Alec Baldwin Shot and Killed Female Cinematographer, Injured Director on Movie Set

[Occam's Banana]

Alec Baldwin Now Denies Pointing Gun and Firing at ‘Rust’ Crew Member, Blames Trump Supporters for the Fallout
https://beckernews.com/77-baldwin-n...lames-trump-supporters-for-the-fallout-46477/
Kyle Becker (19 August 2022)

Alec Baldwin was using a prop gun on the set of “Rust” in New Mexico in October, when he allegedly accidentally fired the weapon and killed the film’s cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and wounded its director Joel Souza.

Now, the Hollywood actor is denying that he ever pointed the gun at anyone and fired it, and he has now blaming Trump supporters for the entire incident. Watch:

Alec Baldwin Denies Shooting and Killing 'Rust' Cast Member Halyna Hutchins
https://rumble.com/v1gku7d-alec-bal...killing-rust-cast-member-halyna-hutchins.html

​

“I never once said, never, that the gun went off in my hand automatically,” he said. “I always said I pulled the hammer back and I pulled it back as far as I could. I never took a gun and pointed it at somebody and clicked the thing.”

Now, Baldwin is even claiming that Trump supporters are behind the fatal shooting, in an accusation worthy of Jussie Smollett. Baldwin referred to Trump’s comment that “He [Baldwin] probably shot her [Halyna Hutchins] on purpose.”

“Alec Baldwin says Donald Trump incited his January 6th mob to murder him … by falsely claiming the actor intentionally fired the shot that killed the cinematographer on the ‘Rust’ set,” TMZ reported.

“Baldwin told CNN Trump’s comment — that ‘He [Baldwin] probably shot her [Halyna Hutchins] on purpose’ was itself a trigger for his mob to put a target on his head,” the report added.

“Here was Trump who instructed people to commit acts of violence and he was pointing the finger at me and saying I was responsible for the death,” he added.

He also said the stress from the incident has “taken years off my life,” and added, “If I didn’t have my wife, I don’t know where I would be right now … If I didn’t have her, I probably would have quit, retired, gone off, you know sold everything I owned, got a house in the middle of nowhere and just you know did find something else to do, sell real estate.”

No one has been charged for the fatal shooting of Halyna Hutchins on the set of ‘Rust’ and investigators are seeking out whoever put the live round in the chamber.

According to a L.A. Times report, Baldwin was ‘preparing for a shootout scene inside a church’ when he attempted a cross draw with an FD Pietta .45-caliber Colt revolver, the newspaper reported.

“So, I guess I’m gonna take this out, pull it and go, ‘Bang!’” he said before firing the prop gun, which was supposed to be loaded with dummy rounds. Instead, it had a live round, which ended Hutchins’ life.

Assistant Director Dave Halls, who was partly responsible for checking the gun, argued that Baldwin has blamed everyone but himself for the incident.

“Baldwin is pointing the finger at others because the evidence is pointing at him,” Halls’ attorney said.

While Alec Baldwin maintains that he couldn’t have fired the shot that killed Hutchins, the FBI has determined that it is impossible for the incident to have happened without Baldwin pulling the trigger.

 

[pcosmar]

Still hasn't been Perp Walked.

and his defense is Blame Trump.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Now, Baldwin is even claiming that Trump supporters are behind the fatal shooting, in an accusation worthy of Jussie Smollett.

I assume the author meant to say, "Baldwin is even claiming that Trump supporters are behind [blaming him for] the fatal shooting", rather than that Baldwin is claiming that Trump supporters killed Halyna Hutchins (which is what the author's infelicitous wording makes it sound like).

“Alec Baldwin says Donald Trump incited his January 6th mob to murder him … by falsely claiming the actor intentionally fired the shot that killed the cinematographer on the ‘Rust’ set,” TMZ reported.

