JSouthworth wrote:

The ownership of Rust Movie Productions is unclear, perhaps intentionally so. Nobody seems to know who owns it but Alec Baldwin is clearly a senior partner.

"Nobody seems to know who owns it.."

But YOU know "Baldwin is clearly a senior partner."

ALEC BALDWIN IS CREDITED AS A PRODUCER ON ‘RUST.’ WHAT DOES THAT REALLY MEAN?https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2021-10-26/rust-alec-baldwin-producer-explained

JSouthworth wrote:
If the intention from the beginning was to stage an accident, which is a possibility... l

You are suggesting the entire Rust movie project may have been designed from the start to murder Halyna Hutchins, or was some incomprehensible "insurance scam", You have literally lost your mind.

LightDreams wrote:
I'm sure that no one else is surprised to learn that it was NOT "Alec Baldwin's production company".  No matter how many times a constant conspiracy promoter keeps claiming the opposite.

As the LA Times pointed out, there were 6 Producers and Baldwin was given one of them as partial payment for his role in the film.  He rec'd a financial share for his work, he was not one of those that invested money in the movie.

This is old news for everyone, but just in case someone new has started reading this thread and isn't aware of JSouthworth's non-stop (and always changing!) conspiracy claims.

For anyone new that is curious, it's fascinating to go back and read the countless different versions that he has promoted in the past, with various individual and group "murder" conspirators at different times.  And at no point, has he EVER accepted absolutely ANY of the evidence indicating that it WASN'T a "murder conspiracy".

Thank you!

Focuspuller wrote:
Yes. Agreed on pretty much everything except this:

The testimony so far I do not think  places Sarah Zachary anywhere near the loading of the pistol ON THE DAY of the shooting. Hannah has not implied that possibility, despite the obvious animosity between them, and Sarah's handling of firearms on other days. What has been said prior to trial in interviews  is that on the day of the shooting, Hannah loaded the weapon, spun the cylinder for the AD to observe (though insufficient for safety), handed the gun to the AD, and left the set, a serious error. The AD declared the gun "cold", despite not actually knowing that, and handed the gun to Baldwin, who had every reason to believe the gun was in fact, "cold." Here it gets murky. Halls, the AD testified in court he did NOT hand the gun to Baldwin, and Baldwin in one interview has said Hannah handed him the gun, and in another interview, that  Halls did. This has to be resolved. I don't believe any testimony of witnesses other than Halls so far actually corroborates who handed the gun to Baldwin. Which leaves the existence of a live round a mystery

As to Zachary purposely placing a live round in the firearm on the day, I don't see how it would be possible to do that unseen, and for what purpose? And where did she get the round? What could the intent possibly have been -  getting someone killed or injured just to get an underling fired? If the gun were to be fired, there would be no telling who or what would  be hit, and the possibility of having been seen handling the weapon could not have been ruled out. Just doesn't make sense to me.

I think that so far the prosecution has done a great job - for the defense. The prosecution is showing what a total safety dumpster fire was "Rust", scrimping on the most critical department, putting a burden on the lone armorer that a more experienced person would have difficulty managing. Unfortunately for Hannah, it will probably lead to a guilty verdict, but hopefully, a lenient sentence.

I understand, yes, the chances that Zachary would do something like that before the accident are slim to none .. but what actually disturbed me was that she emptied and disposed of the rounds before the sheriff had a chance to examine the weapon!  I understand that the Sheriff and deputies that got there first were very much out numbered and overwhelmed by the chaos they encountered.  No one was taking charge.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

I understand, yes, the chances that Zachary would do something like that before the accident are slim to none .. but what actually disturbed me was that she emptied and disposed of the rounds before the sheriff had a chance to examine the weapon!  I understand that the Sheriff and deputies that got there first were very much out numbered and overwhelmed by the chaos they encountered.  No one was taking charge.

"...she emptied and disposed of the rounds before the sheriff had a chance to examine the weapon! "

And given an immunity deal no less. The prosecution 's case so far seems to be helping the defense establish an undisciplined  environment worthy of leniency. Very strange.

