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

[Deleted member 39678]

Maybe HGR is claiming that if she had more time she would have trained AB to check the gun for safety before using it or maybe to not point it directly at anyone.

 

[PrairieWind]

Maybe HGR is claiming that if she had more time she would have trained AB to check the gun for safety before using it or maybe to not point it directly at anyone.

Sure, but that isn't exculpatory of her actions of loading the gun with live rounds. Her actions and Baldwins, as relate to the shooting are really separate and distinct.

 

[Cryptic]

I have the same question: How is that exculpatory as to HGR?

It might be a stretch but.....

- I was denied time to give "B" additional fire arms training. - Yes, of course....part of my training is the procedures for double checking whether the weapon was loaded, and if so, what is is loaded with.

- Because "B" did not get that training, he was unable to double check the weapon. - A double check would have caught my error. - Thus.... the info, is, well, partially exculpatory.

"As this Court is aware, the special prosecutors have a duty to investigate potentially exculpatory evidence, and as to Ms. Gutierrez, if it is proven true, it is exculpatory."

Color me cynical, but I hope the prosecutor is not giving HGR too much leeway under a: "Baldwin is wealthy, she is not. Wealthy individuals must be greedy, callous and uncaring. Ergo, the wealthy individual must be at fault." line of thought.

 

[PrairieWind]

It might be a stretch but.....

- I was denied time to give "B" additional fire arms training. - Yes, of course....part of my training is the procedures for double checking whether the weapon was loaded, and if so, what is is loaded with.

- Because "B" did not get that training, he was unable to double check the weapon. - A double check would have caught my error. - Thus.... the info, is, well, partially exculpatory.

"As this Court is aware, the special prosecutors have a duty to investigate potentially exculpatory evidence, and as to Ms. Gutierrez, if it is proven true, it is exculpatory."

Color me cynical, but I hope the prosecutor is not giving HGR too much leeway under a: "Baldwin is wealthy, she is not. Wealthy individuals must be purely profit driven, Ergo, the wealthy individual must be at fault." line of thought.

I can see that argument being made. But it really seems more of a defense in a civil case than criminal. Unlike in a civil negligence action, one person's criminal action really doesn't lessen another person's criminal action.
I am curious to see where the prosecutor is going with this, if anywhere. I'd think the prosecution would want to get this wrapped up soon.

 

[ch_13]

I can see that argument being made. But it really seems more of a defense in a civil case than criminal. Unlike in a civil negligence action, one person's criminal action really doesn't lessen another person's criminal action.
I am curious to see where the prosecutor is going with this, if anywhere. I'd think the prosecution would want to get this wrapped up soon.

From the filing as quoted in the article:

"This is an appropriate line of inquiry for the State to explore by reviewing the agreements between Mr. Baldwin and the various production companies to determine whether there were financial or other considerations involved in the decision to deny Ms. Gutierrez to work additional armorer days and/or provide additional training days to Mr. Baldwin,...For example, Mr. Baldwin's agreements likely require that he receive a certain amount of compensation for each day filming or for each day performing tasks related to filming, such as firearm training."

I think they're looking to re-file charges against Baldwin and this is a transparent attempt to look into his financial incentives. If this were truly about finding exculpatory evidence for HGR, then why specifically look at Baldwin's contracts? Clearly the film makers would save money spending less time on pre-production activities like actor training. Whether or not Baldwin personally benefitted makes no difference to her culpability.

Not that I disagree with the prosecution's motives. If Baldwin was indeed negligent then he needs to pay.

 

[Cryptic]

One interesting thing I saw was the reference to the heavily fouled bore. In fact it was so fouled that it reduced the bullet down to .43-.44 cal. Was the barrel of this revolver just never cleaned? I don't think it is necessarily relevant to the case, but just interesting.

I have an idea....

One industry insider that I met briefly told me that that movie directors will routinely have armorers increase the trigger's "pounds"- the amount of strength needed to pull the trigger and fire the weapon.

This is for added dramatics- actor's hand visibly tightens as he / she pulls the trigger, facial expression more likely to coincide with the effort etc. etc.

Anyways....

Old western gun powder did not burn cleanly and produced alot of smoke and flash. Modern directors probably want to duplicate that.

