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

[Dotta]

You said “is this person for real?” You mean Morrissey or me? That’s what confused me. Either way it doesn’t matter.

"Is this person for real?"

Means:

Total surprise.
Not believing that someone can be soooo primitive and stupid.

I think it is obvious that I meant the prosecutor who used vulgar language.

And not OP hahaha


But hey,
as English is a foreign language for me,
some might have problems with understanding my posts
Are they ambiguous?

 

[geevee]

Defense is saying here that the mysterious bullets were turned over AFTER Hannah's trial. Someone posted yesterday that they were turned over during the trial, towards the end of it. Which account is accurate? TIA

Also, since the hidden ammo was never fully examined or tested by LE, should we not assume the ammo didn't match that found on the set? Just curious because now its hard to believe who was telling the truth. Perhaps we should just reject everything we've been told about the mystery bullets and events and people surrounding them until a full investigation has been completed. I don't like having to do that, but see no other way to approach it. JMO

ETA: This motion has a lot of "buck passing" in it.

The LT. said the date the body cam video was recorded was Mar. 6, 2024. I don't know when the verdict came in HGR's trial, but 3/6/24 is when the bullets were turned into the sheriff's dept.

 

[Betty P]

The LT. said the date the body cam video was recorded was Mar. 6, 2024. I don't know when the verdict came in HGR's trial, but 3/6/24 is when the bullets were turned into the sheriff's dept.

Verdict came in March 6. Interesting trying to unwind this little game they played. Wasn't this also somewhat exculpatory evidence for HGR?

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/06/entertainment/rust-trial-hannah-gutierrez-reed/index.html

I don't understand these people.

 

[geevee]

Morrissey does say, when she is testifying, that it was Bowles that texted her the photo of the bullets, and she understood the photo came from Teske, showing bullets that did not match the live rounds found on the set.

But in court, when the judge went through the bullets that were turned over to the sheriff's office, 3 of the live bullets did match the one that killed HH (Starline brass, silver primer).

 

[jbc]

I've been following this, but not so carefully lately. So, imagine my surprise....

I listened to Morrisey's soliloquy that nobody apparently needed to hear but she wanted to deliver.
And, that confused me. Would knowledgeable followers help me?

The Arizona ammo was being held by Treske (sp?), who really wanted to hand it over at multiple times.
Morrisey had already determined, based on her visual analysis and FBI forensic analysis, that the Arizona ammo was not the same as the Rust ammo.
So, it seems logical to me that Morrisey would not be interested in it.
And, I believe (not a lawyer), that this justifies her decision to keep that ammo out of the discussion and eventually give it a different case number when it suddenly appears in NM.

But, Treske wanted to hand it over so much that he previously brought it to Santa Fe to show HGR's lawyer during HGR's trial, when he thought he'd be called as a defense witness.
Do I have that right?
And, HGR's lawyer wanted that ammo (and Treske) to disappear, stat.
Morrisey's interpretation was that the Arizona ammo was viewed by HGR's lawyer to further implicate HGR.
Do I understand that correctly?

How can the AZ ammo be totally unrelated to the case but also viewed as implicating HGR?

And, even if the AZ ammo somehow implicates HGR by being from the same batch (and besides the legal requirements to share evidence) how does that influence anyone's view about AB's involvement? Nobody ever implicated AB in sourcing the dummies/blanks/ammo. Couldn't the judge have handled this as a tangential issue, not material to the case of whether AB is responsible for the death because he pulled the trigger?

Thanks in advance to anybody here with the patience to explain this to me.

 

[turaj]

Ultimately, it doesn't matter where the live rounds came from.

There was a box in the prop trailer with live rounds and HGR, in a videotaped police interview, dismissively, almost arrogantly, admits that she didn't properly check the 'mystery box' of rounds before loading them into a gun.

that is the MOST sad part of this....does not matter where the live rounds came from.

 

[ch_13]

I've been following this, but not so carefully lately. So, imagine my surprise....

I listened to Morrisey's soliloquy that nobody apparently needed to hear but she wanted to deliver.
And, that confused me. Would knowledgeable followers help me?

The Arizona ammo was being held by Treske (sp?), who really wanted to hand it over at multiple times.
Morrisey had already determined, based on her visual analysis and FBI forensic analysis, that the Arizona ammo was not the same as the Rust ammo.
So, it seems logical to me that Morrisey would not be interested in it.
And, I believe (not a lawyer), that this justifies her decision to keep that ammo out of the discussion and eventually give it a different case number when it suddenly appears in NM.

