“We Were Just Trying to … Find Any Leads about the Case”: A Police Video Raises New Questions About NBC’s Rittenhouse Statement

In the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, proceedings were disrupted by what Judge Bruce Schroeder considered a major breach of security after NBC was found to be following the van of jurors. Given the threats in the case and the concern over jury intimidation, Schroeder was irate. In response, NBC released a statement that some of us found vague and misleading. Now a police video at the scene with NBC freelancer James Morrison confirms that the statement was intentionally misleading on the critical question of whether Morrison was ordered to follow jurors.

In the hearing, Schroeder announced that Morrison was pulled over after he sped through a red light to continue to follow the van.  He said that Morrison confirmed that a NBC producer (later identified as Irene Byon) told him to follow the jurors. The incident led to MSNBC being banned from the entire courthouse for the duration of the case.

After the incident, NBC released the following statement:

“Last night, a freelancer received a traffic citation. While the traffic violation took place near the jury van, the freelancer never contacted or intended to contact the jurors during deliberations, and never photographed or intended to photograph them. We regret the incident and will fully cooperate with the authorities on any investigation.”

At the time, I wrote the statement was notably ambiguous and possibly misleading:

NBC’s statement is confusing in one respect in starting with “while the traffic violation took place near the jury van.” That suggests that it was a coincidence that the traffic accident occurred near the jury van. The question is whether the freelancer was instructed by NBC to follow the jury bus. That should be easy to deny if it is untrue.

Finally, the fact that he is a freelancer is immaterial. News organizations commonly use freelancers for a host of different positions. When they are working for a network, they are agents of that network.  Again, NBC is ambiguous. It goes out of its way to note that this person is a freelancer but not whether he was working freelance for NBC at the time.

Now, the video seems to confirm that NBC was intentionally misleading on the key fact of whether it ordered Morrison to follow the jurors.

In the video from the night of Nov. 17, police ask Morrison why he was following the vehicle.

The officer asks Morrison “so were you following a vehicle?” and Morrison responded “I was trying to see – I was being called by New York going, maybe these are the people you need to follow, but I don’t know, I was trying to –”

The officer then interrupts and asks directly “You were trying to what?”

“Just do what they told me to do,” Morrison said.

“New York told you to follow a vehicle?” the officer asked.

“Yes,” Morrison responded.

The officer continued to ask how they knew about this van as the one carrying the jurors and Morrison just said that he did what “New York” told him to do. He said he was “just trying to find a location, that’s all.”

Morrison then called Byon and put her on the phone with the police officer. The officer asked Byon about why NBC ordered the following of certain “vehicles.” It was Byon who inadvertently admitted that they wanted to specifically follow jurors. She said that they were not trying to actually speak to “any of the jury members.”

Byon could be heard saying

“Hi officer, my name is Irene. I’m a booking producer with NBC News. We were just trying to respectfully – just trying to see if it’s possible to find any leads about the case. And so we were just keeping our distance, just to see where people involved in the trial are positioned. By no means were we trying to get in contact with any of the jury members or whoever is in the car. We just were trying to see where key players in the trial may be at.”

The officer then asked “You advised him to follow any vehicle? Did you know which vehicle he was following?”

Byon responded that “We just had our people positioned in different areas of the courthouse to see if anyone would be able to –”

The important take away is that there was never any question that NBC ordered Morrison to follow the jurors. That was the critical question for the officer and for the Court. Yet, it is the one thing that NBC left out of its statement. As a news organization, NBC would shred a subject of a story who happened to leave out such a material fact. Instead, NBC issued a statement that could be read to suggest that this was just a total and unfortunate coincidence.  It was merely a “traffic violation took place near the jury van.”

There is unlikely to be any media demands for NBC to address the misleading statement, but the tape shows that Judge Schroeder was right to ban MSNBC, which not only followed jurors but then failed to be open about its own conduct in the controversy.

