference to mainstream articles and journalistic sources, asking what sort of reputable sources he was referring to. Charlie said he couldn’t names names off the top of his head, but that many outlets covered Billy and the cheating scandal. KB asked if this included newspaper sources, even if not in the physical copy. Charlie said he imagined there would be, but doesn’t know off the top of his head.

KB said this gets to the point at which he will want further instruction. Judge asked if there was any objection to the witness standing down. Charlie answered that it was 8:15pm where he was. Judge informed Charlie he must disconnect for now, and that he will be contacted later and either told to come back or that he is excused.

“PINYEIERO”

For Karl’s next witness, KB called Carlos Pineiro. For those who don’t recall, Carlos was the technician who attempted to assist Billy’s defense during the dispute, only to learn Billy was lying the entire time. There was a funny moment where the Australian barristers and judge struggled to determine how exactly to pronounce “Pineiro”.

J asked Carlos, if he could hear the proceeding, to unmute and turn on his video. After a moment, Carlos spoke up. Carlos, who testified with a nice kitchen area as a backdrop, could not recall his address off the top of his head, to which Judge said he could just give the town he lives in. Carlos gave his current occupation as IT engineer.

KB asked Carlos if he had any current or past association with the gaming community in Australia or internationally. Carlos said he did, by way of communications with people from the community, keeping up with scores, talking to game players, and following videos.

KB asked Carlos if he knows of Billy Mitchell. Carlos said he did, that he met Billy years ago when an allegation had been posted online. KB asked Carlos to confirm this referred to the allegations that Billy’s Donkey Kong games submitted years earlier were proven to be fraudulent. KB asked Carlos what he did in relation to those allegations. Carlos cited a post by his friend Robert Childs, which he read and replied to, resulting in him meeting up with Robert and helping out with the situation. Carlos recalled working on an investigation on two of Billy’s previously submitted Donkey Kong tapes, and whether they were “arcade” or not. KB had Carlos confirm those scores were submitted to a scorekeeping organization named Twin Galaxies.

KB asked Carlos what qualifications he had in helping Billy out. Carlos said that years ago, he used to work for an arcade company, where he repaired arcade boards and screens.

Carlos recalled the first time he saw King of Kong was roughly around the time the movie came out, but that his memory of that viewing is foggy. Carlos added that he watched it again as a refresher after meeting Billy in 2018, and that this viewing he remembers more clearly.

KB asked Carlos what his understanding was of Billy’s reputation in the community after watching King of Kong. Carlos remarked he found it strange, how you never see him play anything in the movie, adding that the movie did make him look like a jerk.

KB had Carlos confirm he’s aware of the score dispute at Twin Galaxies in 2018, and that this was the dispute he was helping out with. KB asked Carlos, at the time the dispute was lodged, what was his understanding of Billy’s reputation. Carlos said, at that point in time, he didn’t have an opinion of him, didn’t hardly know who he was.

Carlos confirmed he learned about the litigation against TG a year or so after the dispute, in 2019. When asked for his understanding of Billy’s reputation at that time, Carlos said [“He was not a very trustworthy person.”] Carlos then added [“By that time, I’d met many people in the community, and came to realize most people in the community had the opinion that he was not a trustworthy player.”]

KB asked Carlos to recall Billy’s other litigations. Carlos recalled “about five of them”, including Donkey Kong Forum, David Race, and Apollo Legend, adding that he was trying to recall the names of them all. When asked how and when he learned of the DKF suit, Carlos said it was by way of a write-up on Donkey Kong Forum, either in late 2019 or early 2020. KB asked, from late 2019 to early 2020, what was Carlos’ understanding of Billy’s reputation at that point in time. Carlos said [“Oh, it wasn’t good at all, especially when he started with litigations, it was actively loudly worse, among community and game players.”] KB asked Carlos how Billy’s reputation was worse. Carlos said [“He went from an untrustworthy player to a person who will go after you with lies.”] When asked when he learned about the Apollo Legend litigation, Carlos said it was around the same time.

KB asked Carlos to confirm that he’s seen the video Karl Jobst posted in May 2021. KB then asked Carlos what his understanding was of Billy’s reputation immediately before May 2021. Carlos said [“That he’s a conman and an untrustworthy player.”] KB asked what Carlos’ understanding of Billy’s reputation was immediately after Jobst’s video. Carlos said it was the same opinion, and did not shift. KB asked Carlos his understanding of Billy’s reputation today. Carlos said it’s a bit more severe, but it’s ultimately still the same, that Billy is not trustworthy, and that he’s a conman.

At this point, Judge stepped in to clarify that Carlos is being asked about Billy’s general reputation in the broader gaming community at the given times, not what his personal opinion of Billy was. Carlos thanks Judge for the clarity.

For procedural integrity, KB went back through some of the questions again, with the judge’s clarification in mind. Carlos said that, when Billy opened litigation against DKF, David Race, and Apollo Legend, that the community was mad, and didn’t like what was going on. Carlos added [“It was not positive. Most people felt he was just bringing trouble to the community, they felt sour, that he’s not good for us.”] KB asked why Carlos says that. Carlos said [“Because he was bringing too much trouble, going after people that all they did was say the truth. Of the few I spoke to, the general consensus was they didn’t want to be around this anymore.”]

KB asked if this general reputation changed after Jobst’s video was released. Carlos said he did not notice any change. KB then asked if it has changed today, to which Carlos said it has a little bit. KB asked [“How so?”] Carlos said [“Now, most people don’t want to be associated with the community at all. He is someone people don’t want to be around.”] (In this answer, while I don’t wish to speak for Carlos, I assume that when he says “the community”, he was referring more to the classic arcade niche of the broader gaming community to which Billy is more directly engaged.) KB then asked if that was also the same understanding from before Jobst’s video, to which Carlos said [“Yes.”]

KB said [“No further questions.”]

BB began cross-examination by preemptively apologizing if he gets Carlos’ name wrong. BB asked Carlos to confirm that he was involved in Billy’s proceedings against TG in California. BB then asked [“In those proceedings, you said you previously worked for Seega of America?”] Carlos confirmed this was true.

Note that, every time BB said “Sega”, he pronounced it “Seee-ga”, like with a long “E”. BB continued to pronounce it this way the whole time, even as Carlos properly pronounced it “Sega”. It was very jarring to listen to. I guess they didn’t have those shouting “Sega” ads where BB grew up.

BB then posted that Carlos, in fact, never did work for Seega. Carlos countered “False, I did work for them.” BB asked Carlos if he was directly employed by Seega of America. KB objected that now the question has changed to “directly employed”, however Judge allowed the question. BB posited again that Carlos was never directly employed by Seega. Carlos again said that was false.

At this point, BB provides Carlos a document, which happens to be his resume from LinkedIn. BB notes that it doesn’t list Carlos ever being employed by Seega. Carlos confirms he did not add Sega. BB replied that’s because Carlos never did work for Seega. Carlos said that was not true, that his checks came from Sega of America. BB asked who Carlos’ employer was, whether the person he reported to was from Seega of America. Carlos said it was, that in the beginning he was working at their headquarters, then moved to Miami to an arcade joint venture Sega had opened with two other companies. BB asked if that venture was GameWorks, which Carlos confirmed. BB asked Carlos to confirm that he actually worked for GameWorks, and not Seega. Carlos countered that he did work for Sega of America.

BB asked “Have you ever committed perjury, Mr. Pineiro?”

Folks who have followed this case know exactly where this line of questioning is going. Around the time of Billy’s September 2019 legal threat, Carlos was pressured by Billy to sign statements he did not agree with, and later retracted in testimony. The judge did interrupt to say BB’s question was a legal question, and that he can’t ask Carlos a legal question. BB then asked Carlos if he has ever admitted to committing perjury. Carlos said he would need “clarity” on that question.

BB then showed Carlos a portion of the transcript from his January 2023 deposition in the Twin Galaxies case. Sadly, I do not have access to this deposition, but I was able to jot down the relevant portion as it was on screen:

Q. So when you testified under penalty of perjury you were committing perjury. Is that accurate?

A. You can say that; yes.

BB attempted again to ask Carlos if he admitted to committing perjury, but Judge stepped in again, to say Carlos can’t give an opinion on a question of law. Judge suggests Carlos’ testimony is not relevant, adding [“As a lay person, you can admit to all kinds of stuff you don’t know.”] BB then withdrew the transcript.

BB asked Carlos to his meeting with Billy at the Moonlight Diner in Hollywood Florida, on the evening of 8th of September, 2019, at about 5:30pm. Carlos clarified that the meeting was probably a little later in the evening. Carlos confirmed that he had dinner with Billy for a couple hours, and that following this meeting he signed a document.

BB then showed the document on screen:

(Note: These and other documents being shown in this write-up are available elsewhere. These are not screenshots from the court proceeding, where these items appeared at lower resolution.)

While having Carlos confirm this was the document, Judge asked how this item is relevant. BB said it goes to “credit” (credibility), relating to another later document. Judge noted there was no objection from KB, so therefore the document can be entered.

BB asked Carlos [“Did you say to Mr. Mitchell after giving it to him, that you wish you could reword it somewhat?”] Carlos said that was not correct. BB asked [“You didn’t say you wanted to reword it at all?”] Carlos asked BB to clarify. BB responded [“After you gave it to Mr. Mitchell, you said words to the effect that you wished to reword it somewhat, do you recall saying that?”] Carlos clarified that this interaction was actually before he gave the statement back to Billy.

BB asked Carlos [“So you wanted to reword it, but you still signed it and gave it to him?”] Carlos said [“Yes.”] BB continued [“And Mr. Mitchell said words to the effect that that would be fine, and he would wait to publish it?”] Carlos said [“No.”] BB had Carlos confirm that, even after signing it, Billy expressed his knowledge that Carlos was uncomfortable with it by way of a text message that evening.

BB then brought up the following text exchange:

(Note that I’m drawing this and a subsequent screenshot from one of Carlos’ public declarations in the Twin Galaxies case. The versions which were shown in court were from Billy’s perspective.)

BB asked Carlos if this shows Billy was willing to amend the declaration. Carlos reiterated that an agreement was made before he signed it, that Billy had promised he would change the one line Carlos had an objection to. Carlos recalled he objected to that line for over two hours, and that Billy finally promised he would change it, adding that he felt pressured to sign it. Carlos noted that in a text Billy indicated he would see Carlos the next day with “something better”, but this never happened, and the initial statement was released to the public within hours.

BB asked Carlos to confirm he was okay with the declaration he had given. Carlos said that was false.