But, Treske wanted to hand it over so much that he previously brought it to Santa Fe to show HGR's lawyer during HGR's trial, when he thought he'd be called as a defense witness.
Do I have that right?
And, HGR's lawyer wanted that ammo (and Treske) to disappear, stat.
Morrisey's interpretation was that the Arizona ammo was viewed by HGR's lawyer to further implicate HGR.
Do I understand that correctly?

I think you have it correct. The big question to me seems to be where Teske's ammo came from. I don't think that's ever been established, and with Baldwin's case thrown out of court I'm not sure it ever will be.

It's certainly a puzzle to me why the police didn't collect and investigate this ammo. Just excluding it because of some random photo seems to have been a big mistake on the part of the prosecutors.

The shooting happened in Oct 2021. The trial for HGR was in March 2024. That's 2 and a half years that Teske had to give this evidence to the cops and he waited until the trial was in progress? Only reason to do that, that I can think of, is because you want to rush the evidence through and get it mentioned in court before it's been vetted.
HRGs lawyers knew about these rounds too. Why didn't they push for this miracle ammo to be admitted as evidence?

So, lets recap. Who knows about the miracle ammo? Thell reed, Teske, Thell's friend, and HGR lawyers. They know about it, and nobody mentions it or gives it to the cops until the trial has already started.

I honestly don't get why you keep calling it "miracle ammo". You seem to be suggesting that this was manufactured evidence created years later. However, the police have known about the ammo since the early days of the investigation. Teske wasn't hiding it, he asked them to come get it. How is it Teske's fault that the police failed to recover it from him? Sure, maybe he could have taken upon himself to drive from Arizona to New Mexico and hand it over earlier, but you can hardly blame him for not doing that when he was clearly expecting the police to arrange for it to be picked up.

Did Morrissey ever ask him to bring it? Seems like she did not. According to her own testimony she just decided on her own that the ammo was irrelevant and apparently never told Teske or anyone else.

 

[Dotta]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1812162647162241507

 

[Slick762]

that is the MOST sad part of this....does not matter where the live rounds came from.

It's interesting and shows some very sloppy work and bad behavior from both Thell and Seth, but there nobody was charged with bringing the rounds on set. Which I doubt is even a crime.
Now if we're talking civil suits, then it's very relevant.

 

[Betty P]

I've been following this, but not so carefully lately. So, imagine my surprise....

I listened to Morrisey's soliloquy that nobody apparently needed to hear but she wanted to deliver.
And, that confused me. Would knowledgeable followers help me?

The Arizona ammo was being held by Treske (sp?), who really wanted to hand it over at multiple times.
Morrisey had already determined, based on her visual analysis and FBI forensic analysis, that the Arizona ammo was not the same as the Rust ammo.
So, it seems logical to me that Morrisey would not be interested in it.
And, I believe (not a lawyer), that this justifies her decision to keep that ammo out of the discussion and eventually give it a different case number when it suddenly appears in NM.

But, Treske wanted to hand it over so much that he previously brought it to Santa Fe to show HGR's lawyer during HGR's trial, when he thought he'd be called as a defense witness.
Do I have that right?
And, HGR's lawyer wanted that ammo (and Treske) to disappear, stat.
Morrisey's interpretation was that the Arizona ammo was viewed by HGR's lawyer to further implicate HGR.
Do I understand that correctly?

How can the AZ ammo be totally unrelated to the case but also viewed as implicating HGR?

And, even if the AZ ammo somehow implicates HGR by being from the same batch (and besides the legal requirements to share evidence) how does that influence anyone's decision about AB's involvement? Nobody ever implicated AB in sourcing the dummies/blanks/ammo. Couldn't the judge have handled this as a tangential issue, not material to the case of whether AB is responsible for the death because he pulled the trigger?

Thanks in advance to anybody here with the patience to explain this to me.

Good question. I was wondering the same.

From AB's defense motion: It was exculpatory evidence for AB because it put the source of the live ammo as someone not HGR or any other employee of the movie production company. That eliminated the argument that AB was responsible because he hired an inexperienced HGR.

I suppose it was still considered a negative for HGR because, even though the live ammo came from an outside supplier, she should have re-checked it to make sure there were no live ones.

WRT Morissey and the live ammo that Treske had, are we sure the FBI tested it, concluding it didn't match the fatal round?

 

[Slick762]

I think you have it correct. The big question to me seems to be where Teske's ammo came from. I don't think that's ever been established, and with Baldwin's case thrown out of court I'm not sure it ever will be.