116 thoughts on ““We Were Just Trying to … Find Any Leads about the Case”: A Police Video Raises New Questions About NBC’s Rittenhouse Statement”

  1. The guy following the van was a smart guy. He knew that he might be on a path of going to jail if he was only acting in his self interest as some kind of kook. So, he immediately gave up the actual instigators of the caper. He decided that he wasn’t going to be the fall guy in the plot. I send my admiration for his quick on the spot thinking in the situation. He wasn’t going to be used by those who initially conjured up the dastardly deed. Well done good fellow, well done.

  2. A man once said that the fake news is the enemy of the jurors. My bad, he actually said that the fake news was the enemy of the people. He had em dead to rights. Of course they were all of a tizzy when he pointed out the truth in his description of their attempts at presenting the news. Excuse me. I meant to say propaganda. It has even gotten so bad that CNN has suspended Chris Coumo. They didn’t know that one Coumo was washing the hands of the other Coumo just like they didn’t know about an NBC contracted employee following the juror van. Just like Hunter their employing plausible deniability. To put it in a more colloquial manner, they’re lying through their fake teeth.

  3. I know its easy, like shooting fish in a barrel. But feeding the troll, no matter how easy, is exactly what the know nothing is after.

    1. Olly, when a question mark is placed within a URL, it and anything after it are not needed for referring viewers to a news article. The question mark is a separator character. It starts a querystring, extra stuff that gets passed to code running on the web server.

      IOW trim the URL so that the question mark and following characters are not included. It is cleaner. See:


        1. Olly, I too was posting long links. Anonymous pointed it out as an attempt to say I was stupid instead of presenting helpful instruction. I appreciate that you used a link to substantiate your premise. One of the Anonymous posters on this forum never provides a link to bolster her thought patterns. Keep up the good work.

      1. Great advice. It only took till noon today to learn something. Some days get really long waiting for a useful nugget like this.

  4. Darren, I posted a comment to Silberman with 3 links. I forgot the 2 link maximum rule. Please delete the 3rd link but leave the comment.

  5. “After the incident, NBC released the following statement: . . .”

    You can tell a person is lying when they aggressively change the topic.

    “NBC was intentionally misleading . . .”

    And they wonder why they are losing their credibility.

  6. Journalists? They seem more like Saladin’s spies keeping tabs on what the Crusaders were doing.

  7. She’s a horrible liar. She needs to work on that if she wants to climb the MSM ladder.

  8. When does journalism become just as (if not more) intrusive as government surveillance?

  9. As a former Police Officer and Federal Special Agent….the odor of Bovine Fecal Matter emanates from the account of the guy caught following the Jury Transport and the New York Producer.

    The Kid is lying about his reasons for following the Jury…while trying to turn it back onto the rightful place….with those that hired him and directed his activities.

    That person in New York…having used the Telephone and Internet to coordinate the activities she mentions is in violation of several Federal Statutes.

    The FBI should be all over this.

    Exactly how many Spotters did NBC have spying on the Courthouse?

    What were their instructions…what were they paid….what information did they provide….and were any of them government employees?

    I would open the Case under the New York Producers name….add the Kid caught following the Jury as a Co-Subject and add others as they are identified.

    The US Attorney for that District should take the case to a Grand Jury and seek Indictments upon completion of the FBI Investigation.

    1. Ralph Chappell,

      It’s not a crime to follow the jury van. Merely following it doesn’t violate anything. It’s most likely they wanted to know where the jury was sequestered so when the trial concluded they would be able to have an exclusive opportunity to interview a juror after the verdict.

      If NBC actually exposed a juror’s identity then it would be considered a crime and be charged accordingly.

      If following the van was a crime then any other vehicle following it would be considered to have committed a crime.

      Finding out the location of the jury’s whereabouts itself is not a crime either. Disclosing it may be. But given that they might have been seeking an exclusive interview when the trial ended they wouldn’t give up that advantage by openly noting the jury’s sequestration location.

      Turley is just making hay over a moot issue.

      1. “It’s not a crime to follow the jury van”

        Here we go again with Svelaz the circus animal who comments on everything and when proven wrong makes the same comments over and over again. That of course is after Svelaz runs away.

