First case involving Halyna Hutchins's death goes to trial .

[Metal god]

Day 1
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dImjzszIg0Y

Day 2
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=azR9UW...bHMgdG9kYXk%3D

Day 3
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kqs5PxoomhQ

Here are the links to the manslaughter trial of the armor from the movie Rust . As we all remember that is the movie where Alec Baldwin shot and killed Halyna Hutchinson the cinematographer and wounded the Director I believe .

I’ve watched a few hours of it , the opening statements and some of the first witnesses . I’ve already learned quite a bit in just the little Ive watched that we all debated about in other threads regarding this topic . Hopefully, I’ll find somebody that is covering this unbiasedly and accurately that has shorter videos or brief writings on each days events . Watching eight hours of court TV is a bit time-consuming . I will, however try to post a link of each days proceedings.

I think it’s a little early to comment too much because we really only have opening statements and a couple witnesses so far , at least that I’ve seen that haven’t shed a whole Lotta light but the opening statement sure seem interesting , especially the defense with a couple statements that I didn’t know . Like the armor was only given eight total days to do armor duty . She formally requested in an email that wasn’t enough time for safety and training and that she needed more time to work with the actors and the production company refused.

Anyways, I know we all paid close attention to this one when it first happened and I know we all wanted to know the truth and we speculated a lot . So …. here we go , first court case all under oath, and now we’re going to hear it .

EDIT - oh and the glaring difference it makes to not have purple hair and a bunch a piercings being displayed. Hannah certainly presents differently today in court than she did the day of the shooting.

[44 AMP]

Will be nice to get some sworn testimony to balance against all the crap about what happened on the internet, especially since its still going on.

Earlier today saw the headline "woman who handed Baldwin a loaded gun on Rust set goes to trial".

Considering one of the few points of agreement between people who were there at the time was that she wasn't there, I have my doubts about the accuracy of the headline, and I doubt that whatever "journalist" wrote it cares about that.

Of course sworn testimony might also be inaccurate, as well. We'll have to see what is said, and sworn to, to find that out.

[Metal god]

Im adding each days court tv trial to the original post until Im no longer able to edit but will add day 2 here

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=azR9UW...bHMgdG9kYXk%3D

Of course sworn testimony might also be inaccurate, as well. We'll have to see what is said, and sworn to, to find that out

Yes, but now we will have the adversarial process of challenging those lies. Like I was alluding to earlier , I need to find somebody credible to give me overview of each day’s trial because it’s way too much to watch every single day and you can’t trust the reporter to report what was actually said . It’s pretty clear journalist now only interpret what happened or was said, rather than what actually happened or was actually said .

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Earlier today saw the headline "woman who handed Baldwin a loaded gun on Rust set goes to trial".

Considering one of the few points of agreement between people who were there at the time was that she wasn't there, I have my doubts about the accuracy of the headline, and I doubt that whatever "journalist" wrote it cares about that.

Regardless of whether or not she was there (and it seems pretty certain she was not), there has been NO disagreement that the assistant director (Halls) was the person who handed Baldwin the gun and called out "COLD GUN!" And Halls has admitted to it, in his plea deal. One really has to wonder how and why a news outlet would get that wrong. It almost has to be intentional.

[44 AMP]

Intentionally "mis-stating" (also known as LYING) to attract attention has been going on probably as long as people have, it just seems to me that doing it under the guise of "news" is worse than just wrong, its entirely unethical.

Of course, $ (profit) trumps ethics on a regular basis these days, doesn't it....

[DaleA]

Intentionally "mis-stating" (also known as LYING) to attract attention has been going on probably as long as people have, it just seems to me that doing it under the guise of "news" is worse than just wrong, its entirely unethical.

Of course, $ (profit) trumps ethics on a regular basis these days, doesn't it....

Yeah. MSN.COM is my home page and there are a LOT of 'news organizations' I've never heard of before (TrendyDigests, We Are the Mighty, 24/7 Wall Street (which I mistakenly thought was the Wall Street Journal)) posting click-bait headlines, incorrect headlines and just plain nonsense sometimes. Seems to be the new normal.