Focuspuller wrote:
"...she emptied and disposed of the rounds before the sheriff had a chance to examine the weapon! "

And given an immunity deal no less. The prosecution 's case so far seems to be helping the defense establish an undisciplined  environment worthy of leniency. Very strange.

This incident had complete carelessness in handling of the gun after the shooting, yet proceeded many other careless acts before the shooting.  I can't help but wonder whose finger prints were on the "blank" rounds and the spent shell from the live bullet IF law enforcement had been able to properly handle the gun after it fired?   We can assume it would be Hannah's but with all the problems that went on during the filming I see reasonable doubt popping up,  Being that Hannah was the Armorer she seems to be the "fall guy" for this mess and really there are others higher up that should also be held accountable.  Let's not forget those killed. 

RIP  Halyna Hutchins / Cinematographer on Rust movie

The Rust set was a mess, but it was not as clear cut a criminal act as a director bringing a fillm crew on to a bridge of a railroad track that he no busiess being on with a train rolling full speed towards them.  Midnight Rider resulted in the director doing time for that disaster.  Randall Miller, his wife producer Jody Savin, producer Jay Sedrish and first assistant director Hillary Schwartz, were charged with involuntary manslaughter and criminal trespass. Miller pleaded guilty on March 9, 2015 to the charges, so the edited scene was never shown in court. He was sentenced to two years in prison and ordered to pay a $20,000 fine. Miller is also prohibited from being a director or assistant director for the next 10 years. It the first time in history that a Hollywood director had been held responsible for a death on set. So directors can be held accountable.

RIP  Sarah Jones / Camera Assistant on Midnight Rider an unfinished movie

Focuspuller wrote:
You are suggesting, based on nothing whatsoever,  that either Halls or Baldwin, upon being handed the weapon, and, IN PLAIN SIGHT OF THE ENTIRE SET, loaded the weapon with a live round for the PURPOSE of murdering  Halyna Hutchins.

Were both Alec Baldwin and David Halls fully visible to the other people on the set during the whole of the time they were handling the gun? Equally importantly, were they being watched the whole time? I think it's highly unlikely, because the shooting took place inside the church building, and as we know the cart with the guns was outside the building;

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/26/ente … index.html

Here's a picture from the outside;

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view … ajaxserp=0

Nobody inside the building could easily have seen what was going on outside through those narrow windows.

Obviously, if one of them intentionally loaded the gun with live rounds, it would probably have been done when nobody was looking. It would only take a practiced person a few seconds.

JSouthworth wrote:
Were both Alec Baldwin and David Halls fully visible to the other people on the set during the whole of the time they were handling the gun? Equally importantly, were they being watched the whole time? I think it's highly unlikely, because the shooting took place inside the church building, and as we know the cart with the guns was outside the building;

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/26/ente … index.html

Here's a picture from the outside;

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view … ajaxserp=0

Nobody inside the building could easily have seen what was going on outside through those narrow windows.

Obviously, if one of them intentionally loaded the gun with live rounds, it would probably have been done when nobody was looking. It would only take a practiced person a few seconds.

Hate to break it to you, old chap, but what you consider "unlikely" on a movie set is really of no interest.Your cartoon construction of a movie set has led you to absurd conclusions, as your dysfunctional powers of inference often do.

"Were both Alec Baldwin and David Halls fully visible to the other people on the set during the whole of the time they were handling the gun? Equally importantly, were they being watched the whole time?  I think it's highly unlikely...Obviously, if one of them intentionally loaded the gun with live rounds, it would probably have been done when nobody was looking."

What in the movie set experience of your mind would lead you to suspect that they weren't being observed the entire time they were on set? ANYONE on a set that is about to shoot a scene is likely to be visible, ESPECIALLY the actor in the shot and the armorer and AD supposedly handing him the gun. When EXACTLY on a movie set is NO ONE LOOKING? Do you actually imagine Halls took the gun from the armorer, then IMMEDIATELY HID somewhere out of sight of everyone there, and loaded a live round in the weapon, then reappeared to hand Baldwin the gun? And all this was PLANNED to happen when no one was looking? How absurd.