        You did this on some other threads so I will remind you where you left off. Those that aren’t signed into those threads won’t see it, but they will see a variety.

      2. “. . . they wanted to know where the jury was sequestered . . .”

        The jury wasn’t sequestered.

        “. . . so when the trial concluded they would be able to have an exclusive opportunity to interview a juror after the verdict.”

        You mean they couldn’t tell who the jury members were by just sitting in the courtroom?

        You’re as much of a mental contortionist as is NBC.

      3. Svelaz’s post (in reply to a well-thought explanation) is utterly lacking in value. Start with his incorrect assertion that the jury was “sequestered.”

  10. Extra, Extra, Read All About It!!!

    NBC, the Pravda like propaganda activism “news” outlet, intentionally lied!

    After what NBC and other Pravda like activists media outlets have done since 2016 this comes as no surprise. The left leaning media will openly lie straight to your face and then when they’re caught in their lies, they completely ignore it or gaslight the public.

    My opinion about what NBC was doing:
    This may be anti left leaning media bias talking; but, I think it was obvious that Rittenhouse was going to be acquitted and NBC was trying to find out who and where the jury members were so they could somehow “leak” that information to the anti-Rittenhouse, vigilante, social justice warrior, Marxist mob so the direct and indirect jury intimidation could begin before the deliberations were over. This was their last chance to intimidate the jury and manipulate the outcome of the trial. It has been shown that the only court the left leaning media believes in is the court of public opinion an the only justice that the left leaning media believes in is mob justice.

    I recently wrote…

    The reason the phrase “enemy of the people” is being used to describe the modern media is the media has set aside being an unbiased investigative arm that’s fighting for we the people and now it’s intentionally distributing pure partisan advocacy based propaganda. This unethical shift puts the press in direct conflict with the truth and makes them a literal “enemy of the people” because they are lying, lying by omission, or actively twisting the facts that they deliver to we the people to push a partisan agenda. Their advocacy propaganda is an intentional attempt to psychologically manipulate the population and any such attempt my the media, aka press, violates the purpose of their constitutional protection which was specifically enumerated so the press could fight for the unbiased truth for we the people. The press ignoring their core obligation to fight for the unbiased truth and shifting to partisan advocacy propaganda violates the core reasons they have constitutional protections in the first place and makes them literally an enemy of the people.

    Yes, I think the left leaning media is an enemy of the people.

    Here is another great example of the left’s outright lying tactics.

    In my opinion, the left leaning media act like pathological liars.

    1. I believe it is time we delete the qualifier “leaning” when describing the media.

      The media no longer lean left. They are.

      1. Suze wrote, “I believe it is time we delete the qualifier “leaning” when describing the media. The media no longer lean left. They are.”

        I completely understand your point but it’s literally inaccurate. Most of the mainstream media outlets may in fact lean left but there are media outlets that don’t lean left, all it takes is one to disprove your assertion.

      2. I can’t recall the context of where I heard it, but have adopted the statement, “liberals are not the left wing of the party, they are the fuselage.”

  11. Birds of a feather….

    Cuomo’s Corruption Is Typical of Journalists Today

    “And as part of the American elites, journalists now tend to do what elites do: They work to defend the status quo — though these days, this is accomplished under a patina of “social justice” wokeisms.

    And far from holding journalists to account, their target audience — often consisting of the same highly educated progressive elites, thanks to the digital-media business model — rewards them for catering to their shared interests.“


    1. ANON Approximately one year ago, did ABC not kill the reporting of Billy Clinton’s escapades on the Epstine air traveling, by Amy Robach? Now it seems the current trial with Epstine’s alleged assistant, it seems the big elite named travelers are being whitewashed away? Also, another tangent, If some of the Hunter Biden’s alleged escapades and actions are there, he should be in process of being prosecuted?