As a result, blank and live rounds could well be loaded with "smokey / flashy powder" which can clog bores quicker, which leads to increased cleaning needs (which evidently was not being done).

As a history trivia...

WWI saw millions of men being placed in uniform. "Reserve of the reserve" type units were issued rifles decades old (old west type). Soldiers hated these rifles because the smoke and flash gave them away and.... also informed the enemy that they were a poorly trained "reserve of the reserve" type unit. Everyone knew that these units were easier targets.

 

[branmuffin]

Maybe HGR is claiming that if she had more time she would have trained AB to check the gun for safety before using it or maybe to not point it directly at anyone.

Or maybe she's suggesting if she had more time to train AB he could have told her the weapon had live ammo in it.

 

[mickey2942]

HGR should take a plea deal and put it all back on AB. MOO.

 

[Cool Cats]

HGR should take a plea deal and put it all back on AB. MOO.

If she doesn't it's because to take a plea she would have to plead guilty to her charge or a reduced charge.

A guilty plea will be on her record for life unless she qualifies to get it expunged.

However, a guilty plea to avoid jail time could be a consideration if her attorney feels she is likely to not only be convicted but would likely get jail time.

Various factors to consider.

2 Cents

 

[mickey2942]

If she doesn't it's because to take a plea she would have to plead guilty to her charge or a reduced charge.

A guilty plea will be on her record for life unless she qualifies to get it expunged.

However, a guilty plea to avoid jail time could be a consideration if her attorney feels she is likely to not only be convicted but would likely get jail time.

Various factors to consider.

2 Cents

If I was her, and could get out of this mess, and go on with my life, no jail or prison, I would do it in a heartbeat. It isn't like she will ever be hired as an armorer anyway.

After all,

1. She did leave a loaded gun, unsecured.
2. She did load the gun. As far as we know.

The real problem for me, was the fact that she did load the gun, and left it unsecured. So, as far as we know, she loaded the gun with a real bullet.

So...if she can blame it all on DH and AB, take a plea, move on...I doubt she or her family has an endless amount of money to spend on attorney fees.

 

[PrairieWind]

If she doesn't it's because to take a plea she would have to plead guilty to her charge or a reduced charge.

A guilty plea will be on her record for life unless she qualifies to get it expunged.

However, a guilty plea to avoid jail time could be a consideration if her attorney feels she is likely to not only be convicted but would likely get jail time.

Various factors to consider.

2 Cents

Maybe she hasn't taken a plea because one hasn't been offered. Seems unlikely. But that there hasn't been a plea agreement sort of makes me think that the Prosecutor is really hoping to still charge AB, but just hasn't gotten it done yet. Otherwise, I would think the State would offer a deal, avoid jail time and be done with this huge mess.

 

[Marantz4250b]

The forensics report can be downloaded here:

https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Aug.-15-2023-Defendants-Motion-Requesting-Jury-Instructions-on-Causation-exhibit-b.pdf

It is far more professional and comprehensive than the FBI lab report, IMHO. The compelling evidence to me (FWIW) is the photograph of the spent cartridge which shows the primer was struck in the center. This witness mark (again, IMHO) precludes possibility of a premature discharge, because it shows the cylinder was the fully "latched" position when the hammer fell.

There could never have been a possibility of a premature discharge, in the sense of the gun firing before the cylinder was fully in battery as it would have damaged the gun and the bullet would not have been intact.

As you say, the only way that that bullet left that gun was because the trigger was pulled (or already depressed) when the hammer was in the fully clocked position and the cylinder was correctly into battery.

I agree that this report seems more comprehensive than the FBI one as it also includes the photographic evidence of AB retracting the hammer whilst his finger was either on the trigger or (being most generous to him) had his finder inside the trigger guard. That directly contradicts his statements.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Yes, a MUCH more thorough and professional report. We will see what the prosecutor does with it.

One interesting thing I saw was the reference to the heavily fouled bore. In fact it was so fouled that it reduced the bullet down to .43-.44 cal. Was the barrel of this revolver just never cleaned? I don't think it is necessarily relevant to the case, but just interesting.