My local newspapers (Twin Cities, Minnesota) are a shadow of what they formerly were and the 'narrative' is strong in them.

[HiBC]

I watched a segment of courtroom proceedings.

I'm not jumping to any conclusions.
There is a prop business that was supplying the guns/ammo to the production.
Photos of this prop houses premises seemed quite disorganized. I would not count on their "system" to positively keep live rounds under control.

Crime scene control may not have been up to standard. Chain of custody issues. Baldwin was not quarantined.
A crime scene investigator was gathering up all prop weapons. A lever action had a full magazine tube. It was a 44-40.
There was a 45 Colt round in the tube . A this Gentleman tried to empty the rifle by cycling the lever the 45 round jammed everything up. It was transported that way to the station. A police armorer was able to clear it via removing the mag tube cap.

A prop rifle in the rack had a "Wrong round" in the mag tube. So,how does the "wrong round" enter a revolver cylinder? A failed system.

Ms Reed certainly may have played a part leading up to this accident. But at this point it seems there may be a whole big chain of contributors, many of whom would like to throw Ms Reed under the bus.

[Metal god]

Yep , the defense is clearly going to argue I forgot the term, but intervening events And not the armor herself is what caused the Negligent discharge . In his opening statement, the defense attorney seem to allude to a production company as a whole being negligent . Stating things like not giving the armor the time she needed to do her job, allowing other people to handle the Firarms etc , rather than any one individual . I’m sure they will get to the point of Mr. Baldwin pointing the gun at somebody AND pulling the trigger had nothing to do with Hannah . Had he observed the stag safety rules and general rules of gun safety nothing the armorer had done prior would have resulted in death or even injury .

One of the glaring things I’m starting to see here on day two and three, is that the armor didn’t seem to be any more organized than the supply house . Sure one can say maybe the supply house put wrong ammunition in all those boxes but the supply house definitely didn’t have rounds laying all over the place on set like the cart , inside the containers holding the boxes of ammo or bags, etc. That was all done by the armor after the production company received the ammo from the supplier . There is clear evidence of negligence by the armor Based on prosecution evidence, the question would be is it criminal negligence .

The other thing it seems the defense attorney is going to try to argue is that the scene was not secure, and several different people were moving props around, including the ammunition . The armor in this case/production clearly was not as organized as one should be so now the defense is stuck with doing anything we can to give reasonable doubt . I’m sure his argument will be it’s not unreasonable to consider the fact that maybe somebody else after the shooting put all the ammo in the wrong places and left open rounds lying around . They only need one to hang and as you said it’s still pretty early .

One commentator asked the question . If the scene called for Baldwin to press the muzzle against his head and pull the trigger. Do you think he would’ve just assumed the gun was unloaded or would he have checked it? Hopefully the defense attorney at some point brings that up , maybe and closing .

[44 AMP]

Photos of this prop houses premises seemed quite disorganized. I would not count on their "system" to positively keep live rounds under control.

Still photos of the prop house premises entered into evidence will show what the prosecutor (or defense attorney) believes will best support their case.

Photos that they think don't support their case simply don't get entered into evidence. And one man's "clutter" is another man's "system". Plus the small fact that the system at the prop house is essentially irrelevant. The system AS USED ON THE SET is what matters, and what failed.

Everyone involved played a part, the challenge the court faces is to determine what part that was, and who is legally responsible (and to what degree).

A lot of things have been "reported" about this matter, some things are credible and mutually supporting, and a truckload of things that are not. What we need to look at, to get our questions answered is, as the trial progresses, where the evidence and testimony lines up with what has been reported, and where it does not. Particularly, where it does not.

And, there's a LOT to look at.

Gun Safety procedures were not followed. Film industry safety procedures were not followed. This much is obvious. Who is responsible and in what degree isn't completely clear, yet, and that is part of what this trial SHOULD resolve.

I wonder if it actually will, or not.

[Metal god]

Plus the small fact that the system at the prop house is essentially irrelevant.