  12. We know the names of people guilty of jury tampering.
    This just escalates until the criminals are prosecuted

  13. NBC/MSNBC BS lies – they knew exactly what they were doing, and the NBC person Byon avoids answering the question with a lot of BS. They were looking to film and Dox the jurors they were doing their radical left wing policies and trying to intimidate the jury. NBC/MSNBC are more radical left than CNN which is something.

  14. The possibility of the MSM blatantly lying about something is no longer newsworthy.

  15. Monument asks:

    “Tell me why they are a trusted news source?”

    Because Fox is far worse. Last night, one of their chyrons read:


    Of course, I know that you lying Trumpists believe that lie is absolutely true.

    The question is- does Turley? Suppose we ask him?

    Oh, that’s right, he takes no questions! No wonder.

    If he doesn’t know about the hateful “advocacy journalism” at his network, it’s BECAUSE he doesn’t want to know and be confronted by it so he can avoid taking a moral stand. How convenient!

    But one day Turley will be so confronted in a public forum, and he will try to say with a straight face, “I just didn’t know.”

    He knows….

      1. Mike,

        I’m no fan of Hilary or Bill. I voted for neither. I just can’t abide hypocrisy. Turley NEVER finds fault with his employer Fox. Could it be that he is on its payroll?

        I’m sorry if you find my keeping Turley honest a diversion. It’s what I do! And what’s more, I’m proud of it.

        1. Currents,

          I agree that “whataboutism” does not prove something right. Rather, it proves that something is wrong.

          I know that it must be disheartening to read my criticism of Turley. But, seriously, do you think that Turley believes that the Left is teaching our kids to hate America. Do you honestly think that he would agree with that blanket statement?

          I just want to know why he would work for a network which would make such a hateful remark. Is that too much to ask? I ask you.

          1. There is no such thing as a network without a political bias. I don’t have cable and don’t watch any of them, but I resent attempts to delegitimize an entire side of the political spectrum. If anything Fox offers a counterpoint to the CNN’s and MSNBC’s of today’s’ market.

            People who think any one single source is enough to understand the political climate today is woefully uninformed.

            Perhaps instead of thinking simply endlessly saying the word “Fox” as a pejorative, you would consider offering a reasoned criticism of the views expressed there you find objectionable.

          2. But, seriously, do you think that Turley believes that the Left is teaching our kids to hate America.

            Oh, I don’t know. Perhaps we should review his blog archives to discover what he has said about what the Left is already doing. Here are just 3 of his posts. There is a running theme that while he supports academic freedom of speech, he does not support the Left’s ideological indoctrination and suppression of meaningful debate.

            The message from the board appears to be that the classes should characterize the law as akin to racism and anti-Semitism. That would seem more like indoctrination than education.

            There are often difficult cases where educators espouse views for a pedagogical purposes that are deemed biased. Academic freedom often protect such discussions. Most of us try to be open of any bias while taking extra steps to present opposing views. Some however show a pronounced bias that can be viewed as pressuring students to parrot their views to succeed in their classes. These two cases present more clear cases, in my view, of crossing the line from academic freedom into open (and admitted) political advocacy.

            The support for such diversity of thought is essential for higher education. However, that does not mean that we should not call out such inaccurate and extremist viewpoints. While figures like liberal theorist William Galston has called out critical race theory as challenging the very foundations of our country:

            “one thing is clear: Because the Declaration of Independence—the founding document of the American liberal order—is a product of Enlightenment rationalism, a doctrine that rejects the Enlightenment tacitly requires deconstructing the American order and rebuilding it on an entirely different foundation.”

            1. Olly says:

              “Oh, I don’t know. Perhaps we should review his blog archives to discover what he has said about what the Left is already doing.”

              I want to thank you for not calling me an insulting name and wishing that I just go away. I welcome debate. I hope the Trumpists will learn from your example since you are held in their high esteem it would appear.

              I have perused the articles you cited. Do you suppose that I would ever claim that no teacher on the Left has ever attempted to indoctrinate students as opposed to educating them? Of course not.

