JSouthworth wrote:

That would be one interpretation of the facts, but I tend to see Gutierrez-Reed as the fall guy in this. I don't think she had a motive.

If the shooting of Hutchins was intentional, the shooting of Souza may have been accidental; he could have been too slow getting out of the way, or Hutchins might have moved in front of him, there are possibilities.

When someone loads a .45 revolver with live rounds, it may be with the intention of shooting someone, so the question of who did that is important.

"That would be one interpretation of the facts..."

No, it is not ANY credible  interpretation. It's called  "reductio ad absurdum". Look it up.

"...but I tend to see Gutierrez-Reed as the fall guy in this. I don't think she had a motive."

Without the complicity of the armorer, there is no possible conspiracy. Therefore, no conspiracy. It's called logic.  Look it up.

"When someone loads a .45 revolver with live rounds, it may be with the intention of shooting someone, so the question of who did that is important."

Right question, wrong answer. You don't consider the obvious - UNINTENTIONAL loading of a live round. Occam's razor. Look it up.

"...the shooting of Souza may have been accidental; he could have been too slow getting out of the way, or Hutchins might have moved in front of him, there are possibilities."

"Getting out of the way?" Here's a bulletin: Unlike IN the movies, gunfire does not happen in ultra slow motion with the path of the bullet the focus of attention and easily avoided with athletic gymnastics. It's called reality. 

Look it up.

JSouthworth wrote:
There are different versions of what happened immediately before, during and after the shooting incident, this is one suspicious aspect.

This article has the crew walking off over pay and conditions on the day of the shooting rather than the day before. Which is correct? If there was a conspiracy to stage an accident it would probably take some time for the people involved to plan it.

"This is one suspicious aspect. "

No, it is not. It is actually a COMMON aspect of eyewitness accounts.

WHY SCIENCE TELLS US NOT TO RELY ON EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti … s-have-it/

"This article has the crew walking off over pay and conditions on the day of the shooting rather than the day before. Which is correct?"

The article states, "That morning, most of the camera crew had walked off." MEANING: In the morning of the day in question, the situation for production to confront was that most of the camera crew was gone, having walked off PRIOR TO THAT MORNING, which could have been ten minutes ago or ten HOURS ago.. You know, the definition of "HAD". The article did NOT state, "Most of the camera crew walked off that morning."

Nothing "suspicious" at all, except to a serial conspiracist hardwired to miss the obvious and assume the worst.

JSouthworth wrote:
To avoid any confusion, nobody is stating as fact that there was a conspiracy to stage an accident on the set of Rust, but this is the impression I have and with the information available at present, I think it would be irrational to dismiss the possibility out of hand.

Really? Then who said this:

"It's clear that Alec Baldwin probably intended to shoot Halyna Hutchins and/or Joel Souza, because the probability of that happening by accident is very low"

https://www.modelmayhem.com/forums/post … st19991071

And  FYI, your speculations are not being dismissed "out-of-hand." They are dismissed because, on inspection, they are unlikely, unfeasible, unjustified, and utter nonsense.

JSouthworth wrote:
To avoid any confusion...

...Read this:

https://www.env.nm.gov/occupational_hea … gation.pdf

JSouthworth wrote:
That would be one interpretation of the facts, but I tend to see Gutierrez-Reed as the fall guy in this. I don't think she had a motive.

If the shooting of Hutchins was intentional, the shooting of Souza may have been accidental; he could have been too slow getting out of the way, or Hutchins might have moved in front of him, there are possibilities.

When someone loads a .45 revolver with live rounds, it may be with the intention of shooting someone, so the question of who did that is important.

The purpose of a rehearsal is obviously to enable the actor(s) to practice their moves and spoken lines.

It would be useful to record a rehearsal on video so that the actor(s) and the director can play back the recording to see what they're doing wrong and figure out improvements. So why is there no video of the shooting?

There would be less purpose in recording the filming, when they can watch the rushes to see if any mistakes were made.

JSouthworth wrote:
It would be useful to record a rehearsal on video so that the actor(s) and the director can play back the recording to see what they're doing wrong and figure out improvements. So why is there no video of the shooting?

"So why is there no video of the shooting?"

Good question. Simple answer: they just didn't do it.

