CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
all good Doug!
Rust
- Thread starter Peter C.
- Start date
all good Doug!
I wonder what would happen if I opened the gate for JA and Doug. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goRogFQWkZU
Great point, thanks for mentioning.
Today's testimony has paused for lunch, a cameraman witness for the prosecution is on the stand, stated 2 instances of misfires, one by the prop master Sarah Zachary, one by Hannah with Alec's stunt double in a church window, within an hour of each other.
Said they were emailed call sheets daily, that on other sets would have attached a safety bulletin or safety meeting notice, not always done of Rust. When ask who was responsible, said the AD (Dave Halls) would be the responsible person to call a meeting.
He said Hannah did not secure the cart containing guns and ammunition, was lax about demonstrating firearm and cartridge safety before each takes with the firearm and ammunition, and thought it was unusual that she would reach into a fannypack for cartridges to load.
He stated Hannah was "put" into a position on several instances of being hurried to reload for retakes by Dave Halls and Alec Baldwin. When pressed by the prosecutor about being "put' in the hurried position, would other armorers in his experience comply with the pressure, he said no.
The question to me that arises then, is why would they try? Although this line of questioning was intended to highlight her inability to perform the job, it would also seem Hannah's resolve was nevertheless being put to the test by her superiors.
Testimony resumed.
The prosecution witness just glossed over without comment about the point made by Charles (above) of other possible reasons for the crew walking off the set, late payments, housing disputes in addition to the aforementioned safety concerns, and moved on to the chaos created by their departure. If that's going to come up, it will probably have to happen during cross examination.
The prosecution witness just glossed over without comment about the point made by Charles (above) of other possible reasons for the crew walking off the set, late payments, housing disputes in addition to the aforementioned safety concerns, and moved on to the chaos created by their departure. If that's going to come up, it will probably have to happen during cross examination.
Witness dismissed, trial finished for today. Combative cross examination between all parties, defense, prosecution, witness and judge. Witness asserted his experience and gave impressions about certain matters of the set beyond his role, yet for questions unfavorable or that he didn't want answer he claimed not my job to know, or you'd have to ask my attorney. Witness had a brief emotional breakdown but quickly recovered, sensitive to questions from defense about his lawsuit against the production of Halls and Baldwin. He avoided giving any answers that would be favorable to Ms. Gutierrez Reed but could not give an answer for why Gutierrez Reed was not named in his complaint against the production, hostile to the implication that his lawsuit was motivated by money, stating he was only after justice, defense pinned him on that, "but you're suing for money." Prosecution was overruled twice for speculation, and twice for ask and answer. Defense was also overruled several times for ask and answer. Witness was solid, Gutierrez Reed composed throughout. I don't think this testimony or cross moved the needle in any notable way, then again it did from the standpoint of describing standard set protocols for props, armorers but witness was also critical of Halls and Baldwin. Defense did have some success highlighting negligence of prop master Sarah Zachary and Dave Halls.
Last edited:
The dolly grip (mistaken called a camera operator by the defence?) gives a pretty good run down of the normal protocols at around 5:49:00
https://www.youtube.com/live/kqs5Pxo...smL0hzbOk2TzBH
Also earlier it blew my mind to hear that there only been a single safety meeting for the entire shoot. Again so many red flags, and the AD and armorer clearly created the environment for this to happen. I think if I was on that show I would probably walk if they did not correct some of those problems. It is how accidents happen, creating a permissive culture and that is exactly what happened. And to Charles point, they walked because of overall poor management including safety by the way it seems to be presenting.
https://www.youtube.com/live/kqs5Pxo...smL0hzbOk2TzBH
Also earlier it blew my mind to hear that there only been a single safety meeting for the entire shoot. Again so many red flags, and the AD and armorer clearly created the environment for this to happen. I think if I was on that show I would probably walk if they did not correct some of those problems. It is how accidents happen, creating a permissive culture and that is exactly what happened. And to Charles point, they walked because of overall poor management including safety by the way it seems to be presenting.
Peter C.
Veteran
The Camera A witness was strong on direct giving an emotionally charged testimony. Unfortunately most of that was undone by a strong cross by the defense. He went from sympathetic to angry and defensive when asked why he didn't sue HGR and implied he was after money. When asked about the substance of his civil lawsuit he gave a bad answer that he didn't know and they should ask his attorney. The quick change in his tone between direct and cross made him sound less creditable.
