Halyna Hutchins Shot With Prop Gun - Alec Baldwin indicted & Hannah Gutierrez-Reed charged, 2021 #6

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alec Baldwin's first court appearance for involuntary manslaughter charges has been scheduled for February 24.
..
Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed to appear by videoconference before Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer (pictured)
..
Prosecutors will forgo a grand jury and rely on a judge to determine if there is sufficient evidence to move toward trial. That decision could take up to 60 days and involve trail-like hearings to consider witness testimony and evidence.
...
The probably cause affidavit is divided into two sections. One notes Baldwin's actions as the lead actor, and another notes his role as the film's primary producer.

One one hand prosecutors say he was carless in handing the gun as an actor, on the other they say that as a producer he was responsible for overseeing a safe set.

Dealing with those roles separately will allow them to fall back on one if the other is successfully defended in court.



Baldwin has said repeatedly that he knows and was taught that you never, on set, point a gun at someone and shoot it.

He did exactly that.

His only defense is that he only cocked the gun but never pulled the trigger. The indictment goes into detail that the gun has to have the trigger pulled to discharge a bullet.

The indictment also states that Baldwin is on camera multiple times showing his finger on the trigger.

If a jury believes that the gun misfired through no fault of Baldwin, then he could get off.
But, if the jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt that Baldwin did pull the trigger, then he is in jeopardy of being found guilty.

He flat out admits that he knew better than to do what he did. I don't see a way out of that.

2 Cents
 
Apologies if this link has already been posted, but this article has a lot of details gathered during the investigation. Baldwin's name isn't mentioned much because he wasn't involved in the daily operations on the film set. It does mention what sound like some mistakes and bad decisions made by others, including cutting corners, not giving the armourer enough hours to do the work, etc. JMO, the prosecutor seems to have left out some other people who made decisions and mistakes that led to lack of training, work hours, etc.

I suppose the prosecution made these mistakes because they're not familiar with how movies are made. Actors don't supervise crew or manage employees who work behind the scenes. As for the witness list, its common knowledge prosecutors don't always call all the witnesses on their list.

 
Apologies if this link has already been posted, but this article has a lot of details gathered during the investigation. Baldwin's name isn't mentioned much because he wasn't involved in the daily operations on the film set. It does mention what sound like some mistakes and bad decisions made by others, including cutting corners, not giving the armourer enough hours to do the work, etc. JMO, the prosecutor seems to have left out some other people who made decisions and mistakes that led to lack of training, work hours, etc.

I suppose the prosecution made these mistakes because they're not familiar with how movies are made. Actors don't supervise crew or manage employees who work behind the scenes. As for the witness list, its common knowledge prosecutors don't always call all the witnesses on their list.


Wow 44 witnesses.

2nd paragraph provides a link to the official court document that lists the 44 witnesses:

AMENDED STATE'S WITNESS LIST FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

 
Wow 44 witnesses.

2nd paragraph provides a link to the official court document that lists the 44 witnesses:

AMENDED STATE'S WITNESS LIST FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING


I doubt they will call all of them. Interesting the people mentioned who were supervising the armourer, training,etc. who weren't doing their jobs. It gives a clearer understanding of the daily activities and all the crew around the safety, armourer, training, etc.
 
I doubt they will call all of them. Interesting the people mentioned who were supervising the armourer, training,etc. who weren't doing their jobs. It gives a clearer understanding of the daily activities and all the crew around the safety, armourer, training, etc.

We know from George Wagner's trial that the prosecution didn't call most of their witnesses.

I assume subpoenas are sent to the witnesses they plan to use.

Is there a link somewhere to the court site where there would be docket information? That would list the subpoenas.
 
For a PDF copy of the 'Statement of Probable Cause', it allows one to download it here:

In the middle of page 4 of the Statement of Probable Cause it says:

"shooting were indeed ‘live’ rounds, each possessing an unfired primer, powder, and bullets as part of the cartridge. These five rounds were found by detectives crime scene technicians) while processing the scene. The five (5) unfired rounds were found in the following locations: One (1) from SFSO Lt. Benavidez” patrol vehicle(that he had seized from REED upon his arrival) two (2) from the top of the ‘armorer’s’ cart (including the one [1] spent live roundcasing), one (1) from a bandolier on the cart, one (1) from BALDWIN'S holster located inside the church, one (1) from an ammunition box located on the armorer's cart, Along with the casing and fired projectile, there were a total of six (6) 45 “live” rounds that were discovered in various locations on the RUST set."

So were the 6 live rounds be found on set, one of which was seized on Reed's person by LE, explained by Reed?
 