There is a video out there, which shows what looks like a recording of the shot prior to the shot in question, which would have been a tighter field of view and with the barrel aimed closer to camera. In this wider shot, there is a clue as to what might have happened in the fatal shot. As Baldwin draws the gun he has his finger on the trigger. In the closer shot, he says he drew the weapon, pulling the hammer back to a cocked position and the gun just went off. With finger on the trigger and thumb pulling the hammer back, maybe Baldwin didn't realize he was also pulling the trigger. If the hammer slipped out of his thumb before it was cocked, the gun would fire. This is similar to what had already happened in a misfire on the set previously:

"On October 16, 2021, there were two firearms misfires on the Rust set. In the first instance, Sarah
Zachary inadvertently fired a blank round as she finished loading a .45 caliber revolver that was aimed at
the ground. To return the hammer to the closed position and make the firearm safe, the operator must hold the hammer and depress the trigger, guiding the hammer to the closed position deliberately. In the case of the first misfire, the hammer slipped from Ms. Zachary’s thumb or fingers, likely resulting in the firing pin on the hammer striking the primer which ignited the powder, firing the blank round."

https://www.env.nm.gov/occupational_hea … gation.pdf

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rust-shoot … era-video/

Focuspuller wrote:

"So why is there no video of the shooting?"

Good question. Simple answer: they just didn't do it.

Then why bother with a rehearsal? Remember, this is supposed to be a professional movie production.

JSouthworth wrote:
But people don't always think things through very carefully ....

-
We have noticed that phenomena with certain people.

JSouthworth wrote:
To avoid any confusion, nobody is stating as fact that there was a conspiracy to stage an accident on the set of Rust, but this is the impression I have and with the information available at present, I think it would be irrational to dismiss the possibility out of hand.

-
Nothing has been dismissed out of hand except the evidence that poor theories are unlikely.  All other participants have evaluated the possibilities and dismissed them out of a rational and reasonable process of evaluation of probability.  Except you.

Looking at the possibilities, soliciting opinions and reviewing the facts to determine if a hypothesis is feasible is rational.  It is reasonable to alter the hypothesis to conform with facts.

What is irrational is to advance theory after theory that do not conform to facts.  It is irrational to insist on variations of presumptive possibilities, time and time again, over a period of years when you alone see a possibility whose probability is infinitesimally small.  That is irrational. 

It is irrational to be combative against several people who have taken the time to explain the fallacies and improbabilities in detail which show your theories to be irrational only to have you reject OUT OF HAND the explaniations. 

Please do not tell us what is rational or irrational.  You have demonstrated you do not know.

This thread is supposed to be about protecting the people on a set from accidental events when staging our productions with firearms.  (Photos that only a few people are so gauche to value.)  If the accident was actually a murder, then the one thing you have failed to explore would be how to prevent a murder on the set.

JSouthworth wrote:
Then why bother with a rehearsal? Remember, this is supposed to be a professional movie production.

-
Wow.  So you are a movie making expert?  Have you ever been involved in a screen or stage production?   It appears not, because if you knew anything about preparing a production you would understand what they were doing that day.  Even as a photographer you should understand it. 

They were discussing positions and actions.  Hitting marks and how to present to the camera.  They were having conversations and looking at how things were going to look.  This is called a walk through and it is a very early stage in the rehearsal process. 

Sometimes, people who are still photographers that think things through, will do a walk through.  Others may prefer to stop the shoot to explain the marks on the set you want them to hit and the pose you are looking to achieve for each and every little set. 

There would be plenty of opportunities to film the various attempts when people are actually acting.  They call them "takes."  I have to believe that you have heard the term.  It is how they get "outtakes." 

Not every moment needs to be captured on tape or film.  The people involved, actor, director, cinematographer, have made movies before.  They know their work.  They are people who an audience would know when they see the credits.  They do not have to do things the way a rank amateur would do things when the amateur is looking at it in hindsight years later.

JSouthworth wrote:
Then why bother with a rehearsal? Remember, this is supposed to be a professional movie production.

Thanks for the reminder. Here's one for you: Motion pictures were made for 60 years without any recording of rehearsals possible whatsoever and guess what? They made some of the greatest films of all time. How did they possibly manage? By relying on the eye of the camera operator, the ONLY person who could evaluate technically the shot in real time...until the next day sitting in dailies, and he better have been right.