I disagree completely. Maybe you didn’t see the photos. They looked like a 5 year olds bedroom . Just by looking at the photos gave me reasonable doubt he had organizational skills capable of ensuring the correct ammo was in there correct boxes . It seemed pretty clear this was a small room of a house or apartment rather then a place of business one might think a famous prop master used .

Here is a section of trial showing this guys prop house .
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vboYNYEjpaY

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Metal god

Here is a section of trial showing this guys prop house .
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vboYNYEjpaY

That was painful to watch -- I couldn't make it more than about halfway through the video. The attorney's approach to questioning was just about as disorganized as the gun rental room in the photos.

I assume this was cross examination of a prosecution witness. If so, I'm surprised there weren't objections that some of his questions were obviously trying to lead the witness.

[Ricklin]

I would like to hear the explanation for the live rounds, I've seen reports that "plinking" was common when they were not filming.
That has been the one thing truly stuck in my craw throughout this tragedy.

[44 AMP]

The attorney's approach to questioning was just about as disorganized as the gun rental room in the photos.

I watched the video, didn't see any "gun rental room", didn't see any guns, and didn't see what I would expect from the term "prop house".

What I saw was stuff stored in what appeared to be a room in someone's house. Not neat, so what?? A back alley door with a bunch of crap (boxes and apparently garbage) in it.

This guy might have been running a "prop rental business" but it seems he was running out of a back room in his house, not an actual storehouse/warehouse or store front business.

I don't see how that is relevant to what went on at the movie set. Did that guy (his "prop house" business) supply LIVE ammunition to the movie set??

Has that question even been asked, yet??

Information published after the shooting stated that Ms Reed asked a prop house to supply live ammo,. but was refused. Rumor? fact not yet in evidence?? don't know, yet. No idea if the "prop house" mentioned as refusing to supply live ammo was the same one those pictures are from.

Either way, it seems rather pointless to me, so what if a slob inventory was who the movie rented from, what matters is what they did, and did not do with the items they had on the location.

It may well be that the accused did have live ammo on the location. IT may be she was careless and sloppy. Under film industry standards, the armorer is the ONLY person who has access to firearms and ammo on a movie location.

This was obviously NOT the case on the RUST film location. The armorer was NOT the only person who could access the guns and ammo. Other people (or at least one person) did. This has not yet been entered as testimony, but I'm sure it will be. It is an established fact, supported by the fact that the guy who handed Baldwin the gun entered into a plea bargain over it.

TO me the fact that the armorer, the one person who, under film industry rules was supposed to have complete and sole access to the firearms did not have sole access is a management failure, and one of the significant contributing factors to the accident.

[Metal god]

AB - yeah Im not impressed with the defense especially what I heard about today . Turns out he slow played giving access to his expert armrest to the prosecution , defense claims he could not get a hold of their expert . Tried to get a new one a week before trail and The prosecution objected to that because they would not have time to depose them or whatever it’s called and the judge agreed . This means the defense has no expert armor to testify in their clients behalf . Big screw up but thats not even the worst one . Turns out the defense gave the prosecution blanket permission to download all of there clients cellphone data with no restrictions. Turns out there were several correspondence between their client and themselves which the prosecution had access too . They put an emotion to have the case dismissed or at minimum the prosecutors kicked off the case. The judge denied both motions.

That said the prosecution claims they stopped reading the correspondence when they realized it was covered by attorney client privilege . it appears at this time the judge will not allow them to use anything they may have read against her . Will have to see if anything comes up in court, but they could disguise that as being found out another way I’m sure .

Anyways, I’m not impressed with her lawyer either .

[Metal god]

I don't see how that is relevant to what went on at the movie set. Did that guy (his "prop house" business) supply LIVE ammunition to the movie set??

Has that question even been asked, yet?

All you need is reasonable doubt. Maybe you have no doubt in your mind that the way he conducted his business shows clearly that he could’ve never accidentally put a live round in with the dummy ones. I personally believe it’s very possible based on what I saw that he could easily lose track of what is what in that house and accidentally mix up some rounds .

