“Isolated Incident” Is Not an Answer.

Corporate statements during litigation have a recognizable vocabulary: “isolated incident,” “committed to safety,” “we take this seriously.” None of it is technically false. All of it is designed to sound like an answer without addressing what happened.

I don’t match spin with spin. I fact-check it, specifically and immediately, against the public record. “Isolated incident” gets answered, for example, with a prior complaint filed two years earlier. “Committed to safety” gets answered with an internal memo already in the record showing the company knew and didn’t act. The correction has to be faster than the spin’s shelf life, or the vague statement is what a reporter’s story runs with by default.

Why this has to happen during the trial, not after

A defendant’s statement made during an active trial shapes same-day coverage whether or not it’s accurate, because reporters on deadline often can’t independently verify it before filing. Real-time fact-checking — coordinated with trial counsel and within Rule 3.6 limits on trial publicity — is what keeps a vague, defensible-sounding statement from becoming the day’s uncontested headline.