Why on any one particular rehearsal on a present-day low-budget, mixed union/non-union crew, video assist was not recording could be for any number of reasons. But, unlike pre-video assist, the operator, the cinematographer, and the director all could still observe a rehearsal on monitors. Good enough in most cases.

JSouthworth wrote:

Then why bother with a rehearsal? Remember, this is supposed to be a professional movie production.

Baldwin's legal team have been trying to explain away the lack of any video of the shooting in terms of it being "just a rehearsal", when the logical inference from that fact is that there should be video of the shooting, if it was an accident. If on the other hand the shooting was intentional, then they probably wouldn't have wanted it recorded on video.

JSouthworth wrote:
Baldwin's legal team have been trying to explain away the lack of any video of the shooting in terms of it being "just a rehearsal", when the logical inference from that fact is that there should be video of the shooting, if it was an accident. If on the other hand the shooting was intentional, then they probably wouldn't have wanted it recorded on video.

Nonsense.

The recording or non-recording of a rehearsal is neither suspicious, nor indicative, nor definitive, nor conclusive, nor unusual, nor interesting. Only unfortunate, and apparently fodder for conspiracists with nothing better to do.

The trial of the armorer is going on right now and can be watched in real time. I suggest a time-out on speculation by amateur detectives while actual facts are being established.

Focuspuller wrote:
The recording or non-recording of a rehearsal is neither suspicious, nor indicative, nor definitive, nor conclusive, nor unusual, nor interesting.

The absence of a video of the shooting incident is suspicious, because normally a rehearsal would be recorded. And another possibility is that there was a video, but it disappeared by the time the police arrived. The absence of a video doesn't conclusively prove anything by itself.

If you were going to murder someone would you want it recorded on video for posterity? Or for playback in court? It's a tricky one, obviously....

JSouthworth wrote:
The absence of a video of the shooting incident is suspicious, because normally a rehearsal would be recorded. And another possibility is that there was a video, but it disappeared by the time the police arrived. The absence of a video doesn't conclusively prove anything by itself.

If you were going to murder someone would you want it recorded on video for posterity? Or for playback in court? It's a tricky one, obviously....

So now we have to add the video assist operator to the list of co-conspirators in the murder of Halyna Hutchins: Alec Baldwin, the other five producers, the ammunition supplier, the 1st AD, the prop master, and the armorer, who never should have taken the job in the first place. Also, any other crewmembers the conspirators suspect might have observed incriminating behavior regarding prop firearms, and all people having an interest in seeing Halyna dead and saying nothing.

Leave it to you to insist on ignorant speculations when ACTUAL FACTS are being established in a court of law based on rules of evidence and actual logic - past time for you to SIT DOWN.

"...normally a rehearsal would be recorded.."

You haven't a clue in this world what is "normal" on a film set, other than what you ferret out of Wikipedia.

JSouthworth, meet JSouthworth: "The absence of a video doesn't conclusively prove anything by itself."

Focuspuller wrote:
So now we have to add the video assist operator to the list of co-conspirators in the murder of Halyna Hutchins: Alec Baldwin, the other five producers, the ammunition supplier, the 1st AD, the prop master, and the armorer, who never should have taken the job in the first place.

And do you remember who gave her that job in the first place? That's right; Alec Baldwin's production company, Rust Movie Productions.

JSouthworth wrote:
And do you remember who gave her that job in the first place? That's right; Alec Baldwin's production company, Rust Movie Productions.

"The Rust job came to Gutierrez-Reed only after other, more experienced crew people turned producers down. According to a copy of the Rust production budget obtained by THR dated Sept. 9, 2021, the $7.3 million film was originally scheduled to have an armorer supervisor, who would have made $7,913, and an additional armorer crewmember, who would have made $7,469. Before Gutierrez-Reed was hired, producers eliminated the armorer crewmember position and combined the armorer supervisor job with prop assistant, taking what had initially been budgeted as two jobs managing the weapons on the gun-heavy film and compressing it into half a job. Prop master Neal Zoromski told NBC’s Today, “I turned the job opportunity down on Rust because I felt it was completely unsafe.”

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movie … 235823841/

I guess your favorite source Wikipedia missed this information? OOPS

So let's see; which absurd explanation will you deploy - that a condition of employment for the armorer position was complicity in a plot to murder the cinematographer, and of course agreeing not to disclose that, and Gutierrez-Reed was the first to agree; OR, that Gutierrez-Reed was always the choice, having agreed to the murder plot, and the other offers were a clever ruse meant to dispel suspicion?