BB asked Carlos about his plans to meet with Billy the following day, and to confirm he met with Billy on September 10th, 2019. Carlos said the question was deceiving, adding that they did meet up, but it was not Billy’s plan.

Judge suggested the relevance of the texts should be established if they are tendered. KB objected, saying he’s not sure of the relevance. BB again said it was going to credit. Judge allowed it, but expressed he was still not sure what they were going to.

BB asked Carlos to confirm he met with Billy at his lawyer’s in Miami. BB then asked Carlos to confirm that Billy didn’t just show up there, that Carlos told Billy how to get there.

BB then showed the following texts:

Carlos confirmed he sent Billy his lawyer’s address, and that was how Billy was able to attend that meeting. BB then asked Carlos to confirm that, in the course of meeting with Billy and his own lawyer, he signed another statement. BB then showed that document on screen:

BB described the statement, pointing out that this one was notarized by a lawyer. BB asked Carlos if he understood the seriousness of attesting to those matters. Carlos said [“Of the notarized document, I guess.”]

KB objected again on the same basis. Judge said it’s going to credit regarding inconsistent statements, which Judge assumed was about to be put to Carlos. BB confirmed he’s “getting there”.

BB asked Carlos if he gave that attestation freely. Carlos said there was probably an hour and a half fight in a conference room with Billy, and with Billy Junior on speakerphone. BB asked Carlos if he was advised by a lawyer at all times during this, but Carlos said the lawyer was often not in the room. BB asked Carlos if he “took advice” in respect to the document, to which Carlos said he didn’t understand. BB clarified, asking Carlos if he spoke to his lawyer about the statement and whether it could be given. Carlos said [“I guess so.”]

At this time, the barristers began arguing technicalities of which pages of text messages were being tendered. This offered me the opportunity to do something I couldn’t do in the Brisbane courtroom, which was just stand up and stretch my legs a bit.

BB asked Carlos if he recalled making a video in 2019, talking about these events. Carlos recalled that he did. BB then showed a portion of a transcript he had produced of this video, where Carlos discusses meeting with Billy and his attorney, and getting a change made to the statement as a compromise. (Apologies, I was not able to identify the exact passage from the video from my notes.) BB asked if this was an accurate transcript. Carlos said it had been a couple years, and the video was 45 minutes long, but added [“It looks like it, so I’ll say yes.”] BB asked if the account was true, that he got the changes he sought. Carlos said he believes so.

KB then objected, saying he didn’t want to waste the court’s time, but was nervous about the use of such transcripts. BB says he can get the matter sorted out, and offered that KB could get his instructions regarding Charlie’s suspended testimony as well, if they stood down for about fifteen minutes. Judge said, in fairness, the witness (Carlos) should be shown the entire relevant section, to which BB noted the issue was that the portion was well into the video, as well as other relevant parts before and later. Judge pondered that maybe they should adjourn for more than fifteen minutes, before deciding on a half hour break. Judge asked Carlos to remain connected, as they adjourn until 11:30am Brisbane time. Carlos said he could comply, adding that it was 9:00pm where he was in Florida, and that it was getting very stormy outside.

Amusingly, during the break, Billy’s barrister and his solicitor Francis remained in the courtroom. They kept quietly muttering between each other, which was being picked up by the stream microphones and broadcast to us viewers at home. Most of it was barely discernable, and didn’t seem especially tantalizing. Appreciating the chance to take a break, I made no effort to document it.

When the proceeding resumed, BB said he would try a more efficient route, that did not require showing the video. Judge got Carlos back on the line, and questioning resumed.

BB asked Carlos to confirm the third paragraph of the original statement, saying “Billy Mitchell did not cheat”, and that this statement was signed under penalty of perjury. KB objected, saying it was an unfair question, and that counsel must put each paragraph to the witness. Judge said Carlos can read, and suggested Carlos be given a moment to read the statement and confirm it.

BB then asked for the next exhibit to be made ready, but continued questioning as it was being retrieved. BB asked Carlos if he was aware of the declaration at the bottom of the statement, asking if he read that declaration when it was signed.

Right at that moment, Carlos disconnected. I laughed and thought “Well, that’s one way to avoid a question.” After a few moments, however, he was back in the meeting, and confirmed he did read that declaration.

BB asked Carlos [“So the statement was correct when you swore it, right?”]

Carlos said [“No.”]

BB asked Carlos [“So you’re willing to swear false matters under penalty of perjury, right?”]

Carlos said that’s being misrepresented, that he did not agree with line 3.

BB said [“Even if you didn’t agree with it, you still declared under penalty of perjury that it was correct.”]

Carlos confirmed he did sign that document.

BB drove the point home. [“You signed, under penalty of perjury, a statement which was not correct. You signed it under a declaration that it was true to the best of your knowledge, knowing it was not correct.”]

Carlos said that was correct.

BB brought up the other exhibit, which was the second statement. BB read along with the statement, including the phrase “I believe there is too much doubt.” As BB skimmed over much of the language with “et cetera”, KB objected that BB cannot summarize the document with “et cetera”. Judge said the witness can again be given time to read the paragraph himself before questions are posed.

After Carlos re-read the statement, BB asked [“The declaration at the bottom of the page, ‘under penalty of perjury, the foregoing is true and correct’, you read that as you signed the document, did you not?”]

Carlos said he did.

BB pointed out again that this one was notarized by a lawyer, asking Carlos if he understood the significance.

As difficult a situation as Carlos had ultimately put himself in, he handled it like a champ. [“Yes, I did understand.”]

BB asked if the matters in paragraph 3 that Carlos had read before are true and correct. Carlos said they’re close to correct. BB asked Carlos if he agreed with it, to which Carlos said [“I agree with it.”]

BB asked Carlos if he gave evidence in the California proceeding that was inconsistent. Judge interrupted with some procedural questions about how Carlos can be directed toward that evidence, before allowing BB to proceed by simply asking Carlos to confirm his testimony. BB asked Carlos if he swore in the California proceeding that, per his testing, the video tape recordings of Billy’s performances could not have come from an original arcade Donkey Kong PCB. Carlos confirmed he did, adding that it just says “performances”, which he understands to be from Billy. BB asked Carlos if he swore that in the California proceeding. Carlos said he only went up to deposition, that the case never went to trial.

BB pointed back to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the September 10th statement, suggesting those were inconsistent with the others. Carlos said “No.”

BB then directed Carlos to the trial bundle, asking if Carlos understands that testimony has already been given about his text message exchanges with Billy. Carlos confirms he does.

BB then directs Carlos back to the texts he exchanged with Billy regarding Apollo Legend. BB asked [“Do you accept that you were engaging in an inappropriate from of humor with Mr. Mitchell?”]

Carlos said [“No, that was not humor.”]

BB asked Carlos to confirm his messages are on the right side. BB then quoted Carlos, “Todd collects spiders, and Apollo death by spider,” before asking Carlos [“Was that an attempt at humor?”]

Carlos said “I don’t recall.”

BB again quoted Carlos, asking to confirm his words “I found it but it’s not solid” and “Seems like troll.” Carlos confirmed this, explaining that the term “troll” means it’s a made up story, that it didn’t seem factual.

BB asked [“So the early reporting seemed made up to you, is that right?”] Carlos said [“Yes, that would be correct. I could not find anything solid.”]

BB asked if the next message, “I will keep eye open but looks like a troll post”, was another reference to the only source being made up. Carlos said [“It reads as so, yes.”]

BB asked about Todd, who Carlos explained referred to Todd Rogers, a member of the community. BB asked, [“He’d had a falling out or disagreement with Mr. Smith?”] Carlos said he’s not aware, but that Apollo had made a video about Todd Rogers.

BB asked [“And you were joking that Todd, who collects spiders, caused Smith’s death by one of his spiders, is that what you meant?”]

Carlos said he wasn’t joking, that it was probably something he saw, but doesn’t recall the article now.

BB said he’s putting it to Carlos that he’s making light of the situation by attributing it to Todd Rogers. Carlos said [“No.”]

BB asked, when Billy said he would buy Todd a pizza, and Carlos responded “Hahaha”, if that means Carlos found that funny.

Carlos said [“No, I didn’t find it funny at all.”]

BB posed once again that Carlos’ exchanges were attempts at humor. Carlos again replied [“I wouldn’t say that at all.”]

BB declared he had nothing further.

In re-direct, KB kept Carlos on those messages, specifically the one where Carlos said “I will keep eye open but looks like a troll post.” KB asked, [“Why would you be keeping an eye on it if you thought it was just a joke?”]

Carlos answered [“I didn’t think it was a joke at all. Apollo had been quiet for some time at that point. I was very disturbed by that news. I could not find any evidence that the news was solid. I meant that I would keep searching the Internet.”]

KB then drew Carlos’ attention back to the first of his signed statements, reading paragraph three for the court:

I have been presented with Billy Mitchell’s evidence. After seeing the evidence, I retract my conclusions from the dispute case. Billy Mitchell did not cheat.

KB asked, in relation to the first sentence, whether that was a reference to being presented with Billy’s evidence. Carlos said that, when he met Billy at the diner, he had a stack of papers he called his evidence package, adding that at the time he was given that declaration to sign, that was Billy’s evidence.

KB said, to give the judge a proper understanding, Carlos attended the diner and had dinner over multiple hours with Billy, on the date that was signed. Carlos confirmed that was correct. KB asked who was present, to which Carlos said Mr. and Mrs. Mitchell.

KB asked who prepared the document. Carlos said it was Billy Junior. KB asked Carlos if he had any input into it. Carlos said [“No.”]

KB asked Carlos to confirm that, in paragraph 3, he was just referring to that “evidence package”. Carlos then gave a more detailed illustration. He met with Billy, whose wife was at the diner. Carlos was shown this package of evidence, and given this paper. Carlos objected to line 3. It went back and forth for an hour. Billy promised to change it to something better. Carlos was tired, felt pressured, and he did believe Billy would change it, so he signed it. Carlos again pointed out that, in their later texts, it shows Billy saying they would send something better.

KB pointed to the passage “after seeing the evidence”, asking if that was a reference to their evidence package.

Carlos said “I believe that’s what they were referring to, but I did not see any evidence that changed my mind.”

KB then swapped out for the second statement, reading the first sentence of the modified section:

After reviewing the evidence, I cannot conclude that Billy Mitchell did play, or did not play on an original unmodified Donkey Kong PCB.

KB continued with the second sentence, which said the platform the game was played on was inconclusive. However, KB expressed curiosity with the third sentence:

I never saw Billy play the games, and with the entire body of evidence against the technical assertions, I believe there is too much doubt.

