Halyna Hutchins Shot With Prop Gun - Alec Baldwin indicted & Hannah Gutierrez-Reed charged, 2021 #8

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Amazing how a false statement by one party lives for ever on the internet. The gun WAS NOT destroyed! It was presented in court yesterday!

Legal rules really need to address this type of falsehood, imo.

There seems to have been some damage to the gun during testing. Some type of fracture of internal components

KOAT looked at the FBI testing report the District Attorney's Office mentioned.

On page four, it reads this:

"With the hammer in the full *advertiser censored* position, Item 2 could not be made to fire without a pull of the trigger while the working internal components were intact and functional. During this testing,portions of the trigger sear and cylinder stop fractured while the hammer was struck. The fracture of these internal components allowed the hammer to fall and the firing pin and detonated the primer. This was the only successful discharge during this testing and it was attributed to the fracture of internal components, not the failure of the firearm or safety mechanisms."

Item 2 is a .45 Colt (.45 Long Colt), according to the report.

 
There seems to have been some damage to the gun during testing. Some type of fracture of internal components

KOAT looked at the FBI testing report the District Attorney's Office mentioned.

On page four, it reads this:

"With the hammer in the full *advertiser censored* position, Item 2 could not be made to fire without a pull of the trigger while the working internal components were intact and functional. During this testing,portions of the trigger sear and cylinder stop fractured while the hammer was struck. The fracture of these internal components allowed the hammer to fall and the firing pin and detonated the primer. This was the only successful discharge during this testing and it was attributed to the fracture of internal components, not the failure of the firearm or safety mechanisms."

Item 2 is a .45 Colt (.45 Long Colt), according to the report.

I know all this.

It was NOT destroyed, however. That is simply incorrect language. It is blatantly untrue.

Say that I kill someone in my car driving at 70 mph. The police take my car and do tests with it. During those tests they decide to do an emergency stop test at 140 mph (analogous to the unnecessary test the FBI did on the gun) and blow out the two front tyres due to the extreme nature of the test.

Is it an honest thing to say that my car has been destroyed?

No, it's not!

Is it an honest thing to say that my defence team are incapable of testing my car?

No it's not!
 
Last edited:
So, I'm watching this Spiro guy questioning the crime scene lady.

Why is it relevant where the live ammo came from?

It was live ammo and it was there. It's irrelevant where it came from as it doesn't change what AB did.
Cause and effects become limited where exactly in this kind of story line? add Semi's and pause where ever in the sentence, its all the same.
 
Good questions on the Law & Crime panel

Can the prosecution establish that Baldwin knew there might be a live round in the prop gun?

Why didn't prosecutor charge anyone for injuring the director?
It's irrelevant whether he knew or not. He is charged with a negligent homicide. If he knew there was a live round there he's be charged with something much more serious.

He did not check. He was negligent. It's as simple as that.
 
I know all this.

It was NOT destroyed, however. That is simply incorrect language. It is blatantly untrue.

Say that I kill someone in my car driving at 70 mph. The police take my car and do tests with it. During those tests they decide to do an emergency stop test at 140 mph (analogous to the unnecessary test the FBI did on the gun) and blow out the two front tyres due to the extreme nature of the test.

Is it an honest thing to say that my car has been destroyed?

No, it's not!

Is it an honest thing to say that my defence team are incapable of testing my car?

No it's not!

Possibly the attorney's choice of the word destroyed was not a word some would use to describe an inoperable weapon. I might call it broken, busted, ruined, and so on.Anyway, it no longer works. I wasn't aware of what happened to it and that article gave me and possibly some others insight into the state of the gun.
 
I know all this.

It was NOT destroyed, however. That is simply incorrect language. It is blatantly untrue.

Say that I kill someone in my car driving at 70 mph. The police take my car and do tests with it. During those tests they decide to do an emergency stop test at 140 mph (analogous to the unnecessary test the FBI did on the gun) and blow out the two front tyres due to the extreme nature of the test.

Is it an honest thing to say that my car has been destroyed?

No, it's not!

Is it an honest thing to say that my defence team are incapable of testing my car?

No it's not!
The item was destroyed as a functioning firearm and as pristine evidence of the gun at the time of the incident.
 
I know all this.

It was NOT destroyed, however. That is simply incorrect language. It is blatantly untrue.

Say that I kill someone in my car driving at 70 mph. The police take my car and do tests with it. During those tests they decide to do an emergency stop test at 140 mph (analogous to the unnecessary test the FBI did on the gun) and blow out the two front tyres due to the extreme nature of the test.

Is it an honest thing to say that my car has been destroyed?

No, it's not!

Is it an honest thing to say that my defence team are incapable of testing my car?

No it's not!
Hmmmm. Sounds like a rage comment, the gun was not the same as it was at the time of the shooting, that is established. Important I would say in a trial. All tiny things are for both sides in order to reach the justice part.
 
Possibly the attorney's choice of the word destroyed was not a word some would use to describe an inoperable weapon. I might call it broken, busted, ruined, and so on.Anyway, it no longer works. I wasn't aware of what happened to it and that article gave me and possibly some others insight into the state of the gun.
This may help. This is from the testimony from this morning….

"As to the firearm, I think where you left off yesterday is ultimately that firearm was destroyed in the testing there," Spiro said.

"Not destroyed, but broken," Poppell responded.

Poppell later agreed that although the gun could likely be fixed with replacement parts, it could not be restored to the condition it was on the day that Halyna Hutchins and Joel Souza were shot.

 
I know all this.

It was NOT destroyed, however. That is simply incorrect language. It is blatantly untrue.

Say that I kill someone in my car driving at 70 mph. The police take my car and do tests with it. During those tests they decide to do an emergency stop test at 140 mph (analogous to the unnecessary test the FBI did on the gun) and blow out the two front tyres due to the extreme nature of the test.

Is it an honest thing to say that my car has been destroyed?

No, it's not!

Is it an honest thing to say that my defence team are incapable of testing my car?

No it's not!

It was the hammer and the trigger of the gun which were broken during testing. I would not compare these parts, which are very integral to the functioning of a firearm, to a car's tires. I would say a more good faith comparison would be if the FBI broke the brakes and/or steering wheel while testing.

For what it's worth, here's what the gun looked like after it was broken by the FBI (Fig 1a) and what the broken parts looked like (Fig. 1b & 1c).


(Images taken from the report of Lucien Haag)
1720730622700.png
1720730633397.png
1720731154763.png
 
Last edited:
Mr. Baldwin is innocent. sorry..Hannah G. was the cause and architect of all the sorrows, and while they aren't trying her right now I wonder why she was not charged further, I mean could she have done this intentionally? . mOO
 
Mr. Baldwin is innocent. sorry..Hannah G. was the cause and architect of all the sorrows, and while they aren't trying her right now I wonder why she was not charged further, I mean could she have done this intentionally? . mOO
She was charged, and convicted. But there was never any evidence that I am aware of that this was intentional. For reasons we will likely never know, there were live rounds in her shed and she loaded them into that firearm without realizing it.
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
183
Guests online
472
Total visitors
655

Forum statistics

Threads
608,286
Messages
18,237,348
Members
234,333
Latest member
CyberInvestigator
Back
Top