Do tell us, please.

Meanwhile an actual fact-finding TRIAL is going on right now. You can watch it live or full replays on YouTube. Try it, despite actual facts being kryptonite to you.

JSouthworth wrote:

Then why bother with a rehearsal? Remember, this is supposed to be a professional movie production.

Professional filmmakers rarely roll on the rehearsals. It's a waste of footage most of the time, because quite often there's other stuff going on during the rehearsal that would not  be going on once the AD calls out to start rolling.

Until the AD calls out that it's time to start rolling, the greens, locations, lighting and grip crew might still be doing their final touches, and the last look for makeup don't happen until the AD locks the set up for the take.

So rolling on a rehearsal is a waste of footage and and therefore time for the DIT and post house.

JSouthworth wrote:
The absence of a video of the shooting incident is suspicious, because normally a rehearsal would be recorded.

That is completely false.

Znude! wrote:
https://youtu.be/Y0SY1M8cdT4?si=cuwjWpO … &t=711

Seems there was some video of parts of the rehearsal.

That appears to be footage from the previous shot.

Znude! wrote:
https://youtu.be/Y0SY1M8cdT4?si=cuwjWpO … &t=711

Seems there was some video of parts of the rehearsal.

I've been watching these court proceedings on Youtube with great interest.  It seems that the entire movie set was an acident waiting to happen.  David Hall is the AD who took a plea deal and here he is testifying.I believe today or yesterday. My impresson is that David felt remorse and guilt as he believes that he was the last one handling the gun before it was given to Alec Baldwin. Then there seems to be confusion as to if Hannah was actually the one or if she had left the church. David does not seem knowledgeable regarding guns, even mentioning that he does not own a gun, nor does he shoot guns. He has retired from the film industry. It would not surprise me if he has PTSD from this accident.  This testimony is about as sad as what you posted. I feel for all those who were there. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64jqr46QnmE&t=3649s

Patrick Walberg wrote:

I've been watching these court proceedings on Youtube with great interest.  It seems that the entire movie set was an acident waiting to happen.  David Hall is the AD who took a plea deal and here he is testifying.I believe today or yesterday. My impresson is that David felt remorse and guilt as he believes that he was the last one handling the gun before it was given to Alec Baldwin. Then there seems to be confusion as to if Hannah was actually the one or if she had left the church. David does not seem knowledgeable regarding guns, even mentioning that he does not own a gun, nor does he shoot guns. He has retired from the film industry. It would not surprise me if he has PTSD from this accident.  This testimony is about as sad as what you posted. I feel for all those who were there. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64jqr46QnmE&t=3649s

I watched some of it as well. It appears there was no one anywhere on the set that has a clue about gun safety. They all walk around with the barrels of the guns aimed at each other and one of the actors was using a pistol as a pointer. The young lady armorer and the other lady who was acting as her assistant seem totally clueless about guns. What a bunch of fools. I'm amazed more people didn't get killed.

Znude! wrote:
I watched some of it as well. It appears there was no one anywhere on the set that has a clue about gun safety. They all walk around with the barrels of the guns aimed at each other and one of the actors was using a pistol as a pointer. The young lady armorer and the other lady who was acting as her assistant seem totally clueless about guns. What a bunch of fools. I'm amazed more people didn't get killed.

This Rust Trial is getting interesting!
If there was ever anyone who could have sabataged the set it is prop master Sarah Zachary! 
WOW!  This testimony is nasty!!  It seems that Sarah and Hannah were not getting along.
In fact, it seems they were at each others necks.  I'm not in to conspiracy theories, but ..
.. there was tension between Sarah and Hannah .. they do not like each other!
We are dealing with two young women, and Sarah might have planted the live round
thinking that it would go off while not harming anyone but get Hannah fired from the set?
It seems that David Hall and Sarah Zachary took plea deals Rust shooting and are no
longer working in the film industry.  Listening to this young woman, I believe that Sarah
maybe the one to load the live round accidentally or on purpose since she had access. 
David Hall & Sarah Zachary both stated they were not gun owners, nor very familiar with guns.
It is true that Sarah wanted Hannah fired. Those two young women worked together at different
duties but .. I absolutely do not believe anyone wanted a death on the set of Rust!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSWJNUXowe0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y74_M6NwZhc&t=1829s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJfLLTx_8ok&t=328s 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl … 05447.html