KB asked Carlos what that “evidence” referred to. Carlos said [“It was all the evidence I worked on, everything I tested, everything Mr. Mitchell stated to me as fact, some work from other techs who worked on this also. I based that statement as truth based on my evidence and the evidence from other techs.”]

KB had Carlos confirm that paragraph four from the second statement is also new, and was not present in the previous statement. KB asked Carlos why he felt the need to add it. Carlos said it related to his concern over the original paragraph three, which he wanted changed.

KB said he had no further questions, and asked for the witness to be excused. Before that happened, however, Judge had questions of his own for Carlos. Judge wanted to know who prepared Carlos’ second statement. Carlos did not recall who did the final type-up, recalling that the people involved were himself and Billy in the conference room, and Junior by speakerphone. Judge asked if this was produced by way of an agreement between the parties for how much Carlos was willing to say. Carlos confirmed that was correct.

Judge then asked, in producing either statement, had he actually looked at this pile of evidence Billy had given to him.

Carlos said he looked at it when it was released, and saw that Billy had released a package that included the first signed statement on like page 3. Judge then asked Carlos to confirm that he had not read it prior to signing that first declaration. Carlos said that is correct, he was shown pages but did not read the whole thing. Judge asked if he did read it all prior to signing the second statement. Carlos said he had been able to read about 95% of it by that time.

As a quick note, I would say Carlos handled himself well, all things considered. Until the day he dies, he will always have to eat shit for those knuckleheaded statements he signed at Billy’s insistence. The fact that he continues to put himself out there, knowing his massive mistake will be put to him again and again, is a testament to his character. Bless him for having that courage, because I’m not sure I would have.

THE YOUNG AND THE RESTLESS

After Carlos, KB said they were close to recalling Charlie, but were still sending the materials up to the clerk, and needed to send them to Charlie as PDFs as well. Thus, KB offered to move on to the next witness, Jeremy Young.

The bearded Young sat in front of a black curtain, wearing a blue dress shirt, and full black headphones as opposed to the single earpieces many other witnesses wore. After being affirmed, and other introductory questions (such as his occupation of musician), KB asked Jeremy if he had any association with the gaming community in Australia or internationally. Jeremy said he indeed did as the administrator of Donkey Kong Forum. Of course, Jer then had to explain that DKF is a meeting place for fans of the old Donkey Kong arcade games. Jer recalled DKF as having around 1200 members, adding that while the number tends to only go up, the activity on the site can fluctuate. When asked, demographically, where DKF members are located, Jeremy said “All around the world”.

Jeremy confirmed he knows of Billy Mitchell, describing him as a Donkey Kong and Pac-Man player. KB asked Jeremy if he’s seen the “documentary” King of Kong (which KB later corrected to “movie”). Jeremy believes he first saw it in 2013. KB asked Jeremy what his understanding was of Billy’s reputation in the gaming community. Jeremy said Billy was portrayed as kind of a villain in the movie, that he came across as someone who may do sneaky things to get his way. KB then asked the same clarification as before, to not focus on one’s own views of him, but Billy’s reputation in the gaming community itself at that time. Jeremy said [“Yeah, I’d say that was the same reputation.”]

KB asked Jeremy if he’s familiar with or aware of the dispute lodged against Billy’s scores at Twin Galaxies. Jeremy said he is. KB asked Jeremy how he is aware of that dispute. Jeremy answered “I started the dispute.”

KB asked, at the time Jeremy started the dispute, what was his understanding of Billy’s reputation in the gaming community. Jeremy said [“Most of the people in the DK community felt there was suspicious activity surrounding the history of his scores, which required a closer look.”]

Jeremy confirmed he was aware of litigation Billy commenced against TG. When asked when he became aware of it, Jeremy said he knew of it when it was launched, which he believed based on the dispute thread and results was around 2020. KB asked, at the time that piece of litigation was lodged in 2020, what Jeremy’s understanding of Billy’s reputation in the gaming community was at that time. Jeremy said [“That he was a cheater, that he’d been falsely representing his achievements and doing shady things to get his scores up.”]

KB asked if Jeremy was aware of any other litigations commenced by Billy. Jeremy listed the lawsuit filed jointly against him, the previous owner of DKF, and DKF itself, as well as the lawsuits against David Race, Apollo Legend. Jeremy also recalled that Billy threatened to sue Guinness, but was unsure how that played out.

KB asked when Billy commenced proceedings against him and the previous DKF owner, if he recalled when. Jeremy said it was roughly February, 2020. KB asked what Jeremy’s understanding of Billy’s reputation in the gaming community was at that time. Jeremy again said Billy was known to be a cheater, adding [“He was, I don’t know the exact term, harassing people in regard to lawsuits.”]

KB asked Jeremy if he recalled roughly when he became aware of the lawsuit against David Race. Jeremy said it was some time in the past year or so, but is not sure of the exact time frame. (KB skipped the usual follow-up question, possibly because the David Race lawsuit actually traces back at least to Karl’s video discussing it in May 2021, which would make any answer Jeremy gave a bit incongruent.)

KB asked Jeremy when he became aware of the lawsuit against Apollo Legend. Jeremy said it was in 2020 or 2021. KB asked what Jeremy’s understanding of Billy’s reputation in the gaming community was at that time. Jeremy said [“That he was just harassing people who were talking about the story and his actions.”]

KB asked if Jeremy had seen Jobst’s video from May 2021. When asked if he saw that after he became aware of the litigation against Apollo, Jeremy could not recall. KB asked if Jeremy’s understanding of Billy’s reputation in the gaming community had changed around that time. Jeremy said “I don’t believe my opinion changed, no.” KB reposed the question, addressing Billy’s reputation in the gaming community generally, and whether that had changed. Jeremy said “I don’t think so.” KB asked if Jeremy’s understanding of Billy’s reputation has changed from then until today. Jeremy said [“No.”]

KB said [“No further questions.”]

In cross, BB asked Jeremy to confirm that the proceeding against him and DKF was never served. Jeremy said that was correct. BB asked [“Do some people have different thoughts about Mr. Mitchell?”] Jeremy said [“Sure.”] BB continued, [“Some people are his supporters, and some don’t accept what he’s done, is that correct?”] Jeremy said [“Yes.”] BB asked [“And that’s true of members of Donkey Kong Forum, is it not?”] Jeremy again said [“Sure.”]

BB then produced a printed copy of Jeremy’s deposition transcript from the Twin Galaxies proceeding. As shown on the given pages, when Jeremy was asked at that time about Billy’s reputation in the Donkey Kong community, his answer was as follows:

Mixed. Because a lot of people support the removal of his scores, but not everybody does. So, I think — I think there are a number of people who are certainly still very much on his side, very much fans of his. But there’s, I would say, a larger contingent that believe his score should have been removed.

BB asked Jeremy if he recalled being deposed for the TG proceeding, which Jeremy confirmed. Judge then asked if Jeremy could be given the whole document to review. BB notes that the whole transcript is an exceptionally large document. Instead, Judge asked Jeremy to read the three pages being put to him.

When the following page was shown, Jeremy’s answer to a question of Billy’s standing in the Donkey Kong community in 2017 was as follows:

To the best of my knowledge, it was kind of riding that King of Kong sort of fake villain kind of energy. I don’t think — He was never really involved — Actually, he was never involved at all in Donkey Kong Forum where all the DK players had eventually congregated. And so — I mentioned earlier that undercurrent of suspicion amongst his scores, plus him kind of having that sort of, you know, whether it was true or not, the bad guy vibe from King of Kong.

BB asked Jeremy if he recalled giving that testimony. He did. BB misquoted Jeremy as having said that “a lot of people support” Billy. Judge was quick to correct that the actual quote was to the effect that a lot of people support the removal of Billy’s scores. BB acknowledged the correction, and continued asking if this was consistent with Billy’s reputation, that some supported him and some did not. Jeremy said [“Yes.”] BB then quotes Jeremy saying some people are still very much fans of his on his side. Jeremy again said [“Yes.”]

BB then asked Jeremy [“So the reputation you cited was just among those people who did not support him?”] Jeremy answered [“I would say that was his reputation as a whole.”] BB countered [“But there are people who don’t hold that opinion that you gave to the court, aren’t there?”] Jeremy said [“Sure.”]

BB then asked about the quote about Billy “riding that King of Kong sort of fake villain energy”, asking Jeremy if he understood Billy was playing a character or a role for the movie. Jeremy agreed. BB then continued with the quote, emphasizing again that only part of the community challenged Billy’s scores, and that others believed they were valid. Jeremy again confirmed that was correct.

BB then tried to illustrate the TG dispute as being between those who believed in Billy’s scores and those who did not, adding [“which side of the coin you were on depended on which side you took”]. Jeremy asked [“What was the question?”] BB then said [“What I’m putting to you is, you talk about suspicion, with some questioning Mr. Mitchell’s scores, but that some did not accept this suspicion.”] Jeremy noted the suspicion preceded the dispute, and that once the dispute started, some supported it and some did not.

BB then asked to show another document, a screenshot from a post on Donkey Kong Forum:

Obviously, what you see here is the screenshot I took in preparing this post, and was not exactly what was seen during the proceeding. I did not note how many votes were cast, and if that number has changed. What drew my attention, however, was the login area. As shown on stream, the username box displayed the name “DefendTheLe…”, with the rest cut off. Could this be Billy Junior’s DKF account, perhaps titled “DefendTheLegacy”? I’m guessing it wouldn’t be “DefendTheLeeks”, or “DefendTheLeastCredible”.

BB asked Jeremy, [“Did you conduct a poll on Donkey Kong Forum?”] Jeremy said something to the effect of [“That sounds familiar.”] BB asked if the above poll was the one, to which Jeremy said [“It looks like it.”] BB had Jeremy confirm that the results of the poll looked split. When asked if he was aware of any outcome or later tally, Jeremy said he doesn’t recall, and was unsure of when exactly the poll was done.

To be clear, testifying is not as easy as it may look. Sure, your side’s attorney will toss you softballs, but the opposing attorney will be actively trying to trip you up, will misrepresent things to you, and will try to catch you in whatever contradiction they can connive. So I don’t fault Jeremy for failing to catch this in the moment. However, Jeremy did not “conduct” this poll. It was posted by another user, George Riley, operating under the username “homerwannabee”:

However, BB knew this was a misrepresentation. And the basis for me saying that is because of what followed. First, BB skipped over that first post by Riley altogether, instead asking Jeremy to confirm only his reply:

Following that omission, BB had no qualms about showing various other comments further below, expressing support for retaining Billy’s scores, including this reply from Donkey Kong Blog author Chris Psaros:

BB also took a moment to quickly scroll through these other two replies agreeing with Chris, no doubt in the hopes of getting them entered into evidence as well:

Oh, and there’s another major fallacy with this poll as BB presented it, which the astute among you may have already noticed.