On May 8th 2023, the medic who rushed to aid Halyna Hutchins, Cherlyn Schaefer settled a claim from her lawsuit against the prop master Sarah Zachary for $1.15M. The suit alleges Zachry “knew or should have known” the revolver contained a live round, adding she acted negligently and intended to inflict emotional distress on Schaefer. Schaefer's attorney Justin Rodriquez said in a statement, "We are pleased to have reached this first of hopefully many future settlements in this matter. The $1.1 million represents only a small fraction of Ms. Schafer's total damages" -- A paid medic suffering from "deliberately caused emotional damage" by the prop master, as a result of doing her job. When I look at it that way, it makes clearer that everybody suing everybody, the camera man suing the Rust production for his medical injury that while on the stand was unsure of what it was when asked for the nature of it during his cross examination; said you have to ask my attorney, later none of your business my medical privacy. Just amazing.
The body was still warm and the vultures were already circling overhead.
The body was still warm and the vultures were already circling overhead.
Last edited:
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
I tuned in briefly. Kind of wild hearing standard set terms like "bounce card" and "best boy" asking to be defined in a court case this prominent.
I know several of the members of this camera dept so nothing I'm sharing is conjecture, it's directly confirmed (and there are various other things I cannot share--nothing notable, but since it is an ongoing case, it's not my place to do so). It's part of the public record, but at this point that record is many hundreds of pages long. Production was slow to pay, citing various excuses as to why checks weren't showing up or had improper or no withholding. And there was a well documented dispute over housing that was brought forward by the camera dept who had to travel an hour to set and were either denied accommodation or being offered flophouse-level rooms. You may have read that production had actually had t-shirts made mocking these requests. But yes, there were also safety concerns brought forward involving protocols, safety meetings and an unplanned weapons discharge on set.
As far as the dolly grip not being aware of the particulars of the complaints, that isn't surprising. Generally grip and electric will present more of a unified front to production, with camera doing their own thing. As a DP overseeing all three departments I like them to be all on the same page but it doesn't always happen. Certainly in my operating days I saw plenty of instances where there was downright resentment and conflict between these departments. Dolly grips are in an interesting position as they work the closest with camera dept. and ideally the operator and the DG are intertwined. Ideally.
I know several of the members of this camera dept so nothing I'm sharing is conjecture, it's directly confirmed (and there are various other things I cannot share--nothing notable, but since it is an ongoing case, it's not my place to do so). It's part of the public record, but at this point that record is many hundreds of pages long. Production was slow to pay, citing various excuses as to why checks weren't showing up or had improper or no withholding. And there was a well documented dispute over housing that was brought forward by the camera dept who had to travel an hour to set and were either denied accommodation or being offered flophouse-level rooms. You may have read that production had actually had t-shirts made mocking these requests. But yes, there were also safety concerns brought forward involving protocols, safety meetings and an unplanned weapons discharge on set.
As far as the dolly grip not being aware of the particulars of the complaints, that isn't surprising. Generally grip and electric will present more of a unified front to production, with camera doing their own thing. As a DP overseeing all three departments I like them to be all on the same page but it doesn't always happen. Certainly in my operating days I saw plenty of instances where there was downright resentment and conflict between these departments. Dolly grips are in an interesting position as they work the closest with camera dept. and ideally the operator and the DG are intertwined. Ideally.
I have been searching high and low to find out who employed prop master Sarah Zachary. Was she another independent contractor to Rust Productions? Or was she a sub contractor to Hannah? Partner to Hannah? Hannah didn't own props. Why would she need a prop master? Or did Sarah represent Seth Kenney's PDQ Props LLC?
Rust Productions says Hannah had sole responsibility for supervising Sarah. Hannah says she (herself) loaded the gun and gave it to Dave Halls; in the shooting aftermath Sarah has a hunch about where the live rounds came from and checked the boxes on the cart. Why did she think she knew?
It seems like the person invisible to everything, avoiding all charges, not having been sued as far as I can tell, but nevertheless central to everything related to dummy rounds, live rounds, blanks and guns is Seth Kenney, owner of PDQ Props LLC. I've suspected all along that he had involvement with the live rounds. Was the prop master Sarah Zachary employed by Seth Kenney? Why did she suspect that live rounds were on the cart that she went to check in the aftermath of the shooting? And lastly, who was the recipient of the cocaine that Hannah handed off? Was that Sarah too?
None of these questions directly pertain to the charges against Hannah Gutierrez Reed but they should be considered as possible mitigating factors for the jury's decision.