In the middle of page 4 of the Statement of Probable Cause it says:

"shooting were indeed ‘live’ rounds, each possessing an unfired primer, powder, and bullets as part of the cartridge. These five rounds were found by detectives crime scene technicians) while processing the scene. The five (5) unfired rounds were found in the following locations: One (1) from SFSO Lt. Benavidez” patrol vehicle(that he had seized from REED upon his arrival) two (2) from the top of the ‘armorer’s’ cart (including the one [1] spent live roundcasing), one (1) from a bandolier on the cart, one (1) from BALDWIN'S holster located inside the church, one (1) from an ammunition box located on the armorer's cart, Along with the casing and fired projectile, there were a total of six (6) 45 “live” rounds that were discovered in various locations on the RUST set."

So were the 6 live rounds be found on set, one of which was seized on Reed's person by LE, explained by Reed?
She had live rounds in several locations. How is it the state investigators still dont know where the live rounds came from? Who brought them onto the set? In most normal criminal investigations, LE would be trying to answer that question, because whoever brought them onto the set committed a serious crime.

The jury is probably going to want an answer.
 
Marantz, you ask a good question and its a question that lingers. Where did that live round(s) come from? I find it very disturbing.
In regards to the live round, evidently some members of the set were, well, screwing around via target shooting with live ammunition during down time.

Unless some of the actors or set crew brought personally owned weapons to the set (huge "No!" from what an industry insider told me), they were using set weapons for the target practice (another huge "No!").

The round could well be related to the extracurricular target shooting. Or, it could have been intended to be used on the set. The industry insider I spoke to said that live ammunition is used...."more than a little, but less than alot" on sets.
 
She had live rounds in several locations. How is it the state investigators still dont know where the live rounds came from? Who brought them onto the set? In most normal criminal investigations, LE would be trying to answer that question, because whoever brought them onto the set committed a serious crime.

The jury is probably going to want an answer.
Didn‘t Seth Kenney admit to likely supplying the live rounds?

Kenney, who owns PDQ Arm & Prop in Albuquerque, has previously described to investigators how dummy rounds may have become mixed with “reloaded” rounds that contained live bullets. The live rounds would have had the Starline Brass logo, making them appear similar to dummy rounds.


Seth Kenney, the weapons expert who supplied the guns for the film, told investigators on Oct. 29 that he had received “reloaded ammunition” from a friend that had the same logo as the dummy rounds and blanks that he typically supplies to films.

“Seth described how a couple years back, he received ‘reloaded ammunition’ from a friend,'” the investigators wrote in the search warrant affidavit. “Seth described the ammunition stuck out to him due to the suspected live round to have (sic) a cartridge with the Starline Brass logo on it… He described how the company only sells components of ammunition, and not live ammunition, and therefore it had to be a reloaded round.”

 
In regards to the live round, evidently some members of the set were, well, screwing around via target shooting with live ammunition during down time.

Unless some of the actors or set crew brought personally owned weapons to the set (huge "No!" from what an industry insider told me), they were using set weapons for the target practice (another huge "No!").

The round could well be related to the extracurricular target shooting. Or, it could have been intended to be used on the set. The industry insider I spoke to said that live ammunition is used...."more than a little, but less than alot" on sets.
Early on we heard the story of crew members using the firearms on off time for target practice in the desert. But I thought that had all eventually been debunked.
 
How is it the state investigators still dont know where the live rounds came from? because whoever brought them onto the set committed a serious crime.
I think the answer to your question might lay with your observation that it is a serious matter.

Evidently, the ammunition in question might be from one of the following "flavors":

A. Packaged and marketed for movie use by a company supplying blank, dummy and perhaps live rounds.
B. Be generic ammunition purchased from a gun store, gun show or sporting goods store.

If its an "A", I imagine that only a few people other than the armorer would have been able to bring it to the set. But.... if its a "B", then a far larger number of people could have brought it to the set. There may have been multiple people.

My guess is that the investigators might be up against a Middle School Wall of Confusion if the ammunition is "B. Fo example":

- Oh heck no, I never brought live ammo to the set. I did, however, target shoot with some live rounds from an open box that somebody else brought. No, no, I have no idea who that person was.

- No- I never, ever brought live ammo to the set. It was in my car- never at the set. Taking it to the set is asking for trouble.

- Ok, I was seen with some live ammo, but I did not bring it to the set. Rather, "D" gave it to me on the set.

- "D": No, I did not bring it, I got it from a table, people were saying that it was extra and we could target shoot.

- Yes, I told people they could target shoot with extra ammunition, but I did not bring any ammunition to the set. Somebody else did.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
199
Guests online
4,415
Total visitors
4,614

Forum statistics

Threads
592,362
Messages
17,968,034
Members
228,756
Latest member
Curious.tea
Back
Top