It was from 2017.

Yes, there was a reference in the text to the TG dispute, but at that time the dispute was based on the fake board swap video alone. The damning MAME evidence wouldn’t be published for another four months. So at the time this poll was conducted, and these remarks by DKF users were made, the case against Billy’s scores was entirely circumstantial. And those comments “defending” Billy’s score reflect that uncertainty. Naturally, one would expect those opinions to change after objective, incontrovertible evidence was furnished.

BB followed up this display by asking Jeremy [“You set up the poll and made the post for the purposes of garnering the opinions of members about Mr. Mitchell, didn’t you?”] Jeremy did not dispute this characterization, except to say the discussion was about the validity of Billy’s scores.

BB then attempted to tender the document. It’s unclear whether he was attempting to enter the entire thread as evidence, or just these selective portions. KB objected, saying he doesn’t understand what it is or when it’s from. Judge countered that the witness’ answers explain what it is and where it’s from, and offered KB to clarify it during reexamination. KB sought to maintain his objection on the basis that it seemed to be an incomplete document.

BB then said he had nothing further.

KB asked Jeremy if the post he was just shown was a complete document. Jeremy said [“I don’t think it’s the full thread of discussion.”] KB noted that Jeremy was asked questions about varied support for Billy, how some support him and some do not, which Jeremy confirmed. KB then asked if that’s still the case even after Jobst’s video in May 2021. Jeremy said [“Yes.”] KB then said he had no further questions, and the witness may be excused. Judge offered Jeremy to stick around or leave as he wishes.

So BB may have gotten one over on Team Truth there with that unofficial DKF poll, but as we’re about to see, that victory was short-lived. From here, they went back to the suspended testimony from Charlie, which first required they address the pending matter of those thousands of YouTube comments KB wanted entered into evidence.

BB begins by spending time discussing the totality of the comments, protesting that he has to go through which comments actually go to reputation, noting that there’s simply not enough time to do that for all of them, given they were never pleaded. BB did say that if there were specific posts which were said to counter the “grapevine effect”, he would have no objection to those going in. Judge asked, perhaps rhetorically, how the defense expects them to be tendered. (My notes are unclear, but I believe this meant more like “on what basis”.) BB then resumed pointing out that most of the comments seem completely irrelevant to the proceedings. BB said, again, he had no objection to any that relate directly to the grapevine effect, but he doesn’t want to have to figure out, or for the judge to have to figure out, which ones do and which don’t. BB remarked [“This seems to be an attempt to leave us with a trawl of paper to work out, not only for us but for your honor’s work as well.”]

Judge posed to KB that he needs to identify which comments relate to the grapevine effect and why. KB said the “unrelated” comments are relevant in that they contradict the grapevine effect by showing nothing about it. KB then indicated it’s “a bit rich” of his “friend” (Billy’s barrister) to attempt to, without notice, argue that the four comments are relevant toward the grapevine effect, which was never pleaded, while objecting to the inclusion of the rest. (The actual total was more than four, of course. They were initially collated in such a way that there were four from one video on top, leading to KB’s first reference of “four” comments coming from one video, and he kept riding that number along.)

KB did clarify that the point of these comments’ inclusion was to demonstrate “the whole” of them, adding that he’s not expecting the judge to sit and read each and every single one of those thousands of comments. Judge then asked how he’s supposed to consider what KB is proposing without reading every single one of them, unless KB draws his attention to any particular ones, indicating which ones undermine the grapevine effect.

And here’s where it appears KB won the argument. He replied [“I will have to show in my closing arguments that X amount of comments relate to Mr. Mitchell this, X relate to cheating, X amount are unrelated. That is the evidence. And it’s not fair to put to a witness four out of thousands and object to the whole of the comments going in as evidence.”]

Judge asked BB for a reply. BB said, if KB is attempting to make a point as to the number of comments, BB noted the number of comments was captured in the exhibit. Judge countered that it’s not just the number, but also the nature of the comments that is at issue. BB asked that, if it’s about the nature of comments, the ones they are to be directed to should be identified. However, when BB tried to argue that this meant they would have to read through these thousands of comments for consideration, judge pointed out that, as the party who submitted the few they did, their side would have already read through those comments in doing so.

At last, Judge announced that he would be permitting KB to enter the bundles of thousands of comments into evidence, allowing KB to make references to any such comments as he wishes, as he explores the grapevine effect. While the web camera stayed fixed on Judge in his chair, you could hear KB off-screen offering multiple “Thank you, your honor”s.

Again, I was not present in the room. Aside from the audio I was focused on, my only view was this narrow window occupying a small portion of my computer screen, aside blank windows showing the names of other viewers. However, one of the old regulars from Brisbane remarked to me that BB appeared to be furious over this, and that KB had the biggest grin when the comments got entered. Remember, this whole bit about these comments was because BB insisted on getting his select few entered into evidence, and because of that, judge now has access to thousands of YouTube comments trashing Billy.

After this, KB asked if it’s necessary to recall the witness, or if it’s possible for the bundle to go in “by consent”. (In plain English, this means, do they have to call Charlie back up and have him testify “Yes, I see these comments you are showing me, yes, those are replies to my video”, or will the other side agree to skip that.) BB didn’t seem particularly insistent on that procedure, but wanted to make sure it was not said that his side “consented” to their entering. Judge seemed content to have KB recall Charlie and have the comments established properly.

And to that end, the judge verbally summoned MoistCr1tiKaL back from the virtual lobby. KB asked Charlie to confirm, [“You should have emailed to you two PDF bundles, one in relation to ‘He’s So Desperate Now’ with…”], and then he leans in toward his assistant (the young woman who asked me “Are you ersatz?” back on Day 4) who whispers him a number, and he continues [“…187 pages of comments?”] Charlie confirms that receipt, and that those are replies to the identified video. KB then asks the same question about the second PDF bundle, for “He’s a Cheater”, with 158 pages. Charlie again confirms those are the replies to the identified video.

KB then asked Charlie how YouTube works with regard to how comments are sequenced, and how a comment comes to be placed first directly under a video. Charlie replied that the top comment will typically be the one with the most engagement, and as a result, most people will be talking about or replying to those promoted comments.

KB then said he had no further questions. As with the other witnesses, Judge instructed Charlie he could stay on and muted with video off, or leave. KB discussed paginating the pdf documents and making them word-searchable. BB said, as long as he gets a copy of the same, he’s fine with that. The Judge then had a private confab with his clerk, with some whispered numbers coming across over the stream.

After my good night’s sleep following this proceeding, I thought I had one of those “Eureka” moments where I put two-and-two together. It was discussed, there at the end of Charlie’s questioning, how YouTube places the most engaged-with comments at the top of the page. However, each of the reply screenshots submitted by Billy’s side used direct links, which place that reply at the top of the stack with a note saying “Highlighted comment”:

And thus I realized, “Oh shit! Billy’s side were trying to befuddle the judge and make him think those were the most heavily engaged replies, even though they obviously weren’t!” Or at least, I thought I’d realized that. When I went to type up this review, I found that the only question posed to Charlie about comment promotion was that final one from Karl’s own barrister. I double-checked my notes, and the notes helpfully sent by other attendees, and I found no reference to that line of questioning from BB. (Of course, I’ve endeavored to be excruciatingly thorough, but mistakes and oversights can always be made.) At any rate, the PDFs with the full roster of comments, all organically arranged, will demonstrate to the judge that BB’s few cherry-picked examples saw little-to-no engagement amongst the many other more widely shared sentiments.

FAMILY IS FOREVER

The next witness was Apollo Legend’s brother, who out of respect, I will identify only as “Brother”. I did take full and proper notes of Brother’s testimony, as I did everyone else. However, as I indicated at the end of “Day 5”, I had some reticence about giving his testimony the same blow-by-blow treatment as I am the others. He’s not here because he’s a gaming enthusiast who invited Billy to some event, or who assisted with Billy’s dispute defense, or who acted as a leaderboard authority disqualifying cheated Donkey Kong scores. He’s here because an immediate family member took his own life. And while it seems he testified voluntarily to help Karl defeat Billy’s lawsuit, court procedures do not allow him to do so privately or pseudonymously. Sure, maybe Brother wants his story out there for the wider world, but I’m not going to assume that’s the case, nor will I seek him out to ask him so. (And please do not do so on my behalf.) At any rate, if he happens to read this of his own volition and wishes to discuss matters further, I am always open to chat. Otherwise, I will proceed under the opposite assumption.

Instead, I will simply describe the important items Brother asserted in his remote testimony, which were as follows:

Apollo Legend used his YouTube channel to create content on gaming, and received ad revenue from YouTube for doing so, which was his only source of income. To that last point, in addressing a “hearsay” objection, Brother testified he had personal knowledge of Apollo’s income by way of access to Apollo’s “W2” statements. (And of course Brother had to explain to the Australian officials that a “W2” is a U.S. tax document. It was noted that Brother did not supply this W2 for the proceeding, nor was he under any obligation to do so.) Brother was clear many times in his testimony that YouTube was Apollo’s only source of income.

Brother also answered the same questions about Billy’s reputation, recalling learning of the cheating allegations by way of Apollo’s initial video on the subject. Brother recalled that, at that time, Billy’s reputation became that of someone who was possibly boosting himself up through illegitimate means. Brother further testified that Billy’s reputation took another hit when he sued content creators like Apollo and Karl, and that this same poor reputation remains today.

During cross-examination, Brother confirmed that at the time of Apollo’s settlement, Apollo also removed other videos unrelated to Billy, but was unable to recall how many.

Brother was never asked by either side if he believed that Billy Mitchell, or Billy’s litigation, played any role in Apollo’s choice to end his own life.

Brother was the last American witness to testify. Out of consideration for the time differences, an emphasis was made on calling all Americans before the lunch break. At around 1:00pm, Brisbane time, the judge declared the hearing adjourned until 2:30.

TOUGH AS NAILS

Getting back to more light-hearted matters, I was dogshit tired from pounding out the “Ellrod” update earlier that day, and welcomed the lengthy evening lunch break. If I were still in Australia, this is where I’d insert some fun story about getting food or chatting with folks in the lobby or Billy not wiping his ass or something. But sitting at my computer at home, my only interactions were with folks online, eager to hear about the trial in progress. I caught up on all my DMs, set a one-hour timer on my phone, and took a much appreciated mini-nap. I awoke refreshed, and ready to go ’til midnight (my time).