Alec Baldwin: I Was Afraid Trump Supporters Would Kill Me ... After Rust Shooting
Alec Baldwin Says He Was Afraid Trump Supporters Would Kill Him After Rust Shooting
https://www.tmz.com/2022/08/19/alec-baldwin-trump-supporters-kill-murder-rust-shooting-trigger
TMZ (19 August 2022)

Alec Baldwin says Donald Trump incited his January 6th mob to murder him ... by falsely claiming the actor intentionally fired the shot that killed the cinematographer on the "Rust" set.

Baldwin told CNN Trump's comment -- that "He [Baldwin] probably shot her [Halyna Hutchins] on purpose" was itself a trigger for his mob to put a target on his head.

As Baldwin put it, "Here was Trump who instructed people to commit acts of violence and he was pointing the finger at me and saying I was responsible for the death."

Baldwin had lots to say ... CNN says the interview lasted 2 hours, although only a small portion has been aired. He reportedly said the stress from the shooting has "taken years off my life," adding, "If I didn't have my wife, I don't know where I would be right now ... If I didn't have her, I probably would have quit, retired, gone off, you know sold everything I owned, got a house in the middle of nowhere and just you know did find something else to do, sell real estate."

Baldwin also says he hired a P.I. and got recon that he almost certainly would not be prosecuted, nor does he think anyone else will be as well. He does, however, lay the blame squarely at the feet of Chief Armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed and Assistant Director Dave Halls, for allowing him to handle a gun with live ammo. Baldwin didn't know the gun was loaded with a live round and says it was their responsibility to check it.

Halls' lawyer says Baldwin is trying to deflect blame, saying "Baldwin is pointing the finger at others because the evidence is pointing at him."

As we reported, Baldwin has maintained he didn't pull the trigger, but the FBI reportedly begs to differ, saying the gun couldn't discharge a bullet without pulling the trigger.

 

[Anti Globalist]

Still hasn't been Perp Walked.

and his defense is Blame Trump.

A defense that we will see being used for years to come.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Up to 4 people, including Alec Baldwin, might end up facing [criminal homicide] charges in "Rust" shooting [...]
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alec-b...up-to-four-people-could-get-charged-homicide/
Caitlin O'Kane (26 September 2022)

A district attorney in New Mexico said she could be close to charging up to four people, including actor Alec Baldwin, in the "Rust" film set shooting that occurred in Santa Fe on Oct. 21, 2021. During the shooting, Baldwin's prop gun was discharged, killing cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and injuring director Joel Souza.

First Judicial District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies made an emergency funding request for $635,500 to continue to fund the investigation of the high-profile case.

"We are within weeks, if not days, of receiving the final report from the sheriff's office," Carmack-Altwies said during a New Mexico Board of Finance meeting on Sept. 20. She said while they are still awaiting reports "it's become apparent that we will be potentially charging between one and four people with criminal charges and each of those charges will probably include some variation of our homicide statute."

In a letter to the board of finance, the district attorney's office specified that Baldwin could be one of the possible defendants and that "this case could require up to four separate jury trials."

During the meeting, Carmack-Altwies said homicide cases are the most complex and litigious and that her office would use the money to hire more people to work on the case.

"These cases look to be too big for just my office to handle," Carmack-Altwies said, adding that she and two other attorneys from her office will remain on the case, but they also need to focus on others. "We need an almost full-time attorney and someone who is very experienced on complex cases and very experienced with litigation," she said.

The funds could also go to that new attorney's support staff, like paralegals, as well as experts who can aid in the investigation – like a firearm expert, an armorer who has worked on movies before and potentially a movie set safety expert. She also requested a public information officer because her office was overwhelmed with media attention over the case.

"The report coming in in October means we will be under the gun – no pun intended – to get moving on these cases and to get these cases charged if that is what the facts warrant," she said, adding that any money she doesn't spend will be returned. "It's merely that we need it starting in October to start retaining people."

The board of finance approved $317,750 for her emergency request fund.

Last month, New Mexico's Office of the Medical Investigator finished an autopsy and review of law enforcement reports and determined the shooting was an accident.