The defense does not have to prove a thing , just give reasonable doubt . Is it possible the ammo that was supplied to the set had mixed boxes of ammo ? Watching through the trial, it appears just about every single box onset had some sort of mixture of either the wrong caliber/cartridge/dummy/blank/live rounds .

At this time, I’m having a very hard time, believing that the armor screwed up all that ammo by herself . Today they talked about the negligent discharges, and one of them was when the lead prop master for lack of a better term was loading or unloading one of the Firarms . This tells me at least one other person was directly handling the ammo onset . It also appears right after the shooting, everybody was scrambling to put everything away, which technically was tampering with evidence . Things could’ve gotten all mixed up during that time . At this stage of the trial, I don’t see any proof that that ammo was mixed up by Hannah or whomever onset or was delivered that way , you just can’t tell . One of the police officers on site was actually having crewmembers gathering Firarms and carts instead of securing them himself, who knows what they did while grabbing those things.

I’ll be curious as to see how Hannah was treated onset since it’s been shown that she asked for more help and more time to work with actors, and that was refused . What else was she denied? . Rightly wrongly, she may have been just a bit over her head and intimidated, and did not say no when she should have . We will see , we are only getting one side right now .

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I don't see how that is relevant to what went on at the movie set. Did that guy (his "prop house" business) supply LIVE ammunition to the movie set??

Has that question even been asked, yet??

Information published after the shooting stated that Ms Reed asked a prop house to supply live ammo,. but was refused. Rumor? fact not yet in evidence?? don't know, yet. No idea if the "prop house" mentioned as refusing to supply live ammo was the same one those pictures are from.

I agree that the way the prop supplier runs his business isn't especially relevant -- unless the defense is going to argue that he mixed live rounds in with dummies. However, even if he did the armorer is supposed to physically shake each dummy round before loading it into a firearm -- in the presence of the assistant director AND the actor who will be handling that particular firearm. We know that protocol wasn't followed.

I also read reports that Guttierez asked the prop house for live ammo and he declined to provide it. It remains to be seen if anyone will testify to that under oath.


[Edit to add] I should add that I don't blame Guttierez entirely for the fact that she didn't follow the protocol on how/when to load dummy rounds. It was the producers that had her away from the actual set, performing duties other than armorer when she should have been standing there loading the fateful revolver in front of Halls and Baldwin.

In fact, I don't know if anyone has established who actually loaded the revolver. From the reports I've seen, it was on the prop cart and Halls just picked it up and assumed it was a cold gun. Guttierez wasn't present. Maybe she loaded it -- maybe the prop master loaded it. Maybe Halls loaded it. Dunno.

[mehavey]

>
> armorer is supposed to physically shake each dummy round ....
>

On the morning of the incident, according to Gutierrez Reed’s attorney Jason Bowles, the 24-year-old armorer visually inspected the dummies and shook them before loading them into the revolver that ultimately wound up in Baldwin’s hands.
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...n-45-long-colt

Really dumb FOLLOW-ON questions...

Why would there be a primer in a dummy round ? (caveman indicator #1)
Why don't ALL dummy rounds have holes drilled through the case wall? (caveman #2)

[44 AMP]

Why would there be a primer in a dummy round ? (caveman indicator #1)
Why don't ALL dummy rounds have holes drilled through the case wall? (caveman #2)

The answer is the same, in both cases, for movie props, they want the appearance of an actual loaded round.

According to court documents, investigators found four dummy casings in the revolver, with holes in the side, and recovered another that may have ejected a bullet.

I find this to be an ...interesting.. contradiction to statements at the time, from the deputies who arrived on the scene. It was reported that when they got there, the gun that had fired was unloaded (empty) and that the ammunition was in a box that contained dummies, blanks, and some live ammo.

I'm sure there will be more ..interesting.. things to come.
`

[mehavey]

The answer is the same, in both cases, for movie props, they want the appearance of an actual loaded round.

I can think of NOTHING associated with a loaded single action that requires either a primer or a case w/o a hole in its side "...to look real."