"..the shooting took place inside the church building, and as we know the cart with the guns was outside the building....Nobody inside the building could easily have seen what was going on outside through those narrow windows."

Proving NOTHING. Utter nonsense.

Do you imagine the 100-plus crew, and extras, wranglers, PA's and others were ALL inside the church? Not ONE PERSON outside the church who would have noticed the AD doing something strange with the firearm, and at the prop cart, which was at least 50 feet away from the church according to the photo YOU referenced?

Maybe in your fantasy world.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

This incident had complete carelessness in handling of the gun after the shooting, yet proceeded many other careless acts before the shooting.  I can't help but wonder whose finger prints were on the "blank" rounds and the spent shell from the live bullet IF law enforcement had been able to properly handle the gun after it fired?   We can assume it would be Hannah's but with all the problems that went on during the filming I see reasonable doubt popping up,  Being that Hannah was the Armorer she seems to be the "fall guy" for this mess and really there are others higher up that should also be held accountable.  Let's not forget those killed. 

RIP  Halyna Hutchins / Cinematographer on Rust movie

The Rust set was a mess, but it was not as clear cut a criminal act as a director bringing a fillm crew on to a bridge of a railroad track that he no busiess being on with a train rolling full speed towards them.  Midnight Rider resulted in the director doing time for that disaster.  Randall Miller, his wife producer Jody Savin, producer Jay Sedrish and first assistant director Hillary Schwartz, were charged with involuntary manslaughter and criminal trespass. Miller pleaded guilty on March 9, 2015 to the charges, so the edited scene was never shown in court. He was sentenced to two years in prison and ordered to pay a $20,000 fine. Miller is also prohibited from being a director or assistant director for the next 10 years. It the first time in history that a Hollywood director had been held responsible for a death on set. So directors can be held accountable.

RIP  Sarah Jones / Camera Assistant on Midnight Rider an unfinished movie

And let us not forget John Landis, director of "The Twilight Zone" movie, acquitted of involuntary manslaughter in the tragic  deaths of three people.

RIP  Vic Morrow, Myca Dinh Le and Renee Shin-Yi Chen

Focuspuller wrote:
Do you imagine the 100-plus crew, and extras, wranglers, PA's and others were ALL inside the church?

They didn't need all of those people for a rehearsal.

JSouthworth wrote:
They didn't need all of those people for a rehearsal.

You forgot to add, "in my opinion" to that nugget above, because we all know that you have zero experience in producing or directing a for profit movie venture. So once again you have presented your opinion as a fact. An easily recognizable and intellectually dishonest tactic that does nothing to further your argument. Just another logical fallacy ("Begging the question") of the many you've used in this thread.

JSouthworth wrote:

They didn't need all of those people for a rehearsal.

The POINT, Sherlock, is that they were outside, where you claim no one would be able to witness the loading of a live round into the hero weapon, seconds prior to the rehearsal, at the prop cart outside and fifty feet away.

JSouthworth wrote:
Interesting video here which is claimed to show Baldwin practising drawing the gun "a few moments" before the fatal shooting incident.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61226637

This also includes some police video showing the aftermath of the shooting. Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed are present, there do not appear to be many other people around.

Interesting to you, obviously.

"claimed to show Baldwin practising drawing the gun "a few moments" before the fatal shooting incident. "

What it actually shows is the shot previous to the shot in question.

"...there do not appear to be many other people around."

How long after the fatal shooting do YOU suppose would make your observation based on this video about who was and wasn't "around" at the fatal moment totally irrelevant?

JQuest wrote:
You forgot to add, "in my opinion" to that nugget above, because we all know that you have zero experience in producing or directing a for profit movie venture.