The FBI also completed its forensics investigation last month, and the case was handed over to the Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office. At the time, Carmack-Altwies' office was also waiting for a report from Suffolk County Police Department in New York, which was working to obtain Baldwin's phone records.

"To date, my office has received portions of the Rust investigation from SFSO but is still awaiting the balance of supplemental reports including, but not limited to, the following: FBI firearm and tool mark analyses, forensic testing on the firearm itself, the forensic download from Suffolk County PD of Mr. Baldwin's phone, and the pathology report from the New Mexico Office of the Medical Investigator," Carmack-Altwies said in a statement at the time.

She said once she receives all necessary reports, she and her team will make a charging decision. CBS News has reached out to Carmack-Altwies for more information and is awaiting response.

Baldwin's attorney criticized the implication that his client could be charged in a statement to CBS News, writing that Carmack-Altwies "has made clear that she has not received the sheriff's report or made any decisions about who, if anyone, might be charged in this case."

Baldwin, 64, has called the shooting "a tragic accident." A single live round was discharged from a Pietta Colt .45 revolver as Baldwin was rehearsing for the film, according to a previous search warrant. The gun was pointed at the camera and struck and killed Hutchins, 42, and wounded Souza, 48.

In an emotional interview with ABC News in December, Baldwin said he had no idea there was a live round in the gun and that he didn't realize it had killed Hutchins and injured Souza until hours after the shooting.

Bodycam footage released in April by the Santa Fe Sheriff's Office shows Baldwin holding the gun before the incident, and Hutchins and Souza on the ground surrounded by first responders after they were shot. The video also shows Baldwin telling two officers that he did not pull the trigger. He is seen telling the officers he didn't know who put a live round in the weapon.

In addition to the criminal investigation, there are several other lawsuits over the shooting. Hutchins' family is suing Baldwin and the movie's producers for wrongful death. The armorer on the film, Hannah Gutierrez Reed, has sued the ammunition and guns supplier for the movie, accusing him and his company of providing a combination of dummy and live rounds.

Baldwin, Reed and assistant director David Halls, who handed Baldwin the gun, are also being sued for alleged negligence by dozens of crew members.

 

[Occam's Banana]

INSANE Alec Baldwin Update! | Rust To Start Filming Again, With Husband Of Halyna Hutchins Producing
https://odysee.com/@RKOutpost:9/insane-alec-baldwin-update!-rust-to:8

 

[Occam's Banana]

Alec Baldwin and weapons handler charged with manslaughter in deadly ‘Rust’ shooting
https://www.latimes.com/entertainme...nnah-gutierrez-halls-involuntary-manslaughter
[archive link: https://archive.ph/FjEY1]
Meg James (19 January 2023)

New Mexico prosecutors have filed felony criminal charges against actor Alec Baldwin and the armorer of the low-budget western “Rust,” following the fatal shooting of the film’s cinematographer.

The charges represent a dramatic culmination of more than a year of speculation over who, if anyone, would be held accountable for the tragic death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, a rising star in the film industry. Hutchins was shot in the chest Oct. 21, 2021, as she rehearsed a scene with Baldwin and the film’s director, Joel Souza, who was also wounded.

Baldwin was charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter in Hutchins’ death.

Prosecutors also brought involuntary manslaughter charges against weapons handler Hannah Gutierrez Reed, who loaded the gun. The assistant director David Halls, who investigators said gave the loaded revolver to Baldwin just before a rehearsal in an old wooden church at Bonanza Creek Ranch, a popular movie location near Santa Fe, accepted a misdemeanor charge in a plea deal.

New Mexico’s First Judicial District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies announced the charges Thursday, nearly 15 months after Baldwin fired the live round from his prop gun, unaware that the Colt .45 revolver contained live ammunition. Actual bullets are forbidden from film sets, however, investigators later found several other lead bullets mingled with inert dummy rounds.

A cascading series of lapses on the low-budget production led to the shooting, which ignited calls in Hollywood for producers to improve safety conditions for film crew members who have felt stretched to their limits amid a boom in production.

