It’s quite possible that he truly believes (or did believe) he didn’t pull the trigger.
People can be mistaken without being intentionally deceptive, or even remember the same incident differently at different times after the fact.
The prosecutor’s latest statement boils down to “I’m going ahead with the case because I don’t like him.”
I consider making inconsistent or confusing statements after a traumatic event to be indicia of being incredibly upset, and not necessarily deceitful.
Yet another reason why people should exercise their right to remain silent. Baldwin didn’t have to speak to the police at all. He did. And now, predictably, they’re going to try and take those statements and twist them into, as you say, “indicia of guilt.”
We should all be more critical of such ploys. Hopefully his defense attorneys take care to add context to any potential inconsistencies. Whether he is guilty or not, his statements under immense stress to police officers (who lied to him, by the way, about whether he was in trouble—because police can do that) shouldn’t be what lead to his conviction.
Yep. “I want to speak to my attorney”. The attorney gives a carefully prepared statement. The end.
“after a traumatic event” or “immediately after a traumatic event”? If I’m not mistaken these statements continued for some time after the shooting.
After a traumatic event. Memory doesn’t get better with time and after repeated questioning.
First, you just contradicted yourself. If his memory is best right after the incident then his conflicting statements at the time should be the issue and he was deliberately lying. Memory fading over time is a standard applied to witnesses who by the time of trial might not remember all details clearly.
Perpetrators don’t get a break on having a bad memory, that simply sends their credibility down the drain. His statements didn’t admit guilt, but blaming others and denying his own actions, are clearly signs of guilt. He doesn’t say he didn’t think he pulled the trigger but he could be wrong, he continues to say he didn’t pull the trigger and the gun went off by itself. He clearly interfered with safety procedures and he continues to say that wasn’t the case.
I guess we’ll see several prosecution witnesses from the armorer trail. There was a FBI gun examiner that examined and broke the pistol. They also had a gun expert that repaired the gun and did tests on the trigger pull.
I still don’t believe Baldwin will be found guilty on criminal charges. The prosecution has already made a convincing case that the armorer’s negligence created this tragedy. She’s in jail now waiting for sentencing.
But, who knows how a jury will react. The Prosecution may have convincing evidence that hasn’t been made public.
He isn’t the only one who claimed that. The guy standing right next to him when the gun went off also said that Baldwin never pulled the trigger. Now granted, that guy is the ad who handed him the gun and has a track record of poor safety standards on sets, but still. It’s not just Baldwin making the claim.
And, the conclusion that the gun couldn’t fire without the trigger being pulled is based on an inspection that happened after the gun was broken and subsequently repaired. If I were on Baldwin’s legal team, I’d be all over that.
What facts are on dispute based on his differing statements and how do the possible different beliefs about those facts inform on the question of his being guilty of a crime?
Is there any claim by the prosecutor that he pulled the trigger with intent?
The only question that I can see that matters is if an actor who is following industry standards to defer to the person trained in firearm safety who is on the set with the job of verifying that a prop is safe to use is negligent for not doublechecking that persons work.
I don’t even care if Mr. Baldwin in his heart of hearts is a callous bastard and thinks he did something wrong (which I do not believe) … the only question is if his behaving within industry standards is being criminally negligent.
No, I really didn’t. This isn’t (merely) about memory “fading.” This is about something very traumatic happening in a very short amount of time with stress levels being suddenly dialed up to 11.
It is possible to fail to recount details inaccurately.
It is possible for memories to change not just in response to time, but in response to stimuli (such as a round of questioning).
So many things can cause an honest person’s memory to be incorrect or inconsistent.
Again, he had a right to remain silent. And yet, like all too many individuals caught up suddenly in a criminal investigation, he allowed the police to (falsely) persuade him he had nothing to fear by being honest and responding to their questions. Not surprisingly, some of the things he said might have been incorrect, and some of the things he said later might have been not only inconsistent, but either more or less or equally incorrect.
That doesn’t mean he was being deceitful.
It means he should have exercised his right to remain silent. That he failed to do so doesn’t make him innocent, but it also doesn’t make him guilty.
That’s… quite a Catch-22 you’ve worked out there, isn’t it? Apart from (allegedly, as you claim, disregarding what I’ve said about memory) “denying his own actions”, that sounds like the sort of stuff an innocent person would say.
Nobody would get convicted of a crime by your reasoning if their statements after the fact were of the typical kind - “I didn’t do it, I wasn’t there, someone else did it, and even if I did do it it’s still not my fault”. It’s a question of credibility and Baldwin has shown he has none. Again, that’s not enough to convict him, but it’s certainly enough to get a jury to ignore his self serving statements.
2 other questions should matter IMHO:
Was it appropriate within industry standards to point a real gun at a person under these circumstances?
Are industry standards reasonable?
Because, again, industry doesn’t make law. The legal system may consider and be persuaded by industry standards, but need not rely on them exclusively in deciding guilt.
What inconsistencies do you think Baldwin has asserted that you think are so great that they cannot plausibly be explained by stress, trauma, time, and imperfect sensory perception? But should instead be considered as “indicia of guilt”?
Exactly, the jury and we should discount his statements. And that goes both ways. Self-serving statements indicate he’s human, not guilty nor innocent.
Start with this article. He’s also been accused of pressuring witnesses to change their stories. He’s been trying to monetize this case with a documentary and some other TV deals. He made statements long after the fact to the media that tried to wave away his responsibility.
So what has Alec Baldwin done to consider his statements on this matter credible?
He said he didn’t pull the trigger. The guy standing right next to him said he didn’t pull the trigger. That sounds credible to me. Certainly to the level of reasonable doubt.
Wow, that’s the whiniest set of complaints by a prosecutor I’ve ever heard. He went on a talk show and acted like he didn’t murder someone in cold blood! The defense intends to discredit the prosecution and prosecution witnesses so that their client isn’t convicted! The nerve!
Yes. And yes.
The rarity of adverse outcomes given the magnitude of the industry, and that the standard only failed because of documented negligence by the armorer is evidence of that.
However beyond that be very concerned about a jury holding an individual negligent when they are following what is considered within best practices in their industry.
Why do you say that? It is barely possible he didnt pull the trigger, and quite possible he didnt do it consciously or remembers doing it.
“accused”, and that article is of course heavily and clearly biased. Not to mention I dont see anything in that article about that/
And that is fine, since the DA handling this is going after him for political reasons.
This is a shitshow of monumental proportions.
Mind you, suing the crap out of Baldwin is, IMHO an acceptable result. But these on again off again criminal charges are bogus.