Setting aside the duration of my unconsciousness, the stream camera appeared to stay active throughout the lunch, broadcasting some empty chairs until folks filed back into the room. As I sat back at my computer, and the awaited hour arrived, the clerk declared “All rise”. With full respect to the judge, I did not stand for his arrival. KB began by providing the court with a thumb drive full of exhibits, noting that the “Exhibit 56” interview of Michael McNutt appeared to have been omitted from their previous thumb drive.

The next witness was Jimmy Nails, proprietor of Netherworld Arcade in local Brisbane. (“Jimmy Nails” is not his real name, of course. He has kind of the same “Richie Knucklez” kind of thing going on.) Jimmy was the only witness this Tuesday to appear in person, which was a bit awkward for remote viewing, in that the single courtroom view now had to swap between three angles – the judge’s chair, the barrister bench, and the witness box – but all things considered, I’m certainly not complaining. Even through the video feed, the bald bar-owner came across as an imposing and entertaining figure, with a demeanor and accent befitting a soccer hooligan. But hey, he wore the nice dress shirt and suit jacket well.

KB asked if Jimmy what association he has with the gaming community in Australia and internationally. Jimmy went on to describe the many tournaments and pinball events he’s organized, which include the Australian Kong Off, as well as others I was not able to adequately jot down. Jimmy also runs the Brisbane Pinball & Arcade Collective, or “BPAC”, which has twenty committee members and volunteers, and runs showcases every year. Jimmy is also the current country director for competitive pinball, overseeing two-and-a-half thousand competitive pinball players in Australia.

KB asked Jimmy to elaborate on the “King Off”, which Jimmy corrected as “Kong Off”. Jimmy said [“It’s about the longest running classic arcade tournament on the planet.”] Jimmy explained that it was based on the game Donkey Kong, and involves assembling as many DK machines in one place and inviting top players from around the world, who compete in a high score “hit out” followed by a tournament bracket. Jimmy said the first Australian Kong Off was 2017, and that each year’s event includes thirty to forty players, describing the event as [“very intense and very fun”].

Jimmy recalled seeing King of Kong in 2012 or 2013, as he was doing research for what would become Netherworld. When asked about his understanding of Billy’s reputation in the gaming community at that time, Jimmy said he and the Australian community were unsure how much of King of Kong was real and how much was played up for the documentary, but did describe Billy’s reputation at that time as an [“intense notorious character”].

KB asked Jimmy when he became aware of the TG dispute in 2018. Jimmy recalled being active at Twin Galaxies at the time. He described TG as a site where arcade high scores are lodged and peer-reviewed. Jimmy said he enjoys watching and reviewing scores, participating, and helping lots of people submit scores to the website as well.

KB asked Jimmy to explain Netherworld. Jimmy described it as his arcade bar “in the valley”. (Must be local slang, as it just felt like a regular old block of the city to me.) Jimmy explained that there are many of these kinds of arcade bars in the U.S., but that his is the first of its kind in Australia.

Getting back to the TG dispute, Jimmy recalled learning about the TG dispute as soon as it hit the news in 2018. When asked about the later litigation, Jimmy recalled watching the story intently to keep abreast of it, adding that he was in communication with Billy at that time. Jimmy added that, at that time, he was working to fly Billy out for an event in 2018, but couldn’t recall the month. (Note that, as with others, it appears Jimmy was conflating the TG dispute and the later lawsuit in his answers.)

KB asked, upon becoming aware of the litigation, what Jimmy’s understanding was of Billy’s reputation in the gaming community at that time. Jimmy replied [“It was very shook, I would say.”] Jimmy said he and others put a lot of weight on TG making that decision, acknowledging that it would not have been made without a lot of forethought and research. Jimmy added [“I believe anyone in the arcade community thought the same thing.”]

KB asked Jimmy if he recalled any other litigations commenced by Billy. Jimmy remembered a short-lived one with Guinness, one with Jeremy Young and Donkey Kong Forum, a later one with Apollo Legend, and maybe one more. KB asked when he became aware of the DKF and Apollo lawsuits, to which Jimmy said it was roughly 2020.

When asked his understanding of Billy’s reputation in the gaming community around the time the lawsuits were filed, Jimmy replied “It had tanked about as far as it could go, I would say.” KB asked Jimmy to define “tanked”, to which Jimmy clarified that the majority of people believed what Jeremy Young had accused Billy of. When asked what Billy was known for, Jimmy said he was known in the community for being a cheat, adding [“I personally believe that he was.”]

KB recalled meeting Karl at BPAC 2020 or 2021. He did not know Karl at the time, but they shook hands and chatted, and made an effort to jump online and watch what Karl was doing. Jimmy recalls one of Karl’s videos on Billy being one of those that came into his feed.

Regarding the May 2021 video from Jobst, Jimmy recalled seeing it right when it came out. Jimmy said he didn’t think anybody’s opinion of Billy would have changed between 2018 and 2021. When asked about Billy’s reputation now, he said he still doesn’t think it’s changed, adding [“I think most in the community made up their minds in 2018.”]

KB asked Jimmy to explain what he meant when he said he was in negotiations with Billy in 2018. Jimmy said they were trying to see if they could fly Billy and Walter Day out to their Australian Kong Off in 2018 as guests. At the time, they were talking to Billy and Walter through Netherworld, a private business. However, Jimmy noted, even for the business, Billy’s and Walter’s fees were too expensive, and they didn’t see the value of it at that time. KB asked if Billy and Walter ever did appear at one of these Kong Off events. Jimmy confirmed that in 2019 they were able to bring Billy, Walter, and four other guests to Australia, only having to cover costs and a daily allowance, with no appearance fee.

KB had no further questions. However, this scenario immediately piqued the judge’s skepticism. Judge asked Jimmy directly, if Billy was known as a cheat, and his reputation had tanked, why they would invite him out to their event. Jimmy explained that they initially asked Walter if he would attend the event by himself, but Walter said he didn’t travel to such events without Billy, adding [“So we adapted and were happy to bring Mr. Mitchell to the event.”] Jimmy noted they were warned about Billy’s notorious behavior by people in the U.S.A., but they figured they could handle it. [“I deal with robust people every day. It’s an intense scene. It may seem silly to outside viewers, but it’s an intense high-stress environment.”] Jimmy said they figured they could get a constructive appearance from someone people liked and disliked. Jimmy also noted that, when they began talking to Billy in 2018, they thought his reputation was still high, adding [“I and my business partner felt his reputation was tanking so quickly, even just a few months later we probably would’ve said no.”] Jimmy also recalled getting substantial pushback from the community, people threatening to boycott the event, and asking why they would pay money to fly a cheat to an event. Jimmy said they believed they could handle it, but that there were people who were very upset.

BB began cross by showing Jimmy an email he sent to Billy in 2018, inviting him to that year’s Australian Kong Off. Jimmy confirmed it was the email, though he hadn’t seen it in five or six years. BB asks Jimmy if he believed at the time that inviting Billy to the event would attract fans to attend. Jimmy said [“Yes.”] BB elaborated that this indicated Billy was a “popular celebrity” at the time, popular in terms of bringing people to the event. Jimmy replied [“Right.”] And BB asked, just to be sure, that Jimmy had no issue showing him as the headliner of an event in 2018. BB said [“Correct.”]

BB then showed Jimmy his 2019 email, having Jimmy confirm this was again after the Twin Galaxies issue came out. BB asked [“And again, you thought he would attract fans to the event, and that’s why you paid his airfare and accommodations to come along.”] Jimmy said [“Right.”]

BB asked [“You were personally a fan of Mr. Mitchell at the time, weren’t you?”]

Jimmy gave what I felt was a very noteworthy pause, before finally answering [“Yes.”]

BB then showed Jimmy a Facebook post, dated 3rd of July, 2019. BB asked Jimmy to confirm he was following one of Billy’s attempts to redo his high score on Pac-Man. Jimmy confirmed he was in the room, recording the stream to Twitch, adding that Billy is a good Pac-Man player. Jimmy added that they did something similar with BPAC 2019, inviting people to watch Billy’s game streams from that event. Jimmy then clarified that the Kong Off was inside the larger BPAC event, which included the Australian arcade championships and twenty or so other competitive tournaments. BB asked Jimmy to confirm that the link in the Facebook post was a Twitch stream, and that he was sending it out as a way to promote that Billy was at the event. BB asked if Jimmy hoped people would join in knowing Billy was attending his event. Jimmy said that was correct.

BB asked, when Billy came out for the Kong Off, if Jimmy collected Billy from the airport. Jimmy said he did not.

BB then showed Jimmy another document, this time an online post he had done for BPAC. (Note that, during this stretch, these posts were not being displayed on the online stream, so I can’t say for sure what post this was.) BB had Jimmy confirm he had used Billy in this post to promote the event, and had called Billy one of his “incredible special guests”. BB asked if the photo was of Billy and Jimmy posing together. Jimmy said Billy suggested the pose, and that it looks great. BB asked if that’s a pose Billy is known for, to which Jimmy said “Sure is.”

BB then showed Jimmy another Facebook post, dated August 7th, 2019. (I can’t say whether these dates were read in American format or if I simply wrote them that way in my hasty notes. It’s also possible that BB was reading the date as written on the screenshots he was provided by Billy Junior, which would have had U.S. formatting.) BB quoted this post as saying [“Dreams do come true”], having Jimmy confirm that this was in relation to Jimmy meeting Billy and having him come to his event. BB asked if that was indeed how Jimmy felt at the time. Jimmy replied [“It was a dream to meet an infamous documentary character, yes.”]

BB then showed Jimmy another screenshot. It was at this time the Judge asked that these documents be put up on the screen for the benefit of the public gallery. This one ended up being a screenshot of a live feed from Billy’s Twitch account. BB had Jimmy confirm that he had Billy stream the Kong Off play on Billy’s Twitch account, and that he did that because Billy had more followers on his Twitch than Jimmy had on his.

BB asked Jimmy if Billy won that Australian Kong Off. Jimmy confirmed he did.

BB asked [“It worked out very well for you, didn’t it?”]

Jimmy said “It worked out very well for Mr. Mitchell.”

BB then clarified he was asking if it worked out well for Jimmy.

Jimmy said “I would have preferred to see someone else win.”

BB then asked if it was good publicity for his event that Billy won. Jimmy said it was.