Baldwin was one of the producers of “Rust.” With Carmack-Altwies’ decision, the 64-year-old Hollywood star — who achieved acclaim for performances on NBC’s “Saturday Night Live,” and “30 Rock,” as well as such as movies as “Glengarry Glen Ross,” and “The Hunt for Red October” — could face a criminal trial or accept a plea bargain.

The decision comes three months after Baldwin and the film’s other producers struck a proposed settlement agreement with Hutchins’ family to end the wrongful death civil lawsuit they filed early last year. The family initially blamed Hutchins’ death on cost-cutting measures and reckless behavior by Baldwin and others.

Under the proposed deal, which must be approved by a judge, the movie’s production would resume this year. With the settlement agreement, the family’s tenor also changed. The cinematographer’s widow, Matthew Hutchins, said: “Halyna’s death was a terrible accident.”

After news of the family’s proposed settlement, Carmack-Altwies’ office released a statement saying: “No one is above the law.”

Baldwin has long maintained his innocence, saying in televised interviews that gun safety wasn’t his responsibility and that he did not pull the trigger.

Reports prepared by FBI analysts in Virginia, however, cast doubt on that claim. While the FBI did not conclude where live ammunition came from, agents said in an August report that the pistol, a replica of a vintage Pietta Colt .45, “functioned normally when tested in the laboratory.”

The FBI report also noted that, in order for the revolver to fire, the trigger would have been pulled.

“This is problematic for Baldwin because he has insisted that he did not pull the trigger,” said Beverly Hills entertainment attorney Mitra Ahouraian. “Those types of inconsistencies are not helpful to his case.”

Baldwin has placed blame on Gutierrez Reed and Halls, saying he was relying on expectations that they were professionals and should have done their jobs to ensure safety on the set. Entertainment industry protocols typically task the responsibility for gun safety with the armorer, property master and assistant director.

“All my career, without incident, I’ve relied on the safety experts [on set] to declare the gun safe and never had a problem,” Baldwin said in 2022 at the Boulder International Film Festival. “And [then,] this happened.”

That defense might fall short, experts said.

“Regardless of what the practice may be in the entertainment industry, and regardless of what the protocols are on Hollywood sets, that’s not the law,” Ahouraian said. “The gun was in his hands. And if there’s any possibility that you are handling something that could harm someone, then you have an obligation to handle it safely.”

Joshua Kastenberg, a law professor at the University of New Mexico, noted Carmack-Altwies approached the case by scrutinizing the actions of everyone who handled the weapon and the live ammunition.

“Everyone in that chain of custody had some responsibility,” Kastenberg said. “When considering bringing criminal charges, the ‘it’s not my job’ defense just doesn’t fly. If you are holding a gun in your hand, you implicitly have a responsibility to make safety your business.”

The October 2021 killing shook the film industry and renewed calls by rank-and-file film workers, including members of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, and other guilds to better emphasize safety amid a rush by producers to crank out movies and TV shows following COVID-19 pandemic-related production shut-downs. Filming of “Rust,” which had a $7 million production budget, was supposed to span 21 days — an ambitious timeline for a period piece, film experts have said.

Baldwin was playing a grizzled outlaw, Harland Rust, who was on the run with his grandson who accidentally shot a rancher dead in 1880s Kansas.

After lunch on that fateful day, Souza and Hutchins were lining up camera angles as Baldwin practiced a cross-draw maneuver inside the old wooden church at the Bonanza Creek Ranch, a popular location for movie productions. Cameras were not rolling at the time.

Sitting in a makeshift pew about four feet from Hutchins and Souza, Baldwin allegedly pulled the replica Colt .45 pistol from his holster, pointed it in the direction of the camera and the gun went off. Hutchins was standing next to the camera; and Souza behind her.

According to Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office documents released last year, Halls — who was the “Rust” safety officer on set — had told Baldwin the gun was “cold,” meaning that it did not contain live ammunition.