So don't take my word for it. Watch the video, count the people on the set.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61226637

JSouthworth wrote:
So don't take my word for it. Watch the video, count the people on the set.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61226637

No, for anyone to do want to do that  they would have to believe that there is some merit in what you have espoused. Every conspiracy theory and opinion that you have presented as fact has been soundly discredited, debunked and eviscerated. Whatever currency your word may have carried on this topic was exhausted long ago. I don’t traffic in unfounded conspiracy theories nor do I indulge the purveyors of constant prevarications by acquiescing to their suggestions.

JQuest wrote:
No, for anyone to do want to do that  they would have to believe that there is some merit in what you have espoused.

The point in question here is whether Baldwin and Halls had opportunities to reload the gun with live rounds unobserved, immediately prior to the fatal shooting incident. From the video it's clear that excluding the police there are only a few people on the set, so we can answer that question in the affirmative.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61226637

JSouthworth wrote:
The point in question here is whether Baldwin and Halls had opportunities to reload the gun with live rounds unobserved, immediately prior to the fatal shooting incident. From the video it's clear that excluding the police there are only a few people on the set, so we can answer that question in the affirmative.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61226637

Your video evidence shows no such thing. Are you hallucinating?

For the LAST time, the clip shown in your "evidence" is the previous shot, either rehearsals or more likely actual take. There are NO other persons in the shot. It does NOT show who was on the set. The rest of the video shows the activity AFTER the fatal accident, proving nothing you keep going on about. And do not worry...

No one is taking your word for it.

JSouthworth wrote:
The point in question here is whether Baldwin and Halls had opportunities to reload the gun with live rounds unobserved, immediately prior to the fatal shooting incident. From the video it's clear that excluding the police there are only a few people on the set, so we can answer that question in the affirmative.

How very JSouthworthian of you to pose a question no one has asked or is looking for an answer to Then following it up using some omniscient all knowing  "we" so that you can pretend you've answered it and added something of value. You didn't and you haven't. The intellectual dishonesty and falsehoods on display here are simply astounding.

JQuest wrote:
No, for anyone to do want to do that  they would have to believe that there is some merit in what you have espoused.

What part of the above statement did you not understand? What "we" can say is that due to your repeated distortions, fallacies, equivocations, and prevarications your words carry no weight.

Focuspuller wrote:
And let us not forget John Landis, director of "The Twilight Zone" movie, acquitted of involuntary manslaughter in the tragic  deaths of three people.

RIP  Vic Morrow, Myca Dinh Le and Renee Shin-Yi Chen

Yes, that was a tragic accident too, but it involved a helicopter. Then there was the Brandon Lee accidental shooting on the set of The Crow. Interesting that this most recent accidental shooting has brought back this past tragic shooting of Brandon Lee.  What I wish to point out to those who dream up conspiracy theories is that accidents do happen, and it is rare .. very rare!  It's amazing to me that more tragic accidents have not happened though considering for how long and often guns and gunfire are depicted on television and movies.  I'm a fan of Chicago PD and Law & Order SVU .... I see guns displayed and shooting going on on nearly every single episode!  So the outcome of this trial will be interesting.  I'm not so sure that Hannah is going to avoid being found guilty and doing time .. the DA has come at her harder than her attorney has been defending her.  If the jury can see the whole picture of how there were mistakes made, and neglect from a number of circumstances that started early in the planning of the filming of Rust.  It's a lesson on how NOT to produce a Western.

https://www.npr.org/2023/01/20/11500349 … a-hutchins

Focuspuller wrote:
There are NO other persons in the shot. It does NOT show who was on the set. The rest of the video shows the activity AFTER the fatal accident, proving nothing you keep going on about.
No one is taking your word for it.

Let me make it even simpler for you. Your suggestion that there were hundreds of people on the set at the time of the fatal shooting is nonsense.

When the police were informed about the shooting, they would obviously have requested that all persons on the set should remain there until their arrival.

JSouthworth wrote:
Let me make it even simpler for you. Your suggestion that there were hundreds of people on the set at the time of the fatal shooting is nonsense.