It's certainly a puzzle to me why the police didn't collect and investigate this ammo. Just excluding it because of some random photo seems to have been a big mistake on the part of the prosecutors.


I honestly don't get why you keep calling it "miracle ammo". You seem to be suggesting that this was manufactured evidence created years later. However, the police have known about the ammo since the early days of the investigation. Teske wasn't hiding it, he asked them to come get it. How is it Teske's fault that the police failed to recover it from him? Sure, maybe he could have taken upon himself to drive from Arizona to New Mexico and hand it over earlier, but you can hardly blame him for not doing that when he was clearly expecting the police to arrange for it to be picked up.

Did Morrissey ever ask him to bring it? Seems like she did not. According to her own testimony she just decided on her own that the ammo was irrelevant and apparently never told Teske or anyone else.

If someone is holding important evidence in a murder trial, it's really suspicious that they call the cops, don't answer when the cops call back numerous times (there was testimony yesterday that the cops made numerous attempts to contact Teske and he wouldn't take their calls), and finally take the evidence in yourself on the day the verdict comes in.
And the defense attorneys knew about this evidence well before that. There's nothing stopping them from getting those rounds from Teske and presenting the evidence with Teske testifying that he got it from Seth. I'm not dismissing these rounds just because I don't like Thell (I actually dislike Thell and Seth almost equally). HGRs lawyers apparently didn't believe in that evidence either.

I watched the whole trial, those rounds and testimony from Teske, assuming he doesn't get obliterated on cross and the rounds forensically matched, would have given me enough doubt that the 'sabotaged by Seth' theory was actually plausible and I'd have voted not guilty.

edit: I call it 'miracle ammo' because it appears to me, and other people seem to have doubts about it also, that Thell provided these rounds to Teske to give to the cops and claim they originally came from Seth in an effort to introduce exculpatory evidence with no way, other than Teskes word, that Seth had anything to do with those rounds.
If Thell had put this much effort into training Hannah, the shooting would never have happened.

 

[Forest_Wood]

I've been following this, but not so carefully lately. So, imagine my surprise....

I listened to Morrisey's soliloquy that nobody apparently needed to hear but she wanted to deliver.
And, that confused me. Would knowledgeable followers help me?

The Arizona ammo was being held by Treske (sp?), who really wanted to hand it over at multiple times.
Morrisey had already determined, based on her visual analysis and FBI forensic analysis, that the Arizona ammo was not the same as the Rust ammo.
So, it seems logical to me that Morrisey would not be interested in it.
And, I believe (not a lawyer), that this justifies her decision to keep that ammo out of the discussion and eventually give it a different case number when it suddenly appears in NM.

But, Treske wanted to hand it over so much that he previously brought it to Santa Fe to show HGR's lawyer during HGR's trial, when he thought he'd be called as a defense witness.
Do I have that right?
And, HGR's lawyer wanted that ammo (and Treske) to disappear, stat.
Morrisey's interpretation was that the Arizona ammo was viewed by HGR's lawyer to further implicate HGR.
Do I understand that correctly?

How can the AZ ammo be totally unrelated to the case but also viewed as implicating HGR?

And, even if the AZ ammo somehow implicates HGR by being from the same batch (and besides the legal requirements to share evidence) how does that influence anyone's view about AB's involvement? Nobody ever implicated AB in sourcing the dummies/blanks/ammo. Couldn't the judge have handled this as a tangential issue, not material to the case of whether AB is responsible for the death because he pulled the trigger?

Thanks in advance to anybody here with the patience to explain this to me.

My understanding is that it doesn't have as much to do about the details surrounding where/why/when/how/who brought the bullets to the attention of LE, as much as that LE did not process it in the required manner as potential evidence.
LE did not check the bullets properly, or send them out for testing, and therefore they discounted them as evidence without disclosing them to the defense as they're required to do.
They even created a completely different case number so that the bullets therefore didn't show up as evidence in this case. Instead the bullets were tucked away in a completely different case number and therefore "hidden".
Had the defense known about these bullets, they may have prepared for the case differently - coming to different conclusions, going in different directions, and preparing a different line of questioning of witnesses, which may have resulted in an entirely different defense strategy.
Essentially, the defense were prevented from doing their jobs adequately.
In the end, even if these bullets had no relevance to the case, the act of not disclosing these bullets prevented a fair trial for the defense of Alec Baldwin.
My opinion only.