As BB went to show another exhibit, a phone noise was heard in the courtroom. It was inaudible to us on stream, but BB asked Jimmy if it was his phone going off, as KB looked around the room. While the source was never identified on the stream, an attendee later told me that it was, in fact, Billy’s phone that went off.

Jimmy was shown an email sent to Billy some time after the Kong Off, thanking him for his attendance. I don’t have the email, but BB read words to the effect of [“Everyone has commented on how easy you were to talk with, and what a positive experience it was.”] BB then asked if he did get feedback to that extent. Jimmy said [“Yes, I did.”] BB then pointed a few paragraphs down, to where he said [“Everyone would love to see you guys again.”] BB asked Jimmy if this meant he was inviting Billy back to the following year’s event. Jimmy said [“Yes.”]

BB posited that this appears inconsistent with the account that by 2018 everyone had made up their settled reputation of Billy as a cheat. Jimmy said [“No.”] BB asked [“You don’t see that as inconsistent?”] Jimmy said [“When I brought him on behalf of the arcade community, thousands of people came through. I can’t speak to everyone.”] BB recalled back to what Jimmy said earlier, to which Jimmy noted the difference between the general gaming community and the arcade community. BB posited again that this was inconsistent with Jimmy’s earlier testimony of Billy having a reputation as a cheat in 2018. Jimmy replied “We got both types of feedback.” Judge then stepped in to ask what exactly that meant. Jimmy explained they did exit surveys, and gathered feedback on Facebook, forums, on Twitch, and that the feedback went both ways. Jimmy paraphrased some examples of this feedback as [“Why was Billy there?” “Why would you spend money on a cheat?” “You wasted your money.”] And Jimmy said they also got feedback that Billy was an amazing arcade player.

BB asked if some of the feedback referred to Billy as a “hero”. Jimmy replied that that is “a strong word”. BB indicated it was the word Jimmy had used. Jimmy said [“Yeah.”]

BB asked if Jimmy has since teamed up with Karl Jobst to do events. Jimmy said [“No.”]

BB then brought an Instagram screenshot on screen, which I was able to identify by jotting down the displayed URL:

(Note that I’m only able to show my own screencaps, recreating what was shown. FWIW, I believe the one presented to the court was in dark mode.)

BB asked about the provenance of that post. Jimmy said he couldn’t recall who made it, but confirmed he was aware of that post. BB asked Jimmy to admit that he has in fact teamed up with Jobst for events. Jimmy replied [“Just that one.”] BB asked Jimmy to confirm if there were any other. Jimmy said [“Not that I recall.”]

BB then turned to another document. This was a screen capture of Karl’s legal defense fundraiser, focused on a listed donation from “Netherworld Arcade”:

BB asked if this meant Jimmy was funding Karl’s defense. Jimmy explained that the business ran a fundraiser for Karl, and that it was not his own money. BB then confirmed that the business did donate that money.

BB then asked [“Is it true that you’re here because defending Mr. Jobst helps your business?”]

Jimmy said [“No.”]

BB said he had nothing further.

KB’s re-direct was brief. He had Jimmy confirm there was both positive and negative feedback to Billy’s appearance. KB then asked [“If you’re writing to someone who’s done an appearance, is it general practice to tell them about the negative feedback you’ve received?”] Jimmy said [“No.”] KB then had nothing further, and the witness was excused.

I will admit, while I was glad Jimmy was willing to testify as to his current impressions of Billy on the record, I was sad he didn’t discuss some of the various stories I’d heard from locals familiar with the Aussie Kong Off in 2019, including that Billy hogged one of the qualifying machines in violation of event protocol, and that he tried to hit up the organizers for money after the fact. Maybe one day we can get those things on the public record.

THE STAR WITNESS

On the whole, I’d say each of Karl’s witnesses made his case stronger, even if there were rough patches. Charlie’s testimony and YouTube commentary helped speak to Billy’s reputation, even if I’m not sure the judge will appreciate Charlie’s sense of humor lol. Jeremy was a great addition, even if he got tripped up over the poll. Carlos’ testimony toward Billy will always be valuable, even if he has to acknowledge those statements he was pressured into signing. (And the judge may even ponder why Billy was so eager for Carlos to sign something Billy knew Carlos did not believe.) Granted, I wouldn’t say any one of these witnesses, with perhaps the exception of Apollo’s brother, was necessary, because Karl’s case is so overwhelming on the face of it. But unlike Billy’s pariah parade, each was a net positive. Also, it’s important to remember that every case (or at least every case I’ve ever seen) has its rough spots. It’s these lawyers’ jobs to trip up the opposition, to get them to say the wrong thing, or to put some embarrassing old shit in their faces, and usually, these lawyers are at least competent at that job.

But like Vanessa Williams, Karl’s side saved the best for last. I would say this next guy was the defense’s star witness. Granted, he spoke quickly, and in long sentences, forcing me to burn a damn hole through my keyboard trying desperately to keep up. But as you’ll see, he understood the nexus of this case, and he was on point from start to finish.

His name…

(dramatic Summoning Salt style pause)

… is Elliott Watkins.

(Honestly, just cue the soundtrack right now. You’ll be glad you did.)

It did seem at first that Elliott was fashionably late. KB noted that he was appearing remotely, and should be in the waiting room, but was not present when they were ready to call him. As they continued checking, Judge joked that a shut down and restart normally solves everything, adding that he doesn’t know if that’s true for Donkey Kong.

Finally, Elliott was connected. He testified from what appeared to be his living room, with a nice painting in the background. Once he was affirmed, our final witness was underway.

When asked for his occupation, Elliott said he was a YouTube content creator, and that he runs a talent management company for other creators. When KB asked Elliott to describe this content, Eillott discussed the process of game play commentary, where he would offer live commentary on game playing, and then would cut down several hours of footage into twenty-minute videos. Elliott added that his own content mostly focused on a game called Fortnite.

Elliott explained, after getting that start, he began a talent management company, the largest such one for content creators in Australia, which was mainly focused on selling brand deals to the individual talents they manage. When asked what type of talent he manages, Elliott said it’s predominantly gaming creators, although they have recently branched out from that, with a mixture of about 80% gaming and 20% from other areas.

Elliott discussed his own YouTube channel, called Muselk, which he has had for eleven or twelve years. Elliot added that this channel has millions of subscribers, and again, focuses mainly on Fortnite. KB asked Elliott if he produced content for other social sites. Elliott explained his content on Twitter, TikTok, and Instagram is typically “put-downs” of the original content on YouTube. KB asked if he had any idea the total number of subscribers he had, across all platforms. Elliott guessed the number would be approximately 11-12 million.

When asked by KB, Elliott confirmed he knows of Billy Mitchell. He first heard about him in approximately 2012, when he first watched King of Kong. Elliott explained that, through running his YouTube channel and his talent management company, and also personally, he likes to stay engaged with industry news he’s not creating content for, and that Billy has been a relevant news topic over the years.

KB asked Elliott what his understanding of Billy’s reputation at the time he first saw that movie, making sure to clarify that he’s not asking for Elliott’s personal feelings, but his understanding of how the gaming community at large felt about him. Elliott said, at that time, he wasn’t as broad into the scope of different areas of engagement, but his general perception at that time was that there were a lot of questions about the legitimacy of certain things due to his behavior and the way he’s portrayed in King of Kong, which was as being egotistical and a bit narcissistic.

At this point, Judge interjected, saying that as he’s been watching, twice he’s seen a thumbs-up symbol appear on screen. (I missed this entirely, with my eyes more focused on my Notepad open on my other monitor.) Judge asked Elliott if he was streaming this testimony, to which Elliott said he was not. KB suggested that Elliott probably has a program installed to create a thumbs up icon whenever he does a thumbs up. Elliot reiterated, insisting, that he was absolutely not streaming, and does not want to be held in contempt of court. Judge then allowed KB to proceed.

KB asked Elliott if he was aware of the score dispute at Twin Galaxies. Elliott said he was, noting that there was a bit of a gap between 2012 and that dispute. Elliott described how he began to develop interest in the overall situation, which largely revolved around analysis that was done of old records and the use of the MAME emulator. Elliott continued, [“In my conclusion, the evidence showed beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no alternative other than those records being cheated.”] Elliott recalled Twin Galaxies taking action on that, which resulted in the legal case.

KB remarked how Elliott brought up the legal case. KB asked if he recalled when he first became aware of legal proceedings instead of just the dispute. Elliott was foggy on this point, and was unable to recall when he specifically became aware of it, or whether he learned about one from the other, or the other way around. He did add, whether it was the dispute or the legal case, he learned about it through Twitter and Reddit, and from there going and looking deeper into the topic.

KB asked Elliott what his understanding was of Billy’s reputation in the gaming community around that time. Elliott said the gaming community in general can seem weird from the outside when you’re not in it, but the people who care about things like world records engage deeply with things like the analysis that was done. Elliott seemed to recall a video presenting this evidence, which he recalled the community perceiving as conclusive proof of Billy’s records being cheated. (It’s not clear whether this would refer to Apollo Legend’s initial video on Billy’s scores, or the Jace Hall livestream, or one of the other early video summaries.)

Without a further question, Elliott continued, describing the second main perception of the community related to Billy’s reaction and the legal disputes that followed. Elliott recalled it as [“almost fascinatingly strange”] how, despite the conclusive proof he’d seen, there was no acknowledgment of that proof. Instead, Elliott recalled, [“the aggressive way it was dealt with by Mr. Mitchell was a reinforcement of what was already a poor perception before.”] Elliott didn’t consider it a huge community topic before, but he recalled the community’s perception afterward was of Billy having narcissistic traits and [“an absolute refusal to engage with reality,”] recalling also Billy’s tendency to present things in a dishonest way.

KB circled back through some of this testimony, asking Elliott to confirm which of these legal disputes he was talking about. Elliott recalled that, while he was very engaged and fascinated by the topic, there were so many individual disputes and takedown requests, that he can’t name each individual case. He knew there was Twin Galaxies, and Guinness, and several individual disputes with YouTubers. Elliott added [“This formed the conclusion I had, and almost the entire gaming community had, which is that almost certainly cheating occurred,”] before remarking [“The idea that someone could remove a score from a website or book and be sued for it was absolutely malicious.”]

KB asked Elliott if he was aware of a video by Karl Jobst in May 2021. In an uncharacteristic moment of brevity, Elliott said “Yes”. KB inquired again about Billy’s reputation in the gaming community, asking Elliott to limit this answer to that reputation before Jobst’s video. Elliott recalled that, with the foundation of evidence from before, there was a broad and overwhelming opinion that the records were not legitimate, which was now paired with Billy’s litigious threats and the volume of cases that were happening. Elliott continued, [“With that foundational knowledge that the records were not legitimate, a lot of the statements by individual creators and content creators were a legitimate response. Those suits were effectively broadly viewed as not having any legitimacy behind them, that the objective was to bully and to shut criticism down.”]