              I find it ironic that religious people (you?) complain about indoctrination. After all, religion is nothing but indoctrination from the moment that a child is able to listen and read. But for such religious indoctrination, there would be far less believers. It’s no wonder they often lose their faith when they leave the overbearing influence of their parents and attend a Liberal arts college where these religious dogmas are finally challenged.

              But I digress. One of the reasons I admire Turley is his circumspection. Like a good lawyer, he sticks to the facts of the subject controversy and does not fall into the trap of overgeneralizing as if the facts of one case applied in all cases.

              It’s painting with a broad brush in order to smear one’s opponent which is the logical fallacy. I’m sure you could find additional examples of Leftist teachers indoctrinating students. The question is how many instances does it take to make the blanket statement true that the “Left is teaching our kids to hate America”?

              We all know that Turley has made it unmistakably clear that he decries the “age of rage” in our media. Claiming that the Left is teaching kids to hate America is an accusation which would boil the blood of Fox viewers. Were it possible to confront Turley with this rage-inducing chyron, I maintain that he would denounce it.

              Alas, we will never know if you are right or I am because Turley will not take a question from his readers.

              1. Yes, you did digress. I will help get you back on the point you asserted.

                You said: But, seriously, do you think that Turley believes that the Left is teaching our kids to hate America.

                So I searched the archives to see if Turley has ever addressed the substance of your question. I did not find any posts showing anyone other than those on the Left indoctrinating students to hate their own country and white people to boot. So yes, JT believes that.

                I have perused the articles you cited. Do you suppose that I would ever claim that no teacher on the Left has ever attempted to indoctrinate students as opposed to educating them? Of course not.

                Fail. Once again, you digress. That wasn’t your claim. You ignorantly thought you and JT were BFF’s on this topic and I blew up that fantasy.

                Damn, it would suck to be you. You’re an American Marxist. You’re President is everything you and the rest of your ilk erroneously believed about President Trump. And yet you don’t attack Biden, you attack Conservatives and Jonathan Turley. That’s the definition of hypocrisy.

                I love what Roger Stone said about CNN. I would rate your performance on this blog no different than CNN. Stone said: I Don’t get my news news from CNN for the same reason I don’t eat out of the toilet.

                Merry Christmas! 🙏

                  1. Olly, the American Nazi,

                    I won’t wish you a Merry Christmas because I don’t believe in Santa Claus. However, I will wish you and your indoctrinated offspring a Happy New Year!

                    And a successful New Year’s Eve torchlight march with your comrades.

                    1. CRT in a nutshell complete explanation at: https://christopherrufo.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Parent-Guidebook.pdf

                      “Race-based Marxism”
                      → “State-sanctioned racism”
                      → “Woke racism”
                      → “Racial engineering”
                      → “Critical race theory divides Americans into oppressor and oppressed based on their skin color.”
                      → “Critical race theory says the solution to past discrimination is present discrimination. I reject this. Racism is always wrong.”

                      Calling Olly a Nazi doesn’t cut it. Olly is for free speech and individual liberty. Jeff is for the teaching of race-based Marxism, separating people into groups, placing them illegally in jails, and cancelling them much like the Nazis did to the Jews except Jeff has left out murder.

                      That makes Jeff an American Nazi and a Marxist.

                      Go to the site above and see how much Jeff resembles those ideologies that are against our civil liberties and how he wishes to indoctrinate our children.

                    2. SM,
                      That is one of those links everyone should go to, save and share. Powerful.

                      As for Silberman, awhile back he committed to calling me an American Nazi, if I called him an American Marxist. He knows nothing I’ve ever posted would represent that. Conversely, his history here would fit Levin’s definition of American Marxist.

                      Keep up the good work.

          3. “’whataboutism’ . . . proves that something is wrong.”

            Yes, with your thinking skills.

            It’s called the fallacy of diversion. Along with ad hominem (especially attacking the person’s motivation), fallacies are your stock-in-trade. You really need a new schtick.

    1. Jeffsilberman

      “What aboutism” is not a moral compass.

      We are discussing NBC’s lying and all you can talk about is Fox and Trump.

