Why did the Judge dismiss the case?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 лип 2024
- Why Prosecutorial misconduct got Alec off the hook.
Lushington Beach: www.intocornwa...
#artoflaw #alecbaldwin #rusttrial
Disclaimer: Neither this nor any other video, may be taken as legal advice. I accept no liability whatever for any reliance placed upon it.
Founded by Alan Robertshaw and @Blackbeltbarrister
ua-cam.com/users/bl...
Lets all not forget that the CPS and Police withheld text messages in a rape case that got the case result overruled. Why did none of them go to jail for perverting justice?
@@Robeight because it was the cps and the police? Just a guess!
I was a juror in a case where we were directed to formally acquit 13 of the 18 charges, after I had spotted a transaction in a bank statement we had been given and asked the judge, "What's this?". No-one could answer at the time when the judge asked the court. The next morning we were held outside the courtroom for ages, so I presume the trial within a trial was going on. So when we were finally admitted again the judge said, "thanks to a sharp-eyed juror I you must acquit her of the following charges". That was then fatal to the rest of the identical chargers Berghaus it was now clear that nobody with any accounting competence could say if any money was missing or not.
Huh?
Wow! That's crazy! 😂❤
@@jamessquair6829 I had to read herseem's post twice. The curse of 'intelligent' spell checking. For Berghaus read 'because'. My tablet substituted 'dandelion' for detrimental recently.
Mmm well it made no sense to charge him in the first place. Clearly he had no intention of harming anyone and had no knowledge that the gun held live rounds.
Fair enough,
However, he stated that he didn’t pull back the hammer. A single action pistol cannot discharge until the hammer is in the full cock, or the sear will not engage.
He did do this. He lied about that.
All persons handling firearms are expected to check everything is safe even with blank or dummy rounds. As producer, he is ultimately responsible for Health and Safety. His personality may have prevented the correct culture on set. Surely he culpable for that…
The armourer was too young, immature and inexperienced. She did not have a robust set of procedures in place and clearly failed at policing the set or implementing safe practices.
In her defence, her lawyers argued that personalities on set prevented this immature person from exercising control that was effective and necessary.
She is surely guilty of negligence and has been punished.
Going back to the producers, why did they hire this young woman? She has no real experience in this job. Was the pay so bad that it could not attract a suitably experienced armourer?
Was she trying to get into a new role and this job was her chance to build her CV?
I am of the view that nothing is solely upon one person. Mistakes are often a series errors that compound and multiply the effect of the previous error.
Props department, production, armourer, personalities, safety culture etc are all likely to have had a role to play in this.
I understand your point about intention.
A train driver or company never intend to have a rail disaster and deaths. However, if there is negligence, the company, workers and even members of the board can be prosecuted.
There are always accountabilities at various levels.
I suspect that Mr Baldwin, having fairly having had his criminal case dismissed, will now be the subject of some other cases. The family of the dead director said they would not pursue anything but who knows.
That's a response a child would make...."mommy I didn't know it would shoot." A 'sober' grown up would surely double check a firearm....make a 100% sure before taking someone's word.
@@user-nb4ex5zk3w why would there be any expectation that a prop loaded with blanks would ever hold live ammunition?
@@SuperParatechit was a prop. He was not handling a live firearm. If a scene requires an actor to disarm explosives do they anticipate that if they clip the red wire by mistake that the explosive will detonate. No. He may not have lied - he’s rehearsing and probably had never fired an antique gun so would possibly not be aware whether he had engaged, pulled back blah blah blah
@@kerrynmckay5273
First off - he lied. In all his statements about how he handled the gun, he denied cocking it.
You say he is an actor - as some form of blanket statement absolving him of any responsibility. The time line of events in the preceding days had instances of horseplay which included quick draw of the guns.
The set was not managed for safety.
He is using a real gun and not a prop as you wrote. A dummy prop cannot fire. It was a reproduction firearm, but a real firearm nonetheless. So your assertion that it was merely a prop ignores completely that it was intended to fire live bullets. Your position on that is so erroneous that falls flat like a damp squib.
Anyone handling a firearm, whether they think they are too precious to hold responsibility or not, is required to check the cylinder for ammunition. Nowhere in life have I handed or received a forearm from anyone without checking it is clear. He would know that and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to spot that the cylinder had rounds. That is his moment to check.
The armourer was certainly at fault for not exercising strict discipline. However, she seemed woefully under qualified for this role. Is her fault for applying for that job or the fault of production company for hiring, presumably at lower cost, an inexperienced girl to handle firearms in amongst the personalities of big stars?
Should the production company be liable? I think yes.
Who owns the production? One Alec Baldwin. Ultimately, the production staff are responsible for what goes on, on their set.