The gun contained at least one live bullet and dummy rounds, which contained no gunpowder. Such bullets are inert, but look nearly identical to a real bullet when a camera peers down the barrel of a revolver.

If the rounds had been thoroughly checked, Gutierrez Reed, Halls or others should have seen that at least one lacked the small hole or indentation that differentiates so-called “dummies” from actual lead bullets.

They would have also noticed that the live round didn’t make the signature rattling sound that reveals that only a BB — and no gunpowder — was contained inside.

Gutierrez Reed, who cooperated with investigators, previously had acknowledged that she had loaded the gun that day. She told sheriff’s detectives that she didn’t realize actual bullets were contained in a new box of ammunition that arrived on set that morning. The box contained seven live rounds mixed in with 43 dummies, according to a civil suit that Gutierrez Reed has filed.

Following the shooting, she told sheriff’s detectives that although she checked Baldwin’s gun that day before the unscheduled rehearsal in the wooden church, she “didn’t really check it too much after lunch” because the weapon had been locked in a safe during the crew’s lunch break.

Much of the camera crew had walked off the job hours before the fatal shooting after complaining to producers about alleged inattention to safety and a refusal to pay for nearby lodging for cameramen who lived 50 miles away in Albuquerque.

There also were tensions about two accidental weapons discharges less than a week before Hutchins’ death, including when property master Sarah Zachry accidentally fired a weapon to be used by one of the actors, although she was not injured in the incident.

Additionally, rifts had developed within the movie’s small props crew over issues of workload.

Gutierrez Reed acknowledged that she was struggling to perform two jobs — armorer and props assistant. In addition to serving as the armorer in charge of guns and gun safety, she was supposed to assist Zachry with the other props. In text message exchanges with production managers about before the fatal shooting, Gutierrez Reed protested her workload, saying she was being stretched too thin.

A production manager had scolded Gutierrez Reed for not paying sufficient attention to her props role.

“Since we’ve started, I’ve had a lot of days where my job should only be to focus on the guns and everyone’s safety,” Gutierrez Reed responded in an Oct. 14, 2021 email viewed by The Times. In that email, sent one week before the shooting, Gutierrez Reed noted that on gun-heavy film days, the assistant props role “has to take a back seat. Live fire arms on set is absolutely my priority.”

Gutierrez Reed is the daughter of a legendary Hollywood armorer, Thell Reed. While she grew up visiting film sets, “Rust” was only her second film as head armorer.

The accident happened on the 12th day of filming for the scheduled 21-day production.

“There were multiple breaks in the chain of responsibility and if any one of these individuals who are facing criminal charges had exercised more caution, this tragedy could have been avoided,” Ahouraian said.

The Times has previously revealed a struggle to find qualified crew members to work on “Rust.”

A tough case?

The prosecution could be complicated by the case’s notoriety — most everyone in Santa Fe is familiar with the case, increasing the challenges of finding an impartial jury. What’s more, the defendants could bring a spirited defense.

“This is a huge case for a smaller population county,” Kastenberg, a former prosecutor, said. “Whenever you go up against a powerful entity — like a Hollywood star who has a tremendous media reach — you want to get it right and you don’t want to look like a fool.”

The media spotlight adds to the pressure facing Carmack-Altwies and her office.

“The D.A. wants to show their constituency that they are not afraid to take any case, and that they will handle it ethically, and rightly,” Kastenberg said. “This one might become politicized. But, as the D.A., you can only bring charges that the evidence supports.”

In addition to the criminal cases, several civil negligence suits are pending.

Two film crew members inside the church when the shooting occurred — lighting technician Serge Svetnoy, who was nearly hit by the bullet, and script supervisor Mamie Mitchell — sued.

Gutierrez Reed last year sued the weapons provider, Seth Kenney of PDQ Arm & Prop, alleging that he supplied a mismarked box of ammunition containing live rounds to the set, contributing to the deadly accident. Kenney has said he did not provide live ammunition to the ‘Rust’ set.