When the police were informed about the shooting, they would obviously have requested that all persons on the set should remain there until their arrival.

You ARE hallucinating.

I never said there were "hundreds of people on the set at the time of the fatal shooting."

YOUR argument that moments prior to the rehearsal, a person unknown surreptitiously, purposely loaded the weapon with a live round outside the church, out of sight of those inside, because "the windows".

My response to your claim was to mock the absurdity of it: "Do you imagine the 100-plus crew, and extras, wranglers, PA's and others were ALL inside the church? Not ONE PERSON outside the church who would have noticed the AD doing something strange with the firearm, and at the prop cart, which was at least 50 feet away from the church according to the photo YOU referenced?"

Let me make it even simpler for YOU, since you are being particularly obtuse and obnoxious:

Are you making the stupid claim not one member of a company of 100-plus was outside the church to witness a tampering of the weapon moments before the rehearsal?

Having run out of silly theories are you now resorting to LYING about that which is easily disproven?

How sad.

JSouthworth wrote:
When the police were informed about the shooting, they would obviously have requested that all persons on the set should remain there until their arrival.

And how, in your "mind" would that request have been "obviously" communicated and enforced before the first police officer responding arrived on the scene, approximately 15 minutes after being called, and what does it prove anyway?

Never mind. It proves absolutely nothing. Obviously.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
I have been listening to as much as I can of the trial.  I'm not so sure what the jury is going to decide. It could go either way depending on what they focus on, but the defense called some gun safety expert up there to the stand.  It did not go well. The guy pulls out a gun and didn't show that the gun was not loaded before waving it around with the barrel pointing at the jury and the judge at some points.  I have no idea what the purpose was for him to be up there!  There are a number of holes in the prosecution that could leave doubt, but the question of how the live ammo got there is still not clear because of the mistakes made by not only Hannah, but others who were involved.  I think it will come down to Alec Baldwin himself doing that interview on TV after the shooting where he claimed he did not pull the trigger. He is going to be next up on trial in the Summer. I'm still leaning towards them both being found not guilty, but the producers were found negligant and fined for what happened. The police work by the sheriff and deputies on the scene was sloppy as heck!  This will be interesting.

The defense just possibly lost their case  with the jury when that "expert" pointed the gun at the judge. Unbelievable. I did not care for his attitude from the start. He seemed too eager to demonstrate his expertise and superior knowledge. The defense lawyer had to restrain his over-eagerness. Then he demonstrates total disregard for basic muzzle discipline on the stand. Incredible.

It's a shame because I think the prosecution inexplicably helped the defense's case by establishing the many errors and negligence of the entire production, from the producer Pickle to the prop master Zachary. I think a jury, or at minimum, one juror, might have been inclined to acquit Hannah, despite the fact it was her job to prevent what happened.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
The jury came back extremely fast!   I liked the defense attorney's closing arguement.  I'm disappointed by the way law enforcement handled the entire case.  They did not have control of the scene.  I'm actually a bit upset at assistant armorer Sarah Zachary for getting immunity and she admitted to tossing the rounds that were in the gun that fired before law enforcement arrived!  So I do understand how someone could come up with a conspiracy theory regarding Sarah.  I thought there were too many botched and suspicious things that happened all around Hannah for me to convict her. Investigation was done by amateurs. However I was wrong.  One thing for sure, it is a FACT that many of those implicated in this accident are affected for the rest of their lives.  That is why some of retired, or left the movie industry.  Would you even consider hiring anyone who worked on the 'Rust' crew? Edit!  She was found guilty! Hannah's career as an armorer is done! Sentencing is next!

Sarah Zachary was in fact the Prop Master.  24-years old and no firearm experience, mentored and influenced by key ammo supplier Seth Kenney who kept a disorganized shop and records, who was handling live rounds for another production. She was responsible for a misfire on set, and who incredibly disposed of rounds from the gun in question, was given immunity from prosecution, and Kenney allowed to plead to a lesser charge with no jail time and unsupervised probation. They covered each other's ass and made sure Hannah was convicted.

