Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowbob
Thank you, Craigster.
So if the actual gun, as a piece of evidence, was contaminated, is it still admissible? Can Baldwin argue that it cannot be proven, by virtue of the evidence having been broken and repaired, that the actual firearm COULD NOT have fired a live round without pulling the trigger?
It sounds like the examiners of the firearm broke it. As such, the actual firearm is not in the same condition as it was when Baldwin killed the women without having pulled the trigger.
|
From my understanding they tried all kinds of different ways to make it fire without pulling the trigger including bumping it, dropping it, hitting it with a hammer, etc. That's how it was broken.
The bottom line is the film company was cheap. My friend initially interviewed for the prop master job but they didn't want to pay his rate and he saw the writing on the wall when he suggested making rubber guns, inert guns, etc. of the "hero" gun AB was was going to use in the film for scenes where they didn't need to have a "hot gun" on set. They told him they hadn't budgeted for that and weren't going to "go in that direction".
I spoke with fellow Pelican HughR and put him in touch with an armorer friend when he was possibly going to be involved in the prosecution/defense of the incident. I don't know if anything came of that, last we spoke he was "off the case". Maybe he can chime in if he is not involved in AB's case.