Hutchins was killed just as her career was beginning to take off in a largely male-dominated field. She graduated from the American Film Institute Conservatory in 2015 and had been selected as one of American Cinematographer’s Rising Stars of 2019.

The movie’s producers have denied responsibility for the tragedy.

In a filing to the New Mexico Environment Department’s Occupational Health and Safety Bureau, Rust Movie Productions LLC said that it was not responsible for Hutchins’ death, maintaining that the producers did not serve as the on-set employers. The filing came in response to the workplace health and safety bureau’s decision, last April, to impose the maximum penalty, $136,793 fine, on Rust Movie Productions.

The New Mexico agency accused production managers of “plain indifference” to employee safety and said management knew firearm safety procedures were not being followed on set. Rust Movie Productions LLC appealed the finding, saying the fine was not warranted.

Rust Movie Productions has denied wrongdoing, and the case is going through an appeals process. New Mexico’s Occupational Health and Safety Review Commission has scheduled an eight-day hearing on the matter in April. Each side will have four days to present their case.

Meanwhile, producers hope to resume production of the movie “Rust” this spring near Los Angeles.

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[dannno]

In addition to the bullet that killed Hutchins, investigators found five additional live rounds of ammunition mingled among the movie’s props and costumes. Two loose .45 bullets were discovered on top of a prop cart, a third was in a bandolier worn by actor Jensen Ackles, a fourth was in a gun belt worn by Baldwin, and a fifth was found in a box of dummy ammunition with Gutierrez Reed’s fingerprints on it. (Dummy rounds are fake bullets that look real, but are completely inert and have no gunpowder in them.)

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2023/01/alec-baldwin-shooting-charged-rust

 

[Anti Globalist]

Doubt Baldwin will be serving any time in jail. He'll probably end up getting probation.

 

[sparebulb]

....a fourth was in a gun belt worn by Baldwin, and a fifth was found in a box of dummy ammunition with Gutierrez Reed’s fingerprints on it

.

This is what I don't like about reporting these days.

Were the fingerprints found on the box of ammunition or the bullet in question?

That clarification would make a world of difference to help us fully understand the alleged role of the armorer.

 

[dannno]

This is what I don't like about reporting these days.

Were the fingerprints found on the box of ammunition or the bullet in question?

That clarification would make a world of difference to help us fully understand the alleged role of the armorer.

Pretty sure the bullet had her finger prints, question is were her finger prints on all the bullets found? It sounds like it was just on the one bullet found in the box.

 

[sparebulb]

Pretty sure the bullet had her finger prints, question is were her finger prints on all the bullets found? It sounds like it was just on the one bullet found in the box.

Perhaps an English major could explain how this is correct form to indicate what you said, but for me, with my government skool education, it could mean one or the other.

For argument's sake, if her fingerprints were on the dummy ammo box, but not on any of the live bullets, there is a Perry Mason worthy defense that someone else did it.

If her fingerprints were on a live bullet anywhere on the set, and especially one inside the dummy ammo box, it is game over for her. So much so that I would assign her a much greater level of culpability than even that turd Baldwin.

 

[dannno]

Perhaps an English major could explain how this is correct form to indicate what you said, but for me, with my government skool education, it could mean one or the other.

For argument's sake, if her fingerprints were on the dummy ammo box, but not on any of the live bullets, there is a Perry Mason worthy defense that someone else did it.

If her fingerprints were on a live bullet anywhere on the set, and especially one inside the dummy ammo box, it is game over for her. So much so that I would assign her a much greater level of culpability than even that turd Baldwin.

My mom has a Master's degree in english and is obsessed with murder mystery tv shows, she read it the same way I did. Finger prints on the actual bullet in the ammo box, no specific indication of finger prints on the other live bullets.

 

[Occam's Banana]

My mom has a Master's degree in english and is obsessed with murder mystery tv shows, she read it the same way I did. Finger prints on the actual bullet in the ammo box, no specific indication of finger prints on the other live bullets.

sparebulb is right: the antecedent of "it" in "[...] a fifth [bullet] was found in a box of dummy ammunition with Gutierrez Reed’s fingerprints on it" is ambiguous at best, and can be read either way.