Focuspuller wrote:
Sarah Zachary was in fact the Prop Master.  24-years old and no firearm experience, mentored and influenced by key ammo supplier Seth Kenney who kept a disorganized shop and records, who was handling live rounds for another production. She was responsible for a misfire on set, and who incredibly disposed of rounds from the gun in question, was given immunity from prosecution, and Kenney allowed to plead to a lesser charge with no jail time and unsupervised probation. They covered each other's ass and made sure Hannah was convicted.

The whole incident is sad.  There were plenty of mistakes made all around starting with the production management team in their hiring, the budget analysis that did not provide enough money to produce the movie in a safe manner, all the way to the "A" list actor, and the crew which of course includes Hannah.  I don't blame her for the tragic accident that took the life of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, at least not 100% .. she was working under nearly impossible conditions that were not safe for anyone.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
The whole incident is sad.  There were plenty of mistakes made all around starting with the production management team in their hiring, the budget analysis that did not provide enough money to produce the movie in a safe manner, all the way to the "A" list actor, and the crew which of course includes Hannah.  I don't blame her for the tragic accident that took the life of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, at least not 100% .. she was working under nearly impossible conditions that were not safe for anyone.

CORRECTION:

It was the AD David Halls who received 6 months unsupervised probation under a plea deal. Not the ammo supplier, Seth Kenney as I misstated. Kenney was not charged.

JSouthworth wrote:
Article here contains the information that six live .45 rounds found on the set did not match those seized from the movie's ammunition supplier in Albuquerque, which appears to discredit the allegation that they were included in a box of dummy rounds.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/ar … amp;ei=110

'Defence attorneys argued that the cluttered supply office was not searched until a month after the fatal shooting, undermining the significance of physical evidence there."

Did you miss this or just cherry-picking?

ShutterDoug wrote:
I personally own two non-firing replica handguns bought for video use.  These are heavy, and sufficiently detailed to pass for real in a brief close-up.   The special effects needed to simulate gunfire are cheap.  There is no reason to use a gun that is capable of firing on set.

We shot a scene in the parking lot of a small town city hall, or the weekend when the offices were closed.  Our producer cleared that with the city in advance.  While we were blocking, I noticed the county sheriff's office was across the street,  So I stopped in and talked with the desk officer.  No one had told him about the shoot.   While the script that day did not call for guns to be drawn, it is not hard to imagine how things could have gone very wrong. 

Several years ago an actor at a Halloween party pointed a fake gun at someone he probably thought was another party-goer in a police costume.   It was a real policeman responding to a noise complaint.  He shot the actor to death.

Handle all guns alike, fake or real.  Presume them all to be loaded and that they will fire if pointed at a person.

Always.

FYI, The SAG-AFTRA safety bulletin for firearms requires every person who handles a firearm to be trained in the safe handling, even if the only guns on set are fake non-firing replicas.  The SAG-AFTRA news release defending Baldwin to the press flatly out contradicted that.

"Handle all guns alike, fake or real.  Presume them all to be loaded and that they will fire if pointed at a person."

Absolutely.

"The SAG-AFTRA news release defending Baldwin to the press flatly out contradicted that."

Not true.

The Industry guidelines require "No one shall be issued a firearm unless they have been trained in the safe handling, use,
proper firing procedures, and proper use of all mechanical safety devices for each type of firearm." The guidelines do not require an actor to INSPECT a weapon.

The guidelines do require "The Property Master should inspect the firearm and barrel before every firing
sequence."

From the SAG statement:

"The guidelines do not make it the performer’s responsibility to check any firearm. Performers train to perform, and they are not required or expected to be experts on guns or experienced in their use. The industry assigns that responsibility to qualified professionals who oversee their use and handling in every aspect. Anyone issued a firearm on set must be given training and guidance in its safe handling and use, but all activity with firearms on a set must be under the careful supervision and control of the professional armorer and the employer."

https://www.csatf.org/01_safety_bltn_firearms/

https://www.sagaftra.org/sag-aftra-stat … st-tragedy

Testimony in the trial of armorer Hannah Gutierrez show the guidelines were flouted pretty regularly by many on that production..