I'm puzzled by this, tbh. I'm a firearms dealer and have been involved with firearms in one way or another for well over thirty years and I cannot ever recall instances of bullets being reduced in size this dramatically, or even at all, due to "fouling" in the bore. The suggestion that what is essentially carbon residue could build up so heavily that it would erode a hard-cast lead bullet on its very brief journey through a barrel seems extremely unlikely to me.

The damage to the bullet on the side opposite to the one which still has the very faint rifling marks is, to my eye, impact damage from what it encountered after it left the bore, not whilst in the bore. The score marks are not all on the same place which suggests that they were caused as the bullet travelled through it's target and altered direction slightly or encountered obstacles which were at different angles.

The report seems to make no reference to the examiner actually having inspected the bore himself and I don't think that the gun in question was even fired by him.

 

[Marantz4250b]

One more indication of a sloppy operation, methinks.

To be fair, though, if the gun was only ever used for firing blanks there would be little reason to clean it over and above making sure it looked externally presentable.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Sounds like the rental company that owned it never bothered to clean it. It apparently wasn't in good repair, either.

I haven't seen anything suggesting that it wasn't in good repair. Other than when the FBI broke it during testing, of course.

It was a modern Italian repro that, from the photos, looked to be well looked after.

 

[Marantz4250b]

In the civil suit complaint that Hannah filed against the prop house, she claimed that she cleaned the weapon shortly before handing it to Dave Halls.

48. For Alec Baldwin’s gun, Hannah loaded 4 dummy rounds with holes in them from her pants pocket, a 5th dummy round from the box with a hole in it and attempted to load a 6th dummy round without a hole in it from the box but it would not go into the chamber, and she thought the chamber might need to be cleaned.
...
56. Hannah remembered the chamber that she believed needed to be cleaned in Baldwin’s gun and she cleaned it and then Hannah pulled another round from the dummy box, shook it, and placed it in the chamber.

But it seems she only cleaned the chamber so the bullet would fit and not the entire bore.

The chamber may not have needed cleaning. It may have been a badly put together, or damaged, dummy round.

 

[Marantz4250b]

She kept the dummy rounds in her pocket? Wow. Sloppy and unprofessional. Even worse, she admits it. This explains a lot about how live ammo got mixed in with blanks.

I don't see it as being sloppy. As long as you check each round before you put it in the gun it doesn't matter where you keep them.

I don't see how it explains how live ammo got in the gun. Live ammo should have been no where near the set. That, however, doesn't mean that you shouldn't check what's in the gun and it doesn't absolve the shooter of their actions.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Old western gun powder did not burn cleanly and produced alot of smoke and flash. Modern directors probably want to duplicate that.

As a result, blank and live rounds could well be loaded with "smokey / flashy powder" which can clog bores quicker, which leads to increased cleaning needs (which evidently was not being done).

Blank ammo is often loaded with blackpowder (which is smoky, smelly and produces a lot of fouling) because modern nitro powder usually fails to burn properly when it isn't confined by something with decent mass such as a bullet.

Yes, it creates much more fouling which builds up quickly but cleaning a bore really isn't a priority in a gun which will never be used with live ammunition. Not doing an unnecessary task, imo, does not equate to sloppy procedures.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Or maybe she's suggesting if she had more time to train AB he could have told her the weapon had live ammo in it.

That is a perfectly reasonable thing to want to do. Firearms are potentially dangerous and accidents or their negligent use can result in people being dead - as has sadly happened in this case.

Firearms are, however, especially this one, quite simple devices and are, for the most part, very easy to learn how to operate safely. Also, the personal responsibility that everyone using a firearm is easy to communicate also.

If you are unwilling to take on that personal responsibility or are incapable or unwilling to learn the very easy steps in how to not accidentally shoot people then you have no business using firearms, especially in a professional capacity.

If a gun is in your hands when someone gets shot with it then it's your fault! If that's a responsibility that you don't want to shoulder then don't use guns.

 

[Betty P]

I don't see it as being sloppy. As long as you check each round before you put it in the gun it doesn't matter where you keep them.

I don't see how it explains how live ammo got in the gun. Live ammo should have been no where near the set. That, however, doesn't mean that you shouldn't check what's in the gun and it doesn't absolve the shooter of their actions.

Overall, JMO it appears the armourer was careless and negligent in her job. She wasn’t paying attention nor keeping track of her equipment and supplies.