To clearly convey that the fingerprints were on the bullet, the sentence should have read "[...] a fifth [bullet] with Gutierrez Reed’s fingerprints on it was found in a box of dummy ammunition". Stated in that way, there would be no confusion at all about where the fingerprints were. (And if the fingerprints were on the box, then an additional sentence should have been used instead of trying to cram everything into one - for example: "[...] a fifth [bullet] was found in a box of dummy ammunition. The box had Gutierrez Reed’s fingerprints on it.")

 

[acptulsa]

sparebulb is right

Can't be. His mother doesn't have a degree in the stuff. Where would we be if we didn't trust the experts, or when they're not available, the children of experts--besides not in debt, not suffering inflation, not embroiled in proxy wars, and not dying of calamari clots, that is?

 

[dannno]

sparebulb is right: the antecedent of "it" in "[...] a fifth [bullet] was found in a box of dummy ammunition with Gutierrez Reed’s fingerprints on it" is ambiguous at best, and can be read either way.

To clearly convey that the fingerprints were on the bullet, the sentence should have read "[...] a fifth [bullet] with Gutierrez Reed’s fingerprints on it was found in a box of dummy ammunition". Stated in that way, there would be no confusion at all about where the fingerprints were. (And if the fingerprints wee on the box, then an additional sentence should have been used instead of trying to cram everything into one - for example: "[...] a fifth [bullet] was found in a box of dummy ammunition. The box had Gutierrez Reed’s fingerprints on it.")

The main subject is the bullet. It is somewhat ambiguous and not very well written, but if the fingerprints were on the box, not the bullet, then it is even more poorly written.

 

[acptulsa]

The main subject is the bullet. It is somewhat ambiguous and not very well written, but if the fingerprints were on the box, not the bullet, then it is even more poorly written.

I see a commercial on TV on a regular basis in which the spokesman says, "As a musician suffering from diabetes, finger-sticks are..." Whatever else the act of poking one's finger for a blood sugar count may be, it can't be a musician and it can't suffer from diabetes.

Your expectations are way, way too high. Even when they're not deliberately butchering the language to mislead everyone, or to give themselves plausible deniability for when they get caught lying outright ("you misread that"), they deliberately keep their standards low because otherwise people could use the quality of the syntax to tell truth from fiction. Or maybe they're deliberately dumbing people down. Or both.

For someone who seems somewhat obsessed with fake news, you don't seem to have put much thought into how it works.

 

[sparebulb]

Even when they're not deliberately butchering the language to mislead everyone, or to give themselves plausible deniability for when they get caught lying outright ("you misread that"), they deliberately keep their standards low because otherwise people could use the quality of the syntax to tell truth from fiction. Or maybe they're deliberately dumbing people down. Or both.

You nailed it.

 

[dannno]

I see a commercial on TV on a regular basis in which the spokesman says, "As a musician suffering from diabetes, finger-sticks are..." Whatever else the act of poking one's finger for a blood sugar count may be, it can't be a musician and it can't suffer from diabetes.

Your expectations are way, way too high. Even when they're not deliberately butchering the language to mislead everyone, or to give themselves plausible deniability for when they get caught lying outright ("you misread that"), they deliberately keep their standards low because otherwise people could use the quality of the syntax to tell truth from fiction. Or maybe they're deliberately dumbing people down. Or both.

For someone who seems somewhat obsessed with fake news, you don't seem to have put much thought into how it works.

You mean like the spat of articles coming out every few days about how Donald Trump's NFTs are down by 73%, and the articles I read, always give the price of the NFTs when they hit their all time high the day after, but never include the original price of the NFT, where they were up 100-200% from the sale price?

You could be right they are deliberately misleading people on this one, but I think most people would read that and take it to mean the bullet had the fingerprints.

EDIT: Looks like they are now reporting the NFTs both doubled in price and volume surged 800% in the last 24 hours..