Focuspuller wrote:
Testimony in the trial of armorer Hannah Gutierrez show the guidelines were flouted pretty regularly by many on that production..

Just some observations from the court case, and how following safety protocol needs to be followed no matter who the person is that has access to the weapons. Don't be intimidated.  Confront the person causing the danger, report it, and walk off the set if necessaary.

There was some film footage shown in court of how Alec Baldwin appeared careless at times with how he handled guns. Then he also was rather bossy of the crew, in particular with Hannah in hurrying up for the next take while even using the hand gun as a pointer.  It was an example of how quickly Hannah had to react to reloading weapons.  Baldwin even had a misfire after "cut" was called.  At another point, he had pointed the gun in the direction of the crew, and Hannah is heard telling the crew to pull back or move to a safer spot right then. The DA implied that Hannah was not agressive in looking after the safety on the set which was her duty.  I believe that she was intimidated by Baldwin, after all he is a huge "star" so would she even be respected if she were to demand that standard safety measures be followed? Her second film working and she was way over her head, as well as overwhelmed. 

Then after watching on film of Baldwin's manner of using guns, I imagine that most in the jury had never had a gun pointed at them even for a moment until that "expert" (on gun safety?) carelessly waved that handgun he had brought into court to testify on behalf of the defendant. You said that was the moment that Hannah's defense blew it, and I'm thinking it is so.  She could not afford legal counsel so her attoneys were actually working pro bono on her behalf.  I think her defense team was not as strong as the DA who went after her.   You get what you pay for.  I'm sympathetic and sorry she had to be the "fall guy!"

Speaking of the DA .. she is coming for Alec Baldwin next!  Obviously he can afford a stronger defense team, but it seems that the DA has already been able to test the waters with arguing evidence to see how well it works. Will Baldwin escape being found guilty?  I'm starting to have my doubts.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Just some observations from the court case, and how following safety protocol needs to be followed no matter who the person is that has access to the weapons. Don't be intimidated.  Confront the person causing the danger, report it, and walk off the set if necessaary.

There was some film footage shown in court of how Alec Baldwin appeared careless at times with how he handled guns. Then he also was rather bossy of the crew, in particular with Hannah in hurrying up for the next take while even using the hand gun as a pointer.  It was an example of how quickly Hannah had to react to reloading weapons.  Baldwin even had a misfire after "cut" was called.  At another point, he had pointed the gun in the direction of the crew, and Hannah is heard telling the crew to pull back or move to a safer spot right then. The DA implied that Hannah was not agressive in looking after the safety on the set which was her duty.  I believe that she was intimidated by Baldwin, after all he is a huge "star" so would she even be respected if she were to demand that standard safety measures be followed? Her second film working and she was way over her head, as well as overwhelmed. 

Then after watching on film of Baldwin's manner of using guns, I imagine that most in the jury had never had a gun pointed at them even for a moment until that "expert" (on gun safety?) carelessly waved that handgun he had brought into court to testify on behalf of the defendant. You said that was the moment that Hannah's defense blew it, and I'm thinking it is so.  She could not afford legal counsel so her attoneys were actually working pro bono on her behalf.  I think her defense team was not as strong as the DA who went after her.   You get what you pay for.  I'm sympathetic and sorry she had to be the "fall guy!"

Speaking of the DA .. she is coming for Alec Baldwin next!  Obviously he can afford a stronger defense team, but it seems that the DA has already been able to test the waters with arguing evidence to see how well it works. Will Baldwin escape being found guilty?  I'm starting to have my doubts.