Patrick Walberg wrote:
This Rust Trial is getting interesting!
If there was ever anyone who could have sabataged the set it is prop master Sarah Zachary! 
WOW!  This testimony is nasty!!  It seems that Sarah and Hannah were not getting along.
In fact, it seems they were at each others necks.  I'm not in to conspiracy theories, but ..
.. there was tension between Sarah and Hannah .. they do not like each other!
We are dealing with two young women, and Sarah might have planted the live round
thinking that it would go off while not harming anyone but get Hannah fired from the set?
It seems that David Hall and Sarah Zachary took plea deals Rust shooting and are no
longer working in the film industry.  Listening to this young woman, I believe that Sarah
maybe the one to load the live round accidentally or on purpose since she had access. 
David Hall & Sarah Zachary both stated they were not gun owners, nor very familiar with guns.
It is true that Sarah wanted Hannah fired. Those two young women worked together at different
duties but .. I absolutely do not believe anyone wanted a death on the set of Rust!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSWJNUXowe0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y74_M6NwZhc&t=1829s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJfLLTx_8ok&t=328s 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl … 05447.html

"We are dealing with two young women, and Sarah might have planted the live round
thinking that it would go off while not harming anyone but get Hannah fired from the set? "

Sorry, but this is really JSouthworth-level!

Sarah Zachary should NOT have been given prosecution immunity. They do not need Zachary to convict Hannah. It was her job. End of story. As a prop master without firearm certification, this 24-year-old woman with scant experience should NEVER have been loading weapons or handling weapons at all. SHE CAUSED A MISFIRE! That is on her and her total incompetence. Did Hannah cause a misfire? And on a weapons-heavy western, who does Zachary hire as her assistant props? HER FIANCE's SISTER, who had never worked on a film set. She says she has left the industry. Oh really? What she means is she has been shown to be so incompetent that she could never work on a set again.

But that doesn't make her IRRESPONSIBLE and STUPID enough to do what you suggest. And where did she get the live round?

What I am getting from the testimony so far is the extent of the PRODUCTION's responsibility in cutting so many corners in the ONE DEPARTMENT you do not scrimp on, on a film with daily firearm work. The AD is also more culpable than first imagined yet HE was given a plea deal. We have the testimony of a professional armorer who clearly testified,"THE AD does not hand a a gun to an actor." Not to mention the Wild West irresponsible handling and waving of weapons on his set.

The professional armorer also testified the burdening of an armorer on a gun-heavy western with other prop duties, and then berating her for not paying more attention to them, is unheard of.

Two deer-in-the-headlights "producers" who incredibly knew nothing about anything. I hope this helps dispel the public image of the general title "producer."

Hannah is guilty of being too inexperienced to take a job and remain on a job where she was put in a totally impossible situation. She will pay the price.

Focuspuller wrote:
"We are dealing with two young women, and Sarah might have planted the live round
thinking that it would go off while not harming anyone but get Hannah fired from the set? "

Sorry, but this is really JSouthworth-level!

Sarah Zachary should NOT have been given prosecution immunity. They do not need Zachary to convict Hannah. It was her job. End of story. As a prop master without firearm certification, this 24-year-old woman with scant experience should NEVER have been loading weapons or handling weapons at all. SHE CAUSED A MISFIRE! That is on her and her total incompetence. Did Hannah cause a misfire? And on a weapons-heavy western, who does Zachary hire as her assistant props? HER FIANCE's SISTER, who had never worked on a film set. She says she has left the industry. Oh really? What she means is she has been shown to be so incompetent that she could never work on a set again.

But that doesn't make her IRRESPONSIBLE and STUPID enough to do what you suggest. And where did she get the live round?

What I am getting from the testimony so far is the extent of the PRODUCTION's responsibility in cutting so many corners in the ONE DEPARTMENT you do not scrimp on, on a film with daily firearm work. The AD is also more culpable than first imagined yet HE was given a plea deal. We have the testimony of a professional armorer who clearly testified,"THE AD does not hand a a gun to an actor." Not to mention the Wild West irresponsible handling and waving of weapons on his set.

The professional armorer also testified the burdening of an armorer on a gun-heavy western with other prop duties, and then berating her for not paying more attention to them, is unheard of.