 

[Slick762]

My understanding is that it doesn't have as much to do about the details surrounding where/why/when/how/who handed the bullets to LE, as much as that LE did not process it in the required manner as evidence.
LE did not check the bullets properly, or send them out for testing, and therefore they discounted them as evidence without disclosing them to the defense as they're required to do.
They even created a completely different case number so that the bullets therefore didn't show up as evidence in this case. Instead the bullets were tucked away in a completely different case number and therefore "hidden".
Had the defense known about these bullets, they may have prepared for the case differently - coming to different conclusions, going in different directions, and preparing a different line of questioning of witnesses, which may have resulted in an entirely different defense strategy.
They were prevented from doing their jobs adequately.
In the end, even if these bullets had no bearing on the case, the act of not disclosing these bullets to the defense prevented a fair trial for the defense of Alec Baldwin.

My understanding is that it doesn't have as much to do about the details surrounding where/why/when/how/who brought the bullets to the attention of LE, as much as that LE did not process it in the required manner as potential evidence.
LE did not check the bullets properly, or send them out for testing, and therefore they discounted them as evidence without disclosing them to the defense as they're required to do.
They even created a completely different case number so that the bullets therefore didn't show up as evidence in this case. Instead the bullets were tucked away in a completely different case number and therefore "hidden".
Had the defense known about these bullets, they may have prepared for the case differently - coming to different conclusions, going in different directions, and preparing a different line of questioning of witnesses, which may have resulted in an entirely different defense strategy.
Essentially, the defense were prevented from doing their jobs adequately.
In the end, even if these bullets had no relevance to the case, the act of not disclosing these bullets prevented a fair trial for the defense of Alec Baldwin.
My opinion only.

Well said. Despite my opinion, with circumstantial supporting evidence, that the rounds either had nothing to do with the shooting or were an effort to fake exculpatory evidence, the cops screwed up, to put it mildly, bigly.

What's funny as hell is that AB lawyers probably knew about these rounds for months and just waited until the right moment to pull the kind of boss move that lawyers have wet dreams about. I don't care for AB lead lawyer, but I can't hate on him for doing that. It was beautiful, from a legal perspective.

 

[ch_13]

If someone is holding important evidence in a murder trial, it's really suspicious that they call the cops, don't answer when the cops call back numerous times (there was testimony yesterday that the cops made numerous attempts to contact Teske and he wouldn't take their calls), and finally take the evidence in yourself on the day the verdict comes in.

RSBM.

I believe your timeline is incorrect here.

Hancock testified that Teske didn't return her calls after he turned over the ammo. When questioned why there were no records of her calls in Teske's phone records, she claimed she called him from a "non-caller id number". But that would also mean she didn't leave a voicemail for Teske, otherwise it would be in his phone records.

So was Hancock just calling him from a phone that doesn't show a number and then hanging up without leaving a message? How could he call her back if it was a "non-caller id number"?

I don't know the truth here and it would take another trial to get to the bottom of things. But I've seen nothing to indicate that Teske acted in any suspicious way. On the other hand Hancock's testimony about these supposed calls was pretty suss, IMO. Once Teske turned over the ammo, they must have realized for the first time that it matched the rounds from the set. Perhaps they decided to bury it by putting a different case number on the ammo, then called Teske from a non-caller id number knowing he would never pick that up. (Or she lied about calling him in the first place.)

Edit - Just to add one thing about Hancock...she was clearly lying on the stand. At one point she claimed that the there wasn't enough time during the defense's evidence viewing to get to Teske's ammo. But that was a total lie, the ammo was never a part of the evidence viewing, as Poppell admitted. So I find her completely non-credible in her testimony.

 

[jbc]

My understanding is that it doesn't have as much to do about the details surrounding where/why/when/how/who brought the bullets to the attention of LE, as much as that LE did not process it in the required manner as potential evidence.
LE did not check the bullets properly, or send them out for testing, and therefore they discounted them as evidence without disclosing them to the defense as they're required to do.
They even created a completely different case number so that the bullets therefore didn't show up as evidence in this case. Instead the bullets were tucked away in a completely different case number and therefore "hidden".
Had the defense known about these bullets, they may have prepared for the case differently - coming to different conclusions, going in different directions, and preparing a different line of questioning of witnesses, which may have resulted in an entirely different defense strategy.
Essentially, the defense were prevented from doing their jobs adequately.
In the end, even if these bullets had no relevance to the case, the act of not disclosing these bullets prevented a fair trial for the defense of Alec Baldwin.
My opinion only.

Thank you Forest Wood and others.