KB asked Elliott to recall roughly when he became aware of Karl’s vid from May 2021. Elliott said it would have been on the day it was posted. When asked if his understanding of Billy’s reputation in the gaming community had changed after that, Elliott said no. [“In terms of the facts that existed, with legitimate content where a creator hasn’t done anything wrong, or with Twin Galaxies or anything like that, trying to use legal suits to effectively silence it. Creators are not super wealthy people, so trying to bully someone into an outcome that was sought, damn the consequences, that was a very harrowing reminder of how that undoubtedly can do real damage, and I think that made it more serious and more severe.”]

You may be asking yourself at this point, “Hey ersatz, what’s so special about this guy? Sure, those are great words, and the judge should hear them. But what’s really different from what others have said before?” Indeed, we’ve seen these strats play out from each of Karl’s witnesses. “Billy’s a bully.” “This is frivolous.” “Billy’s reputation was horse manure well before Karl’s video.” (Those are paraphrases.) Also, there were flaws in Elliott’s run up to this point as well. He seemed to think the MAME allegations originated from a video. He had suboptimal routing relating to the sequence of the dispute and subsequent litigation. When it came time to name Billy’s lawsuits, he could recall only Twin Galaxies and Guinness. Given his detailed descriptions of Billy’s reputation, you could still say Elliott had a pace capable of Star Witness WR going into this split, but this run wasn’t exceptionally more memorable than what we’d seen already.

But then…

continuing on, without a subsequent question…

Elliott went…

there.

[“That video was where I became aware of the texts that were exchanged before the very tragic incident, with Mr. Mitchell and, I don’t know the other party, that introduced a new level of… evil. I don’t know a word to use other than evil. It was quite shocking, and it made it from a fascinating, fun topic of how this person can be so disengaged from reality to something much more serious.”]

Again, we’d already seen these texts. They were introduced on the opening day, by way of watching Karl’s original video. Carlos discussed them. Billy dismissed them as “dArK hUmOr tHaT i rEgReT”. The community knew about this. But Elliott was the one to present them in a whole new way. I’m sure many of the other witnesses involved, like David Race and Jeremy Young, were already familiar with those text messages prior to Karl’s video. But like many casual followers of this saga in the broader community, Karl’s “Conmen” video was Elliott’s first introduction to those messages from Billy – those remarks which are triple-verified and undeniable – and Elliott was appalled by what he saw.

KB moved to display the messages from the trial bundle, prompting an objection from BB as to the fact the witness did not fully establish what “texts” he was referring to. Elliott then clarified that these were the texts where Billy had heard Apollo had died, with comments to the effect that he’ll have to try really hard not to smile, with some additional ones.

At this point, Elliott’s run ran into a serious hurdle. As KB asked Elliott for his understanding of Billy’s reputation today, his connection to the court stream disconnected. They worked to get him back online, with KB remarking it probably had nothing to do with the hurricane in distant Florida. As the lost seconds dragged on, I actually started to become physically anxious watching along. Coming out of nowhere, Elliott now had an amazing run in the works, but the part of me familiar with general court procedure knew, if he never made himself available for required cross-examination, the plaintiff’s side could move to have his testimony disqualified. You’re not allowed to just say a bunch of stuff and then bolt without the opposing party having the opportunity to examine your testimony in more detail. Getting this connection back was absolutely critical to getting this run verified on the testimonial leaderboard.

I’m sorry to say, in the midst of the tension, I totally lost count of how long Elliott was disconnected for, and it will probably never show up on any transcript. So that perspective of this run is probably lost to history. However, they were able to get Elliott back online. He remarked how he was having to use his phone, adding that he wished he could use his main computer, but that the “YouTuber setup makes it break during these sorts of meeting calls”.

KB again asked about Elliott’s understanding of Billy’s reputation today.

[“It’s effectively unchanged since the 2018 expose that showed beyond a reasonable doubt that his records were not legitimate. It’s one of narcissism and cheating, an inability to engage with reality, malice around when he’s challenged. It’s why it’s such a fascinating topic, and why it’s quite broad with people who engage with it. Those texts, which were not only in that video but broadly discussed in other areas, added a level of malice that made it, less narcissism where it’s almost funny, but actually an element of evil, so effectively dishonest, egotistical, willing to harm and attack others regardless of right or wrong, using the legal system to bully threats to get an outcome.”]

KB then announced that was the end of evidence in chief. Elliott was on great pace, but as we’ve seen from others, direct questioning may as well have been the intro scene. From here, his run had to survive the brutal boss rush of cross-examination. As BB prepared to begin his questioning, Elliott took a moment to turn off a light shining in his face.

BB asked Elliott how old he was, to which Elliott answered that he was 29. (I immediately did some head math on how old he would have been when King of Kong first released in 2007, and I felt very old, lol.)

[“You said before you’re an agent for gaming creators. What’s a gaming creator?”]

I’m not sure why BB would explore this. Perhaps it was to lull Elliott into a false sense of ease? Elliott answered, explaining how a creator is someone who makes videos on YouTube, or TikToks, or content on multiple different platforms. As to his career as an agent, Elliott reiterated that his initial focus was on gaming content, and that it has broadened out to other areas.

[“You said your focus was on Fortnite, but that’s not a classic arcade game, is it?”]

Elliott replied, [“My personal focus is on Fortnite. The management company covers lots of games. If there’s brand interest, we try to fill that space with creators on the roster.”] Elliott elaborated that this can result in things like an emphasis on female content creators, before clarifying that Fortnite is the focus of his own personal channel.

[“You’ve never met Mr. Mitchell in person, have you?]

Again, Elliott offered a straight-forward “No.”

[“So everything you’ve been saying about your understanding of his reputation is from what others post online?”]

You may have noticed the contradictions here in BB’s approach. If the witness was at an event with Billy, then it’s “Oh, so you felt okay enough to work with Mr. Mitchell”, but if they haven’t, then it’s “Well, how could you possibly have an opinion if you’ve never worked with Mr. Mitchell?” (Obviously those are paraphrases.) But Elliott was plenty ready for this maneuver.

[“No, I’m intensely skeptical of everything. I’m wary of forming my opinions based on what I’m told. I’m always looking at more ground-based evidence, and opinions based on actual analysis of the videos in terms of initial cheating allegations, then also from reaffirming that through looking at the small group who would defend Mr. Mitchell from those allegations, and assessing if those defenses make sense. And then the narcissistic traits and what I would describe as malice, those are much more formed off litigious actions and the text conversations than any individual opinion stated in those videos.”]

BB recalled that Elliott listed three things he based his opinions off of, including his investigation of videos. (To be clear, he’s attempting to lay groundwork to get Elliott to say that Karl’s video was part of what influenced his perception.) Elliott asked if BB was referring to the initial video made about the allegations.

BB again said he noted three things Elliott said he based his opinions off of, including that he looked into these matters for himself. BB continued, [“Is that based on your own investigation of the Twin Galaxies dispute, and the evidence at Twin Galaxies? Is that what you’re talking about?”]

[“My perception of the broad community view of Mr. Mitchell, that’s formed by viewing the community as a whole, in terms of my individual opinion of if that perspective is correct or incorrect. That’s based on things like text conversations, the initial cheating video about scores being done on an emulator. I’d watch a video, then go to the forums, read forum posts that go back and forth. In terms of me forming an opinion on whether the record was legitimate or not, that was on a foundational level. But my view of community opinions, that was a result of just being in that space.”]

BB continued pressing this point, asking strictly about the community’s perception, and the fact he hadn’t met Billy, that this was therefore based on what he read online and about what others had said about him.

[“It was based on personal friendships with people in the gaming space, and yes, forums, Twitter, places where you can see what the broad opinion is.”]

BB asked [“But you never saw how Mr. Mitchell interacted with people at events, did you?”] Elliott answered [“In terms of watching four-hour documentaries showing those events, yes.”] BB attempts to pose the question again, drawing an interruption from Judge, pointing out that the witness’ answer is that, yes, he has seen those things on videos. BB asked [“Have you observed that in real life?”] Elliott answered [“No.”]

BB asked if “videos” was a reference to King of Kong. Elliott answered boosted his testimony ahead yet again. [“No, I can get obsessive. I would say multiple, many, many, many different sources. I’d say King of Kong is one of the sources I’ve drawn from the least. I can’t name the titles of all the videos I’ve drawn that info from, hours of footage from an insurance convention and Mr. Mitchell presenting the record in front of that room. Basically, a lot of Mr. Mitchell’s appearances and discussion before it became a big topic of public discussion and since. At conventions, in public, in panels, on crowds, it’s that footage specifically. I wouldn’t describe King of Kong being a part of that.”]

BB asked about the litigation Elliott was aware of, including the [“Guinness proceeding”]. Elliott said that was the case he had the least detail on, that he knew there was a conflict there around the same time as the Twin Galaxies matter, but he didn’t engage with it as much.

BB asked if it was Elliott’s understanding that there were court proceedings between Billy and Guinness. Honestly, it’s unclear whether Elliott knew the answer, or whether he smelled the trap. [“No, in the sense of… The way I’m forming that thought now, when there are court proceedings, they were like with Twin Galaxies, which I engage with more. I remember discussion about a trend that would happen where people don’t want to deal with a legal case and the stress behind it. I would assume it was one of those that was sorted out of court.”]

There was a pause in the action. Elliott’s run was getting close to the final split. BB hadn’t been able to land any of the punches he was looking for. But all of this was prelude for what Elliott was about to see. Hundreds of runs could come to this point, and still not make WR, due to the difficulty of strat execution, nerves, or plain old RNG.

[“You were asked some questions, and you gave evidence to the effect that the Mr. Jobst video, that part of it had an effect on Mr. Mitchell’s reputation, calling it a ‘new level of evil’. Do you remember saying that?”]

Elliott continued to be on point. [“You mean in regards to seeing those texts?”]

BB reiterated [“So you remember that evidence?”] (“Evidence” here meaning his spoken testimony.)

[“Yes.”]

[“But part of that new evil that you said arose, that also came from the part of the video where Mr. Jobst talked about Apollo’s suicide, did it not?”]

[“It was in that part of the video.”]