Two deer-in-the-headlights "producers" who incredibly knew nothing about anything. I hope this helps dispel the public image of the general title "producer."

Hannah is guilty of being too inexperienced to take a job and remain on a job where she was put in a totally impossible situation. She will pay the price.

I agree with you on nearly everything regarding what was a tragic accident waiting to happen on the set of Rust.  I am not into conspiracy theories, and besides a conspiracy would mean two people conspired together to commit a crime, am I right?  The list of issues which created the situation that caused the tragic death of Halyna Hutchins is so long that there is more than enough blame to go around. 
(1) Under Funded! The budget not being enough to hire a more experienced crew was the start. Not housing the cast and crew in a manner that put them in closer proximity to the set created problems as in lack of sleep from the travel time.  Maybe they could have brought out enough trailers or used another location?  The number of experienced and talented crew who turned down the work was an indication that this was low budget.  Then to have some crew members walk off over safety concerns was another.  In regards to safety ...

(2) Live ammo should NEVER have been on the set! It is still a mystery as to how it got there, but I thought I read that some of the crew went target practicing?  Really?  Where and when did that happen?  Was it in close proximity to the set?  They were able to go horseback riding too.  That's all fine that they were able to have some fun, but then things got sloppy. Absolute extra care needs to be priority for the set. 

(3) Mixing prop duties with armorer duties is insane to me! This was large production with an "A" list movie actor who was also the one handling the gun that killed Halyna Hutchins.  That is so much "FAIL" that it is crazy such a thing could happen, but it did. The reason I wrote what I did about prop master Sarah Zachary is that I believe from her testimony that she resented having to do so much work spreading herself thin with duties of props and assisting the armorer Hannah Gutierrez who was also supposed to blend her work with props is I have a sense of intuition that the two young women didn't get along so well. Each should have been allowed to have their own trained assistant helping them instead of having to cross duties with each other.  It made the set more dangerous.

(4) The cart with the gun and ammo was a mess!  How easy it would be for anyone to grab the wrong bullets if they don't know what they were doing ..as in Sarah Zachary should never have been touching that cart or any weapon for that matter, nor should anyone have emptied the gun that fired before the police has a chance to inspect the casings that were in the gun. What was considered a crime scene was disturbed. Evidence was tampered with.  Because of the chaos that even law enforcement could not control, I think this is mystery that will not be solved. Keep in miind it was Sarah who dumped the rounds that were in the gun .. and that is why I suspected her.  There would be finger prints of the person who loaded the weapon on those bullets including the spent round!   https://variety.com/2024/film/news/rust … 235927815/

(5) So many clueless people! I don't think the DA should have given David Hall a plea deal, at least not so early in the investigation. Also I agree 100% with you on; Sarah Zachary should NOT have been given prosecution immunity. I mean what the hell was that all about?  Was the DA trying to line up some witnesses to go against Hannah Gutierrez and Alec Baldwin?  Seems like it. While Gutierrez bears responsibility for much of what happened, proving how a live round got loaded in the gun and by whom .. as it seems to me that Zachary also could have loaded the weapon since she had loaded weapons before, am I right? Aright, so if Hannah loaded the gun, then how did the live round arrive there on her cart in the first place?

(6) Medical intervention failure!   What is the deal with the medic on the set claiming PTSD? Had she never seen a gunshot victim? She calls in a helicopter which is good, but the EMT and another medical professional couldn't get Halyna Hutchins properly intubated not once but twice putting the tube down her esophagus and not her trachea!  The transport helicopter sat there while valuable time was wasted. The medical examiner testified that although her expertise is not in saving lives, it is possible that Halyna Hutchins might have been saved if the breathing tube had been inserted correctly to her lungs, on top of it taking 90 minutes just to get her there.  Not only was she having a hard time breathing, she lost a lot of blood during that time! 

Do I need to go on?  The DA is trying to pile it all on Gutierrez and Baldwin, but I don't think they will be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Focuspuller wrote:
The professional armorer also testified the burdening of an armorer on a gun-heavy western with other prop duties, and then berating her for not paying more attention to them, is unheard of.

Two deer-in-the-headlights "producers" who incredibly knew nothing about anything. I hope this helps dispel the public image of the general title "producer."

Hannah is guilty of being too inexperienced to take a job and remain on a job where she was put in a totally impossible situation. She will pay the price.

