ctmirror.org20%
A killing, a pardon and a defamation suit — not a typical campaign. 51%
By Mark Pazniokas49%
7/16/2026, 8:52:10 PM
BS Summary: This article contains 37 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Appeal to Authority, and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 34% saturation with 449 hits. Analysis detected 2,685 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,319 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50.6% and a BS Rank of 51% (10,831 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 50.50% of the article peer group.
Republican 5th Congressional District candidate Jonathan De Barros claims in a defamation lawsuit that four Republicans falsely referred to him on social media and at a GOP nominating convention as “a murderer.”
He is seeking damages — and a gag order silencing them.
A counterclaim by one of alleged defamers accuses De Barros of misusing the court to intimidate critics who engaged in protected political speech, and it asserts that any reference to De Barros as a “murderer” meets the legal test of “substantial truth.”
Undisputed is that De Barros shot and killed one young man and wounded another as a teen outside a recreation center in Waterbury on a Sunday afternoon in October 1996.
Or that he was convicted of murder, attempted murder and assault with a firearm and sentenced to life in prison.
From there, the Jonathan De Barros story gets complicated.
The 18-year-old who shot two people is now 47, a self-described MAGA patriot, backer of police, defender of gun rights — and a candidate for the contested Republican nomination in Connecticut’s 5th District.
“Most people are not the same they were 30 years ago,” De Barros said.
The state Appellate Court overturned his conviction in July 2000 and ordered a new trial, concluding the original judge had erred in barring evidence relevant to De Barros’ claim that he shot the victims in self-defense.
De Barros remained in prison while the case proceeded.
A second trial, during which De Barros was allowed to introduce testimony suggesting the dead man had a gun, ended with a hung jury.
Rather than go to trial for a third time, De Barros pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of manslaughter under the Alford Doctrine, which allows a defendant to maintain their innocence while conceding the state might have sufficient evidence for a conviction.
The deal provided a path to freedom in 2015.
He had been behind bars for 19 years, since his arrest on the day of the shootings.
The Board of Pardons and Paroles notified him in March 2022 it had granted him an “absolute pardon,” expunging even the record of his arrest.
“Congratulations, as you are now legally able to truthfully state you have never been arrested or convicted of a crime in the state of Connecticut as it relates to any of the convictions pardoned,” wrote T.
Brooks, a parole supervisor.
But what does that do to the right of anyone else to say he indeed was arrested and convicted of a crime?
Or to note that the man De Barros shot nearly 30 years ago still lies dead, whether the victim of murder or manslaughter?
De Barros said he is comfortable with the facts, so long as the full story is told.
“The problem is the individuals were calling me a murderer, and I’m not a murderer,” De Barros said.
“They know exactly why they are doing it.
They want to interfere with a federal election.”
His lawsuit accuses four people of defamation: Jeff Weiss, Pam Salamone and Steve Pedbereznak of Cheshire and Dawn Mariorano of Waterbury.
Weiss and Salamone were delegates who supported Chris Shea, a firefighter and retired Navy SEAL, over De Barros at the convention in May.
Pedbereznak, a retired Waterbury police officer, and Mariorano, the city’s GOP nominee for mayor in 2023, host a political podcast streamed on Facebook.
“The Defendants’ conduct in repeatedly and publicly calling the Plaintiff a ‘murderer,’ despite full knowledge of his absolute pardon, the reversal of his murder conviction by the Appellate Court, and the true facts of the underlying matter, was extreme and outrageous,” De Barros states in his suit.
At the nominating convention, De Barros finished second to Shea.
De Barros says he had 30% of the vote before delegates were asked if they wished to change their votes, as the rules of both parties allow.
Salamone, according to De Barros’ lawsuit, “began circling the room speaking to people stating that the Plaintiff is ‘a murderer’ … do you really want a ‘murderer’ representing you[?]”
De Barros lost votes during the switching, dropping to 22% — still comfortably more than the 15% necessary to qualify for a primary against Shea on August 11.
Salamone declined to comment.
The only reply to De Barros in court came in a counterclaim and motion to dismiss made on behalf of Weiss by state Rep.
Craig Fishbein of Wallingford, a lawyer and ranking Republican on the legislature’s Judiciary Committee.
Fishbein called De Barros’ litigation a SLAPP suit, an acronym for a “strategic lawsuit against public participation,” the tag lawyers apply to frivolous actions filed to intimidate or silence critics.
And that, Fishbein wrote, is grounds for dismissal under what is colloquially known as Connecticut’s “anti-SLAPP law.”
It states that in a civil action “based on the opposing party’s exercise of its right of free speech … in connection with a matter of public concern, such opposing party may file a special motion to dismiss the complaint, counterclaim or cross claim.”
Weiss has not acknowledged making remarks about De Barros or the criminal case on social media, as the candidate alleged in his lawsuit.
Even if he did, Fishbein wrote, “they are substantially true, and therefore are not actionable defamation.”
“In fact, they are protected speech,” Fishbein wrote.
“Here, Plaintiff DeBarros filed this action merely as a political scare tactic to try to silence the free speech of Defendant Weiss — the very soul of Connecticut’s anti-SLAPP statute.”
His campaign bio describes De Barros as a victim, first outside the North End Recreation Center in 1996 and then in court:
“As a teenager, he was attacked by multiple gang members, one armed with a loaded firearm.
Forced to act in self-defense, Jonathan was wrongfully charged after a Democrat-appointed prosecutor withheld crucial evidence proving the assailant’s gun was in police custody.
“After 19 years of wrongful incarceration, his conviction was unanimously overturned by the Connecticut Court of Appeals, and he was later granted a full, complete, unconditional and absolute pardon by Democratic Governor Ned Lamont.”
The description is inaccurate as it applies to Lamont granting him a pardon.
The power to pardon in Connecticut rests with the Board of Pardons and paroles, not governors.
As for the rest, it lacks some of the details related by the Appellate Court in a summary.
The court’s opinion describes De Barros arriving at the basketball court outside the recreation center, where 15 teens had gathered to play.
Jermaine Lewis, who would be fatally shot, approached De Barros, and the two walked away from the group.
“The conversation between the victim and the defendant erupted into an argument.
As a crowd began to gather, the defendant pulled a gun from the inside of his coat pocket, aimed it at the victim’s upper body and fired several shots,” the court wrote.
“The victim was hit by a bullet and fell to the ground.
As the victim was lying in a fetal position, the defendant stood over him and resumed firing until the gun was empty.”
An autopsy found Lewis had been shot five times.
“Sensing that the defendant’s gun had no more bullets, the victim’s friend, Scott Nash, ran toward the defendant,” the court wrote.
“The defendant took a step back, pulled another gun from the inside of his coat and fired three shots at Nash that missed.
Nash turned around and started running away as the defendant fired more shots, three of which struck Nash.”
Other than broadly describing growing up in “a hostile environment,” De Barros declined in an interview to discuss the circumstances that led him to carry .25-caliber and 9 mm handguns to the basketball court.
“That’s beside the point.
The point of the matter is I was attacked by gang members,” De Barros said.
“And I was forced to defend myself.”
And that, he said, was not murder.
Speakers
3speakers24%attributed speech1,007writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Selected voice
100%flagged-word coverageJonathan De Barros
172 attributed words55% of attributed speech80% writer coverage
Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.