It is no different than the head of BP in London being hammered for the fault at Deep Horizon, or the executives of the rail company using low cost maintenance staff which led to rail crash in Potters Bar. Management are responsible.
Baldwin isn’t innocent here. He is culpable. He might have slipped by a criminal prosecution but I doubt that this over yet.
On his set, he ultimately is responsible for safety and safety culture there. It sounds like this was a big hoo ha and not a safety conscious place to be.
Setting aside, the failure to disclose, how could anyone in such a high profile case get a fair hearing after all the publicity. For that reason is it not reasonable for a Judge to tell the prosecutors, no second bite at the cherry.
What a surprise the prosecution withholding evidence.
Can you imagine how many people are in jail for this egregious intentional Act?
This only confirms my suspicion, that in the U.S., you can buy anything. Even "justice".
Right? At least the prosecutor is going to be held accountable on this one. Having Trails televised is a good thing.
The judge DID discuss whether there had been bad faith. She concluded that there hadn't, but that it came close enough to leave scorch marks (her actual words!)
Judge Sommer has a way with words.
I still cannot believe they let him get away with this! Money talks I guess.😳
Thanks for that Quote... I said in my own comment I disagreed with the decision to "Dismiss with Prejudice" but hearing those words... I have to admit I was WRONG!
While the Judge decided that it did not meet teh full criteria, being close enough that she seriously considered it "Criminal" is enough!
@@jonnaylor3154 Rather, prosecutorial misconduct speaks volumes.
No, my understand of what she said was that she left the question open, your quote is isn't correct. What she actually said was "If this conduct doesn't rise to level of bad faith, it certainly comes so near to bad faith as to show signs of scorching" (fixed quote, thanks johnbriggs3916). Ouch, that's as bad as burn you can get without actually ruling on it which she didn't need to (and US Judges often never rule on things they don't need to). I fully expect the Judge to report the prosecutor to the relevant bar association - and most observers thinks she'll probably get at least a stinging reprimand, more liklely either suspended or disbarred. And regardless she won't be called as a special prosecutor ever again (way too much baggage, far too easy to attack), we need to remember that she's normally a defense attorney.
The importance of disclosure is vital in criminal proceedings. Thats why its a tragedy no sub post master took their trial before a jury. The post office had failed its duty of disclosure.A brave barrister is all that was missing
He’s not innocent he’s free on technicalities
@@annied9864 As he has not been found guilty he is legally innocent.
@@annied9864 the Constitution and your civil rights are not technicalities.
Well the UK prosecutors have been guilty of the same stuff in MANY cases. So they shouldn’t feel so superior.
Tu quoque? That's it?
What a bizarre things to say. Someone from the another country can't have an opinion because something similar may happend in that country?
How fragile are you that you are upset because something in the US is commented on by someone outside.
@@101Mant Birmingham Six, Guildford 4 anyone. I’m half Irish half Spanish. We know ALL about your free and fair justice system that hides evidence from the defence.
@@tomwalsh2244both Birmingham Six and Guildford 4 were cases of police duplicity/prejudice and withholding evidence rather the prosecutor, so neither the defence nor the protector had all the evidence. How evidence is gathered and record has changed. Of course it can't be full proof.
I live in Derry so well familiar with injustices that occurred during the Troubles, the biggest issue were internment and emergency measure as often is the case as those "trial" especially of military personnel and security services. It was the Tory government that passed legislation to prevent these old case form being reviewed, even though neither community wanted or asked for it.
tbh you are going find the same sort of thing happening Spain in Ireland, it is human nature. Just lately in Ireland an Army lad beat a woman unconscious after she asked him to stop shouting homophobic slurs, and only stopped hitting her on the ground because others intervened. He only admitted guilt after they showed him the CCTV evidence and phone where he bragged to his fellow soldiers about knocking her out. The judge gave him a suspended sentence noting it would ruin his career to send him to prison despite the fact this should have been worthy of dismissal form the military anyway, the victim lost her job and will likely have lifelong difficulties. This judge then retired in his record he showed a bias toward women where their circumstance were not taken into consideration and other case where he was a light touch. The case it currently under review, he was given legal aid the prosecution evidence did not act in the interest of just and she was not given legal advice on how to ensure the entirety of her circumstances were considered and the serious of the crime which could have killed her if someone had not intervened.
Alan is not a criminal prosecutor and work in civil litigation with experience in military, media and animal rights law.