Once again it needs to be pointed out that it was Alec Baldwin's production company, Rust movie productions that hired Hannah Gutierrez-Reed as armorer. And the production company is ultimately responsible for safety on the set.

If the intention from the beginning was to stage an accident, which is a possibility, then it would make sense to recruit a fall guy, someone with a poor track record who could easily be blamed. So why was Hannah Gutierrez-Reed recruited as armorer? Who actually made the decision to give her the job? And if other people declined the job before her, what were their specific reasons for thinking there might be a serious problem? Was it simply the combination of the armorer job with other responsibilities, or were there any additional reasons for their turning down a paid job on a movie set? Did they have any premonitions?

There is no real evidence, much less proof that Gutierrez-Reed loaded the gun with live rounds, which she denies. Two other people handled the gun after her, Halls and Baldwin, either of those people could have loaded the live rounds.

A good article here details safety violations on the Rust set, there appears to have been a wilful disregard of the most basic safety procedures on the part of Baldwin particularly. Almost as if he wanted an accident to happen;

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/rus … 38312.html

LightDreams wrote:
I'm sure that no one else is surprised to learn that it was NOT "Alec Baldwin's production company".

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.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
(1) Under Funded! The budget not being enough to hire a more experienced crew was the start. Not housing the cast and crew in a manner that put them in closer proximity to the set created problems as in lack of sleep from the travel time. 

(2) Live ammo should NEVER have been on the set!

[b](3) Mixing prop duties with armorer duties is insane to me!

[b](4) The cart with the gun and ammo was a mess!  How easy it would be for anyone to grab the wrong bullets if they don't know what they were doing ..as in Sarah Zachary should never have been touching that cart or any weapon for that matter, nor should anyone have emptied the gun that fired before the police has a chance to inspect the casings that were in the gun. What was considered a crime scene was disturbed. Evidence was tampered with.  Because of the chaos that even law enforcement could not control, I think this is mystery that will not be solved. Keep in miind it was Sarah who dumped the rounds that were in the gun .. and that is why I suspected her.  There would be finger prints of the person who loaded the weapon on those bullets including the spent round!   https://variety.com/2024/film/news/rust … 235927815/

(5) So many clueless people! I don't think the DA should have given David Hall a plea deal, at least not so early in the investigation. Also I agree 100% with you on; Sarah Zachary should NOT have been given prosecution immunity. I mean what the hell was that all about?  Was the DA trying to line up some witnesses to go against Hannah Gutierrez and Alec Baldwin?  Seems like it. While Gutierrez bears responsibility for much of what happened, proving how a live round got loaded in the gun and by whom .. as it seems to me that Zachary also could have loaded the weapon since she had loaded weapons before, am I right? Aright, so if Hannah loaded the gun, then how did the live round arrive there on her cart in the first place?

(6) Medical intervention failure!   What is the deal with the medic on the set claiming PTSD? Had she never seen a gunshot victim? She calls in a helicopter which is good, but the EMT and another medical professional couldn't get Halyna Hutchins properly intubated not once but twice putting the tube down her esophagus and not her trachea!  The transport helicopter sat there while valuable time was wasted. The medical examiner testified that although her expertise is not in saving lives, it is possible that Halyna Hutchins might have been saved if the breathing tube had been inserted correctly to her lungs, on top of it taking 90 minutes just to get her there.  Not only was she having a hard time breathing, she lost a lot of blood during that time! 

Do I need to go on?  The DA is trying to pile it all on Gutierrez and Baldwin, but I don't think they will be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

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.

Focuspuller wrote:
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

The existence of a live round is hardly a mystery, there was definitely at least one of those in the gun when Baldwin pulled the trigger.

As to the question of who loaded it, Baldwin and Halls are the prime suspects if they can't get either of their stories straight.

JSouthworth wrote:

The existence of a live round is hardly a mystery, there was definitely at least one of those in the gun when Baldwin pulled the trigger.

As to the question of who loaded it, Baldwin and Halls are the prime suspects if they can't get either of their stories straight.

Nonsense.

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.

JSouthworth wrote:
The existence of a live round is hardly a mystery, there was definitely at least one of those in the gun when Baldwin pulled the trigger.

Brilliant deduction, Sherlock. The mystery is how it got loaded into the weapon, the likely party being the armorer.