Before I continue, please understand that I’m not trying to make light of Apollo’s death by way of my writing. It is, unfortunately, a shadow cast over these whole proceedings. Aside from an attempt to make all of this material entertaining for you fine folks to read, I’m trying to emphasize the way in which this testimony is being delivered, rather than the obviously serious and morbid subject matter. There’s a lot of subtext to this line of questioning, coming from both sides. And to know why Elliott was Karl’s star witness, it is important to understand what exactly is going on here.

Billy’s case relies on Karl’s claim that there was a financial payout as part of the Billy-Apollo statement – the only unfactual element of Karl’s video – to be the basis for Billy’s poor reputation. In order to do this, he has to establish a few things, including that Billy’s reputation took a hit from that video. Elliott clearly knows this, but while every other one of Karl’s witnesses (as well as some of Billy’s own witnesses, lol) established that Billy’s reputation was poor both before and after that video – something that Elliott echoes as well – Elliott also firmly establishes an alternative basis for any supposed change. If Billy’s reputation went into the toilet because of factual statements by Karl, then legally speaking, Billy Mitchell could just eat shit and accept the truth being reported. And so, while I wouldn’t say this trial “comes down” to this moment (because Karl has already won this case in almost too many ways to count), we do arrive at this key war of words. BB’s objective here is to draw an admission from Elliott, while Elliott attempts to deny that admission, all while neither side speaks directly to those intentions.

BB said [“What I’m putting to you is, part of that new evil came from what Mr. Jobst said about Apollo’s suicide.”]

Remember, Elliott was already running on gold splits at this point. Star Witness WR was already in his sights. But then… this happened.

[“No, it was originally from Mr. Mitchell’s known propensity to bully people with litigation. I don’t think any reasonable person would conclude that someone going through a litigious lawsuit right before that occurred, that it wouldn’t ultimately be a factor in that. But where I ascribed the evil was where the texts implied, and were broadly viewed by the community as implying, that Mr. Mitchell had no empathy, and almost a desire for that person to be dead. That’s what formed my opinion.”]

BB took another shot. [“So I’m trying to understand, you’re saying your ‘new level of evil’ came about from the part of the video where Mr. Jobst talks about those text messages, but had nothing to do with the part of the video where Mr. Jobst talks about Apollo settling and paying a large sum of money and that being the cause of his death, is that what you’re saying?”]

Again, this is a paraphrase and not an exact quote. But as you can gather, BB did word his lengthy question in a very particular and delicate way. And of course, he’s abusing semantics as well. How exactly do you define a “part” of a video? Karl didn’t speak these different things concurrently, with two audio tracks playing over each other. So were these different statements during different “parts”, or the same “part”? This is one of the ways in which opposing attorneys try to trip up witnesses, and why when one is testifying, they have to be very particular about these kinds of terms. At the very minimum, BB is hoping Elliott will betray an ignorance of the video he’s discussing, so his testimony could possibly be dismissed.

[“I recall, the other part of the video made the consequences of the overall situation more real and not funny. But where I used the word ‘evil’, that applied purely to reading those texts, purely to a person speaking about a topic like that in that way. I and the majority of the community saw those as genuine face-value messages. That’s where I saw evil.”]

BB asked [“When you say ‘the other part’, could you talk about which parts you’re talking about?”] Again, BB’s trying to explore if he can catch Elliott slipping up, which is his job here.

[“The unfortunate discussion of the suicide was what reinforced, but made more serious, the consequences of what the community already saw as an absolute character trait, with the malicious litigation to suppress discussion of the firmly established proof of cheating. But the element of evil I spoke of was not out of any discussion of the texts. They were a thing I followed discussions of on Reddit. But I don’t need someone to tell me that wishing for someone’s death and wanting to actively research it is evil. I think any reasonable person would read those and be quite disturbed.”]

BB aaaaalllllmost got what he wanted from Elliott there. Again, my notes are inexact, but my sense from watching all of this unfold was that Elliott held his position well. And I would say the notion that BB was not satisfied was backed up by the fact he continued probing this point.

BB went to ask about part of Elliott’s answer which referred to Apollo’s suicide, and the part of the video where Jobst said Billy paid Apollo a large sum of money. Judge quickly interjected, noting that BB mixed it up, that the actual claim was the other way around, that Apollo paid Billy. BB continued, referencing a claim that this left Apollo in debt and led to his suicide. KB then objected that this was misrepresentative, saying that if the barrister is going to put other people’s words to a witness, he needs to use the actual words, adding that the original statement from Jobst does not say what BB is implying.

BB asked for the [“fifth further amended defense”] or some such to be put on screen. The page displayed ended up being a transcript of the relevant section of the Jobst video. Judge asked Elliott to read it, which BB amended that Elliott should read the first ten lines just to himself.

BB then asked [“Speaking about that part of the video, the impact of that part of the video on Mr. Mitchell’s reputation, was that what you were referring to when you said it went from being funny to a new evil?”]

[“In the sense of the consequences of malicious litigation, and that being a factor, yes.”]

BB’s repeated asking about this one point over and over was starting to wear down Mr. Watkins. That answer was fine, but too much focus on Billy’s litigation could give BB what he needed. The goal was in sight. Elliott just needed to power through for the win.

[“And that part of the video you read, that took it to a new understanding, didn’t it?”]

But rather than closing up, Elliott addressed this final challenge with a fully fleshed-out, considered answer – dare I say, the testimonial equivalent of landing a frame perfect skip, late in the run, while already on world record pace.

[“I wouldn’t say there was any individual element about the specifics of the case, or the specifics in terms of whether there was a monetary payout. I don’t think that impacted the conclusion that I or anyone would take regardless. I think the true burden of going through that sort of experience is much more about the emotional stress. I know, I can speak as a YouTuber myself, having to compromise a piece of work you created, and having to concede regardless of financial outcome what you truly believe to be right, that is one of many elements. But in terms of whether that was ultimately a factor in how that was viewed, no, not at all. This was a thing done so regularly, in so many cases. And some say ‘Oh, it sucks, that person had to concede, they didn’t have the resources to push back.’ But to see it result in tragic consequences. This isn’t dealing with people’s lives. And where it was fun and games, now it was more serious.”]

Again, that’s not an exact quote. But Elliott was willing to concede that Billy’s lawsuit probably had an impact on Apollo, and to explain in emotional detail why it would have such an impact, while giving absolutely no weight whatsoever to the tiny detail of an alleged cash payout, the importance of which was the only thing BB was trying to establish.

In other words…

BB asked if Elliott was Karl’s agent. [“No.”] BB asked if his company represents Jobst. [“No.”] BB asked if Elliott had a commercial arrangement with Jobst. [“No, there’s never been any arrangement.”]

[“Nothing further.”]

KB said he had no reexamination. After the judge excused Mr. Watkins, KB added “You’re honor, that’s the defense’s evidence.”

Judge then said they were prepared to adjourn until Friday. He would like written outline of arguments Thursday morning, noting that it depends on how long they are, adding that shorter arguments could be sent in the afternoon. KB noted he intended to keep those arguments brief, relying on closing oral submissions on Friday. BB noted he’s in another trial on Wednesday and Thursday. He said his written arguments are largely done, but since they will not be short, he will have them in Thursday morning. Judge asked KB if he’s content with the court receiving BB’s first, KB said he was as long as he can submit later. BB noted that, given his other obligations, he couldn’t practically take more time, and will have to have them in by 10am. Judge adjourned until 10am on Friday for closing arguments.

This update has obviously run very long – and thank you all for your patience in waiting for it to be completed – so I’ll leave my personal closing remarks for the next update. However, with regard to “Day 6” in particular, one observer remarked to me privately that Tuesday was probably the most unenjoyable day of Billy Mitchell’s entire life. He had to sit, by himself, with no family, and he had to listen to this parade of people talk about how much of a liar he is, how he’s a cheater, how unpleasant he is, how narcissistic and malicious and evil, et cetera. Could you even imagine? Has Billy ever had to experience anything like this before, in his entire life? Even worse, Billy paid money for this experience lmao. Someone else who was in attendance told me Billy was constantly handing little notes to his solicitor, who was probably his only “friend” in the room.

We’ll see you all back here again, very soon. Based on some feedback in the replies to my previous update, I’m going to try a different approach with the comments this time. I’ll be filtering out the silliness and mockery a bit more aggressively on this post. Don’t worry, I haven’t gone soft. We’re just taking a break from it, and trying something new, that’s all. The other posts are still open to some trolly fun. You all know I still love… most of you.

ON A PERSONAL NOTE

I want to get this update out the door as soon as possible, but I also wanted to make a personal statement, and announce something new. Thank you all so, so, so much for reading, each and every one of you. I knew, when I boarded that plane to Australia, headed to what I knew would be the adventure of a lifetime, that there would be some interest and appreciation for my work. But I had no idea how much overwhelmingly positive feedback I would receive. I’m tearing up a bit as I write this, but it truly did warm my heart to hear from each of you. (And don’t worry, the attempted trolls didn’t get me down, lol.)

As a testament to how unexpected the response was, I had never set up any way for folks to donate some bucks to the cause. I mean, why would I? It’s just a free blog, that I run in my spare time. But the question I got from people over and over and over was “How can I donate?” “How can I just pitch in at least the price of a cup of coffee?” “How can I support your work?”

https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-the-australia-trial-coverage-by-ersatzcats

To that end, I sat down this week and figured out how to do this whole GoFundMe thing. If you’re interested, please follow that link to find out how you can contribute to recovering the costs that were incurred in the process of reporting on the Karl Jobst trial in Australia.

As the Namco ghosties in the banner are always happy to remind me, this website is strictly a passion project. It has no ads, and generates no revenue. And there are no plans to attempt to monetize it. This fundraiser will go toward satisfying the obligations spelled out in the description. After those are satisfied, all remaining funds will go directly back into paying this site’s bills, which include hosting and basic domain registration. If folks want to make sure the evidence against Billy Mitchell stands available until the year 2525, this is your opportunity. The point being – again, because this site in particular is strictly a passion project – I will not ultimately be keeping any of these donations for myself. However, it should be noted that since I’ve been the one paying those site bills these past few years, any relief on that monetary obligation going forward will be highly, highly appreciated.

Please do not feel obligated to donate anything. Everyone’s financial situation is different. I understand as well as anyone what it’s like to be in a position where you can’t donate to the content creators whose work you enjoy. And of course, there are much more impactful causes in the world to donate to as well. Honestly, your kind words are thanks enough for me. And there are other free ways to support this work as well, such as by boosting it on social media. My work will remain free to access. This is simply here for the folks who want to use it.

Thank you all so, so much. Let’s hope for a swift and decisive victory for the truth.