[Metal god]

My guess is simple efficiency, and even safety . I would prefer one type of round that is a dummy not four different types onset . This means if any scene in the movie requires ammo to be seen outside of the firearm, it’s going to need to have a primer on it and not a hole in the side . In someways, I’m kind of wondering why they’re primer less or cases with holes on their sides . It just adds to the confusion since there will always be scenes that are required to have ammo outside the gun where you can’t have missing primer or holes in the cases . So we have at least three different types of duds onset . No thanks , let’s just have it rattle or be filled with lead or tungsten to make it ridiculously heavier than everything else .

[44 AMP]

I can think of NOTHING associated with a loaded single action that requires either a primer or a case w/o a hole in its side "...to look real."

nope, not when it's IN the gun. But what about when its not??

Every director has their own ideas about what needs to be shown and what doesn't matter, but there are a couple of general constants, dramatic effect, and (to a lesser extent) the continuity of the illusion.

Then figure in costs. Its amazing how a multimillion dollar project will often cut corners on low cost items.

Replacing a primer with an inert brass plug doesn't cost much, but it does cost something and sometimes a tiny difference in the price will result in the "less safe" product being chosen, provided it get the desired job done.

Cost, availability and being period correct (preserving the illusion) are factors in having actual firearms used as props. In the early days of film, real guns were used and real ammo was fired. IF the actor wasn't competent, or didn't care to be, off camera shooters fired shots where bullets were shown hitting objects. Because real guns with real bullets were in use, great care was taken, and if there is any record of any actor or crewmember being injured or killed from gunfire back in those days, it has remained hidden.

There are lots of records of people being hurt and even killed on movie sets from that period. Falls, stunts gone bad, horses and cattle, wagons and trains, cars and other things, but not from accidental gunfire.

Today, it seems that since "everyone knows" its not real there is a different attitude. And because there have been fatal accidents, the movie industry has come up with a pretty fool proof system to prevent them. But it has to be FOLLOWED to the letter and on the RUST set, they did not do that.

Dummy rounds are for function testing. They are made to be clearly identifiable as dummy rounds. The military and gunsmiths want them to be instantly, visibly identifiable as dummys and not live ammo. Holes in the case or flutes in the case body work well for that.

The movie industry doesn't want that, it spoils the illusion. Their current practice of a case with only a BB inside allows the round to be "rattle checked" proving its not a live round while looking like one.

[mehavey]

"The movie industry doesn't want that (holes/flutes), it spoils the illusion"

And yet.... (ignoring the stupidly of the reporter)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
According to court documents, investigators found four dummy casings in the revolver,
with holes in the side, and recovered another that may have ejected a bullet.

"David Halls picked up the firearm from a pew inside the church and took it to the armorer,"
a search warrant reads. "Hannah was then told to ‘open up’ the gun so he could see what
was inside. David advised he could only remember seeing at least four ‘dummy’ casings
with the hole in the side, and one without the hole. He advised this round did not have
the ‘cap’ on it and was just the casing."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...n-45-long-colt

[44 AMP]

And yet....

I have a limited amount of faith in "court documents" and what is written in or on search warrants, having seen numerous instances of facts being left out, or things that didn't happen being written in.

In the RUST shooting the gun was a copy of a Colt SAA. The only way to inspect the rounds in the gun (and see holes in the cases) is to remove the rounds from the gun. One at a time.

Eyewitness statements are not sworn testimony until given in court, under oath. What people "remember" and what actually happened may not be the same thing. What someone says during an interview may be given in complete faith and honesty and later prove to be in error, in whole or part.

[Metal god]

Day 4
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hxm1DnG_1Ho

This is Andrew Branca from the law of self-defense streaming the trial I noticed day two in the OP is set as private for some reason so I’m just gonna start posting Andrew’s links from now on .

[Metal god]

It appears one of defense co-council ask to be excused or leave the defense team and the judge denied the request. Wait there’s more , he is required to sit at defense council’s table and was ordered not to speak to his client ???????

Can somebody explain how that works . I get maybe not being allowed to leave the team but then ordered not to speak to the client seems very odd . If the judges orders you not to speak to your own client why the hell would she force you to not only stay on the team but be there in court as well ? Has anyone ever heard of such a thing before ?