Rust Productions says Hannah had sole responsibility for supervising Sarah. Hannah says she (herself) loaded the gun and gave it to Dave Halls; in the shooting aftermath Sarah has a hunch about where the live rounds came from and checked the boxes on the cart. Why did she think she knew?
It seems like the person invisible to everything, avoiding all charges, not having been sued as far as I can tell, but nevertheless central to everything related to dummy rounds, live rounds, blanks and guns is Seth Kenney, owner of PDQ Props LLC. I've suspected all along that he had involvement with the live rounds. Was the prop master Sarah Zachary employed by Seth Kenney? Why did she suspect that live rounds were on the cart that she went to check in the aftermath of the shooting? And lastly, who was the recipient of the cocaine that Hannah handed off? Was that Sarah too?
None of these questions directly pertain to the charges against Hannah Gutierrez Reed but they should be considered as possible mitigating factors for the jury's decision.
I also have not found any descriptions of any shooting of live rounds on the set of Rust. Has anyone here confirmed that happened? All I have been able to come up with was two accidental discharges, acknowledged by Sarah Zachary in her statements made to Sheriff's office, while not mentioning that she was involved in one of them handling a gun, and apparently the other instance involving Hannah. So Doug, Charles, Sam and JAMedia all have experience on these sets, but has been explained as I understand it, the prop master has control over non firing props (dummy rounds) and the armorer has control over things that go bang, guns, live rounds and blanks. So why was Sarah holding a firearm that she apparently discharged? In the aftermath Sarah went to the cart on a suspicion and found several more live rounds in a box. The cameraman in his testimony today said he thought it was unusual when he saw Hannah load cartridges from her fanny pack, not a box as is usual. So if there was no after-hours plinking or target shooting and just these two incidents of accidental discharges, there should not have been any reason for live rounds to have been mixed with dummy rounds unless it happened in Seth Kenney's PDQ office. No one else had any reason to have uncommon, 19th century live rounds except for the purpose of shooting them. But a prop supplier might have just such a need. And lastly why would Sarah Zachary be sued by the medic Cherlyn Schaefer for intentionally causing emotional distress and get a $1.15M settlement? These things are not making sense.
Weapons are the domain of the prop master.
When there are a lot of weapons or blanks then it’s routine to bring in an armour is the weapons specialist of the props department. They are technically under the propsmaster but will have the last word on weapons and their safe use. That’s the job. But oh boy did she not do that job.
So in theory, an armorer when present has the final say on things pertaining to weapons and will always supersede the propmaster who is a head of department but looking after a bunch of other props that aren’t weapons. I’ve been on shows with a small amount of gun play and the props master has covered the weapons side of things.
I’m reading between the lines and have no deep knowledge but I assume the weapons are rented and suppled by the PDQ company mentioned, to be hired by the propsmaster and overseen by the armorer. Pretty normal practice.
As I understand armorers and props masters can both supply the weapons and rounds, be the dummy or blank and can source them from anywhere that the care to. I know some armorers who make their own blanks. They can better customise the load and add other effects, like more orange muzzle flash etc. They may choose to get blanks or dummies from another supplier or their own stockpiles.
So the armorer in this case I believe was allocated a certain number of days as an armorer. Since they didn’t always have weapons I am guessing they thought they could save some money and have her work as a props assitant to the props master when she was not an armorer. So on the same day she could go form being subservient and doing what the props master tells her to do, and then supersede the props master when she’s an armorer and focus solely on that job. I remember seeing some of her emails and texts asking for this not to be the case and seeking clarity and I believe there was also some tension between her and the propsmaster. Not at all messy when sometimes you are the boss and sometimes you are not, right? Not good for such an important safety role wither to sometimes not be on the clock.
From what I have seen she was way out of her depth, inept at her primary job and along with an AD who was equally as cavalier you have now a terrible set of lax circumstance where it’s very easy for something very bad to happen because nobody is checking and nobody is cross checking anyone elses work.
When there are a lot of weapons or blanks then it’s routine to bring in an armour is the weapons specialist of the props department. They are technically under the propsmaster but will have the last word on weapons and their safe use. That’s the job. But oh boy did she not do that job.
So in theory, an armorer when present has the final say on things pertaining to weapons and will always supersede the propmaster who is a head of department but looking after a bunch of other props that aren’t weapons. I’ve been on shows with a small amount of gun play and the props master has covered the weapons side of things.