But, is there no role for judgement on behalf of a knowledgeable police force and prosecutor?

For instance, if a murder involves a boat that cannot be located and a peripherally-involved party brings the police a car as "evidence," cannot the prosecutor use her judgement to file the car under a different case number knowing that everybody largely agrees that cars are irrelevant? If not, couldn't the case possibly become bogged down under an infinitely large mountain of irrelevant evidence? When a police dept sets up a hot-line to receive tips, and all manner of crazies call in, is the transcript of every call evidence that needs to be handed over to the defense? I can see the argument for "maybe" or even "yes," but this seems impractical.

Wouldn't Morrisey and SFPD have the expertise to discount the AZ ammo credibly?
Or, is any decision they make viewable as prejudicial to the defense?

 

[minazoe]

RSBM.

I believe your timeline is incorrect here.

Hancock testified that Teske didn't return her calls after he turned over the ammo. When questioned why there were no records of her calls in Teske's phone records, she claimed she called him from a "non-caller id number". But that would also mean she didn't leave a voicemail for Teske, otherwise it would be in his phone records.

So was Hancock just calling him from a phone that doesn't show a number and then hanging up without leaving a message? How could he call her back if it was a "non-caller id number"?

I don't know the truth here and it would take another trial to get to the bottom of things. But I've seen nothing to indicate that Teske acted in any suspicious way. On the other hand Hancock's testimony about these supposed calls was pretty suss, IMO. Once Teske turned over the ammo, they must have realized for the first time that it matched the rounds from the set. Perhaps they decided to bury it by putting a different case number on the ammo, then called Teske from a non-caller id number knowing he would never pick that up. (Or she lied about calling him in the first place.)

Edit - Just to add one thing about Hancock...she was clearly lying on the stand. At one point she claimed that the there wasn't enough time during the defense's evidence viewing to get to Teske's ammo. But that was a total lie, the ammo was never a part of the evidence viewing, as Poppell admitted. So I find her completely non-credible in her testimony.

oh you are very , very good indeed...I think you nailed it. mOO

 

[steeltowngirl]

Good question. I was wondering the same.

From AB's defense motion: It was exculpatory evidence for AB because it put the source of the live ammo as someone not HGR or any other employee of the movie production company. That eliminated the argument that AB was responsible because he hired an inexperienced HGR.

I suppose it was still considered a negative for HGR because, even though the live ammo came from an outside supplier, she should have re-checked it to make sure there were no live ones.

WRT Morissey and the live ammo that Treske had, are we sure the FBI tested it, concluding it didn't match the fatal round?

Now I’m even more lost. I thought they had ruled that AB’s role as a producer and inadequate staff wasn’t part of the trial. At issue was only whether he was guilty due to pointing a gun at HH with a live round and pulling the trigger.

So, was the source of the live round exculpatory because his staff was not the source? I’m asking, not arguing. Genuinely confused.

 

[Betty P]

Now I’m even more lost. I thought they had ruled that AB’s role as a producer and inadequate staff wasn’t part of the trial. At issue was only whether he was guilty due to pointing a gun at HH with a live round and pulling the trigger.

So, was the source of the live round exculpatory because his staff was not the source? I’m asking, not arguing. Genuinely confused.

It wasn't but (1) They didn't know that at the time and/or (2) They were still going to make those allegations as part of their argument for the remaining charge. (?) IANAL, but that's how it reads.

 

[steeltowngirl]

I am beginning to wonder if the press release by Mr. Hutchins’ lawyer about pursuing justice is indicating they will consider an appeal of the criminal charge dismissal to a higher court.

jmo

 

[ch_13]

Now I’m even more lost. I thought they had ruled that AB’s role as a producer and inadequate staff wasn’t part of the trial. At issue was only whether he was guilty due to pointing a gun at HH with a live round and pulling the trigger.

So, was the source of the live round exculpatory because his staff was not the source? I’m asking, not arguing. Genuinely confused.

At the very least, Baldwin's lawyers could use the existence of the ammo to cast doubt on the police investigation: "You mean that you knew about this ammo in Arizona the whole time! And you never even bothered to find out if it matched the live rounds from the Rust set? How can you claim you did a thorough investigation? What else did you miss?"

So, that would always be relevant.

Possibly they could also use this ammo to impeach the credibility of other witnesses, or even claim that this was sabotage. Would the jury buy that? Probably not, but that's irrelevant. You can't hide evidence and then say that it didn't matter because the jury wouldn't have believed the defense anyways.