      Your response is exactly why I feel such contempt for Lefties.

      1. Monument,

        I don’t expose Turley’s hypocrisy for the likes of you. As a lying Trumpist, you are dead to me.

        I do what I do for anti-Trumpists. They need to know what I know about Turley, and the hypocrite that he is. His condemnation of the “age of rage” is a sick joke when he ignores it at his own network. Case closed.

    2. Wow, your immediate reaction is to come up with an angry Whataboutism rant to defend jury tampering.

      You are just a POS.

      Please don’t ever for a second in your miserable useless life believe otherwise. You are a useless, degenerate, destructive pile of human garbage and the day you depart this mortal coil will probably be a net positive for the universe.

      1. I love you too, Mac. Get a grip. Turley invites comments from his readers. No need to take it personally. We are all here to speak freely and civilly just the way Turley wants it.

        I’m sure he would not wish my death on account of my criticizing him. He would say- if I can speak for him- “Debate Jeff, don’t wish him ill and call him names.”


        1. Should we be more like the Turley you say has a principled free speech principle, or the one you decry as a hypocrite? Your positions are hard to follow sometimes.

          1. And from the Redundancy and Repetition Department, “a principled free speech principle”?? How about, “has a a principled free speech stance.” Yes, that sounds a little better.

    3. First, Prof. Turley is a law professor, not a media tycoon. Second, he does not contour his commentary for any particular audience or news organization. Third, this is a legal blog, not a town hall meeting. Fourth, your “logic” (MSNBC is a trusted news source “because Fox is far worse.”) indicates you are way out of your depth. Go back to Rachel Maddow.

      1. Hi Deb,

        New here? I watch both MSNBC as well as Fox News. I have an opinion about Turley, and I am going to share it on this blog, like it or not. Turley rightly denounces “advocacy journalism.” I am simply pointing out his refusal to call out the transgressions at his own network. Turley often exposes the hypocrisies of Democrats. I can and will hold him to the same standard he holds others.

        If you don’t like my doing so- tough.

        Have a swell day!

        1. Yesterday Mespo put Jeff’s primary argument to bed. Jeff dared anyone to show Turley putting Fox in a bad light. In .7 seconds, Mespo found a site on this blog and responded to this fool. Has the simpleton responded? I don’t think so. Jeff is not the type of fool who responds to proof. He merely repeats his argument like the local drunk who daily stands on a tiny platform belching out nonsensical remarks.

          Belch away, Jeff.


      What evidence did FoxNews provide to support such the allegation? What evidence do you have proving it false?

    5. Jeff please tell us all about the Russian Hoax? You must have received an A in being Brainwashed

      1. Guyventner says:

        “Jeff please tell us all about the Russian Hoax? You must have received an A in being Brainwashed.”

        I will tell you right after you admit that the Durham investigation is a Witch-hunt.

        1. In other words, Jeff wants people to lie. Only then will he tell us the lies in the back of his head.

  16. Why are there never any consequences for these people? From the FBI on down, they seem to have a shield of immunity that the common folks do not have.

    1. mike
      You are spot on when you talk about “shield of immunity” Its tough being one of the “Common folks.

    1. Monumentcolorado,

      “ NBC lied to us again.

      Tell me why they are a trusted news source?”

      Well, in reality no news source is actually required by any law to be truthful. Fox News proved that multiple times. Even it’s once famous tag line, “fair and balanced” was a source of ridicule for not being true.

      Even the line. “The most trusted news source” from Fox News was not based on a truth. It was just a gimmick to polish up its image.

      All news networks do this mind you it’s not just Fox News. But it was Fox News who first proved that news organizations are not obligated to report factually or even the truth.

      1. “But it was Fox News who first proved that news organizations are not obligated to report factually or even the truth.”

        Not true. It was the New York Times long before Fox News even existed.

        1. Svelaz, this has to be added to the recent comments about you posted to the blog. You respond reflexively. That means your response is never evaluated by your brain.

Comments are closed.