I’m reading between the lines and have no deep knowledge but I assume the weapons are rented and suppled by the PDQ company mentioned, to be hired by the propsmaster and overseen by the armorer. Pretty normal practice.
As I understand armorers and props masters can both supply the weapons and rounds, be the dummy or blank and can source them from anywhere that the care to. I know some armorers who make their own blanks. They can better customise the load and add other effects, like more orange muzzle flash etc. They may choose to get blanks or dummies from another supplier or their own stockpiles.
So the armorer in this case I believe was allocated a certain number of days as an armorer. Since they didn’t always have weapons I am guessing they thought they could save some money and have her work as a props assitant to the props master when she was not an armorer. So on the same day she could go form being subservient and doing what the props master tells her to do, and then supersede the props master when she’s an armorer and focus solely on that job. I remember seeing some of her emails and texts asking for this not to be the case and seeking clarity and I believe there was also some tension between her and the propsmaster. Not at all messy when sometimes you are the boss and sometimes you are not, right? Not good for such an important safety role wither to sometimes not be on the clock.
From what I have seen she was way out of her depth, inept at her primary job and along with an AD who was equally as cavalier you have now a terrible set of lax circumstance where it’s very easy for something very bad to happen because nobody is checking and nobody is cross checking anyone elses work.
JAMedia
Well-known member
I don't think he helped himself by turning up in an orange jacket. It's usually prisoners (the accused) who are in orange jumpsuits....
I wonder what subconscious message the jury picked up?
Also in the 5 minutes prior to the time noted above, the witness says the guns were left open and available to all on the cart.
So how and when the live ammo arrived on set is crucial.
Re the "target practice" that was mentioned by several in the beginning, that seems to have fades from memories. Given the other problems on set that Charles mentioned (again, I remember his comments at the time of the incident), there many have been vested interests in saying there was this shooting practice, whether there was or not, to cause more problems. OTOH the people involved in the target practice man now have a vested interest in not mentioning it again.
Either way, if there was target practice happening or it was a story started to cause more trouble because of the other on set problems it indicates a very unhappy crew that were not working well.
As Charles said, the initial problems were pay and conditions (expenses accommodation) rather than safety until the incident and it suddenly all became about the safety.
Last edited:
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
You may be correct but this is not how I see it.
Any fire arm Id go through the an armourer. Generally Im cautios of guns real or fake.
-realistic non function ing props.. can poke/stab/hit the talent camera crew - (it is even legit story to run out of bullets and then hit your oponent with the weapon)
-run naked down the main street at 0300 hours after the wrap party waving a non functioning but realistic prop around and you could get shot by the police or a helpful bystander
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
JA
Ive been thining on your comments. For sure 'we' have a good concept of how a set should safely work from 'cart/safe to actor via armourer' which will keep the actor and camera crew alive. always.
I do see that the wider location needs appropriate treatment to control for example
-hobby shooting on days off
-robbery of any guns/ammo including props
-control of type of ammo ect.
Without those measure people could get hurt during breaks, when fooling around etc.
You do have some valid points there.
JAMedia
Well-known member
No point saying what should have happened in theory, as it is clear they weren't working to any set of standard rules.
You have to find out what was actually happening, which may or may not happen as the defence and prosecution are looking for a result not the whole truth and nothing but the truth. which I don't think we will ever get.
There was a lot happening on that set that as Charlespapert said just after the indecent and has mentioned again a few posts ago. I would recommend everyone re-read his posts and think about them.
But the guy is wearing orange! He must be wrong. There is no safety issue ongoing at all? Its just a grievance about being paid ! Where did the bullet come from? Is it the same place the second shooter was?
You must be a producer.
I would ask for a mistrial if I was ever before you because you are not my peer.
You must be a producer.
I would ask for a mistrial if I was ever before you because you are not my peer.
Already today, the first link between Sarah Zachary and Seth Kenney, communications between them that happened after the shooting but not before. I suspected there could be such a link all along. Sarah had the suspicion about the origins of the ammunition mixups that led to her heading over to the cart to inspect boxes in the shooting aftermath. I don't think Hannah was aware about this possible insight that Sarah had. Hannah's phone was searched but not Seth Kenney's or Alec Baldwin's. Again, does not exonerate or pertain directly to negligent failures to avoid loading live ammunition by Hannah but does introduce the likelihood what she was up against in the form of behind the scenes mishandling of ammunition at the PDQ office; a time preceding her control over ammunition.