You make some good points there, I think. The reports suggest that Baldwin was bullying Gutierrez-Reed, or certainly putting pressure on her. And on a movie set the producer outranks the armorer. If she had confronted Baldwin on the set, she would have lost her job, been replaced. That would still have been an improvement over being shot dead or imprisoned.

Was the idea to use Gutierrez-Reed as a fall guy who could be blamed for a fatal "accident"? This is what I suspect.

JSouthworth wrote:

You make some good points there, I think. The reports suggest that Baldwin was bullying Gutierrez-Reed, or certainly putting pressure on her. And on a movie set the producer outranks the armorer. If she had confronted Baldwin on the set, she would have lost her job, been replaced. That would still have been an improvement over being shot dead or imprisoned.

Was the idea to use Gutierrez-Reed as a fall guy who could be blamed for a fatal "accident"? This is what I suspect.

"Was the idea to use Gutierrez-Reed as a fall guy who could be blamed for a fatal "accident"? This is what I suspect."

Without a shred of evidence or even a credible theory of the case, because there is neither.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

Just some observations from the court case, and how following safety protocol needs to be followed no matter who the person is that has access to the weapons. Don't be intimidated.  Confront the person causing the danger, report it, and walk off the set if necessaary.

There was some film footage shown in court of how Alec Baldwin appeared careless at times with how he handled guns. Then he also was rather bossy of the crew, in particular with Hannah in hurrying up for the next take while even using the hand gun as a pointer.  It was an example of how quickly Hannah had to react to reloading weapons.  Baldwin even had a misfire after "cut" was called.  At another point, he had pointed the gun in the direction of the crew, and Hannah is heard telling the crew to pull back or move to a safer spot right then. The DA implied that Hannah was not agressive in looking after the safety on the set which was her duty.  I believe that she was intimidated by Baldwin, after all he is a huge "star" so would she even be respected if she were to demand that standard safety measures be followed? Her second film working and she was way over her head, as well as overwhelmed. 

Then after watching on film of Baldwin's manner of using guns, I imagine that most in the jury had never had a gun pointed at them even for a moment until that "expert" (on gun safety?) carelessly waved that handgun he had brought into court to testify on behalf of the defendant. You said that was the moment that Hannah's defense blew it, and I'm thinking it is so.  She could not afford legal counsel so her attoneys were actually working pro bono on her behalf.  I think her defense team was not as strong as the DA who went after her.   You get what you pay for.  I'm sympathetic and sorry she had to be the "fall guy!"

Speaking of the DA .. she is coming for Alec Baldwin next!  Obviously he can afford a stronger defense team, but it seems that the DA has already been able to test the waters with arguing evidence to see how well it works. Will Baldwin escape being found guilty?  I'm starting to have my doubts.

Since the Sarah Jones tragedy, there has been a concerted campaign around "If you see something, say something." Two problems:

1. It is EXTREMELY intimidating to possibly be the ONE PERSON on a set to bring an entire production to a halt. Particularly if you are way, way down the pecking order. Nevertheless...

2. Complaints WERE made... and ignored. The AD IN PARTICULAR seems to have been oblivious to the unsafe conditions that caused most of the camera crew to walk off the production. In 45 years working in the industry I have never heard of anything like that happening.

Hannah was definitely guilty of not doing her job. The defense tried to demonstrate how difficult the production made it for her to do that, to no apparent avail. Holding higher ups responsible for on-set tragedies is difficult, to say the least. I don't believe anyone was held accountable in the major studio-produced "Twilight Zone" tragedy, incredibly.

Perhaps the judge will take the extenuating circumstances into consideration on sentencing.

Focuspuller wrote:
"Was the idea to use Gutierrez-Reed as a fall guy who could be blamed for a fatal "accident"? This is what I suspect."

Without a shred of evidence or even a credible theory of the case, because there is neither.

What we have, at first sight is a death that could have resulted from either extreme carelessness or an intention on someone's part. A possible financial motive has been suggested. Alec Baldwin's lies, dissembling and denials make it look it look like murder to me. Baldwin has been charged with manslaughter, so it's down to the judge and jury now.