Who is claiming superiority? Strange thing to write
Let's cut down through all the BS. Baldwin is an actor who used a "prop" gun that had been checked by two different layers of "safety" people who were responsible for making sure the gun was safe. The actor has to focus on acting and making it look real with a gun that had been checked by two different layers of "safety" people who were responsible for making sure the gun was safe. If the gun is not safe, responsibility lies on the two "safety" people who evidently did not actually check the gun, not the actor. The actor is a victim too. He certainly didn't know he was shooting a real gun, he was shooting a "prop" gun, like he had dozens of times before on the set. The real crime here is why were they using a real, fireable gun? Did they specificly request a real gun and not a prop gun? Who brought the real bullets onto the set? Why were the real bullets in the gun? One story I heard was that somone was out shooting cans or catus or something the day before? WTH? With a prop gun? Even if that's true, the two safety people should have caught that there were real bullets in the gun, PERIOD. That was their job and their responsibility.
What I can't understand is why they had live rounds on the set. Very interesting. Many thanks. Great scenery
The armorer brought live ammo onto the set. Apparently there were some people on set using the prop guns for target practice.
@@janegardener1662recipe for disaster
I was rather hoping you'd do the Alec Baldwin case
Love your dog ,great scenery thank you
I think the prosecution claim the armourer must have brought the live rounds on set. I believe there were claims of people using the guns for real ammo rounds / practice on set of Yellowstone 1883 - and leftover rounds from that set got sent to Rust. It's my understanding that Teskey believes the rounds he handed over (that were listed under a different crime number and withheld from this defence team) are evidence that Seth Kenney provided the live rounds to set of Rust and not Hannah.
This doesn't, however, negate her responsibility to ensure real bullets are not loaded.
@@janegardener1662 Who was doing target practice on set?
In Scotland, this is called, NOT PROVEN!
In the US defendants are not found “innocent”. They are found “not guilty”. There is a distinction.
Same in the UK. It's a distinction without any real difference.
@@NoahSpurrier yes. In Scotland there is a vote of innocence as well as not guilty. In America we don’t have to prove innocence. The govt has to prove guilt.
@@NoahSpurrier I do find the disregard of 'sub judice' in the USA alarming. I saw a news report online during a trial in the USA and the reporter saying things about the accused that in the UK would halt a trial and the reporter jailed.
Bible teachings. Everyone is a sinner. Nobody is innocent.
@@paulgibbons2320 Except in Scotland. You can vote guilty, not guilty or innocent there. A easy way to smear reputations of people who you found not guilty. We don’t do that here in the US.
The prosecutor also claimed that none of the bullets in the new evidence were similar to the one that caused the death. This turned out to be false.
She also claimed not to have seen the police report - also false.
It wasn't up to the prosecutor to make those determinations, and she knew it. Her responsibility was to see that ALL evidence was available to the defense, not to hide it by deliberately filing it with a false case number. Judge was correct to dismiss the case, which honestly never should have been filed against Baldwin.
Oh yeah! The special prosecutor insisting on testifying was a huge mistake!
OJ and Alec were both found not guilty, and rightly so. Declaring them Innocent is a whole different matter.
A few posters need to Google "the presumption of innocence" - and the thumbnail should lose the scare quotes. He's not been found guilty, so he's innocent.
I watched this too, I,m waiting for the sequel :How to destroy your prosecutorial career in two easy lessons .
Kari Morrisey is actually a defence attorney. She was brought in as a special prosecutor for this case and HGR. Her behaviour is horrible.
@@SukiLondon To what monetary gain I ask?
@@gardengnome3249 I don't understand your question.
The trial itself is pretty wild, although it’s only three days, and only two days of statements and witness testimony before the jury. There was also a lot of wild misconduct during the discovery process, before the bombshell admission on the second day. The prosecution had set a pattern of misconduct.
During cross examination of the afternoon on the second day, the crime scene technician let it drop that she collected evidence, and was ordered by her superiors to give it a different case number. It’s hard to describe just how mind blowing this is.
And it led to the motion for dismissal and the hearing for that motion that took up most of the third day.
People have been calling it a circus, but that doesn’t do it justice.
The special prosecutor tried to argue that the evidence in question had no probative value, which missed the point entirely, even going so far as to take the stand as a witness during the motion hearing to tell her side of the story. It should be noted that she wasn’t asked to testify. She requested it.
It would have been funny if she had stood up to ask herself questions and sat down to answer them, but that didn’t happen, alas. I can imagine her browbeating and badgering herself, until she jumps up from the witness stand and shouts, “You can’t handle the truth!”
The truth is, she was probably trying to separate herself from the criminal liability of her staffers who had intentionally misfiled the evidence to hide it from the defense. It certainly would have been poor form to ask to testify and then when the defense cross examined, “take the 5th”. So as ridiculous as her testifying was, it allowed her to avoid criminal liability by completely demolishing whatever reputation and credibility she had left. Call it the idiocy defense.
Unfortunately the sequel is probably going to be an appeal by the armourer and possibly a lawsuit from Alec Baldwin for malicious prosecution. 😮
Hold on. The defense argued for dismissal on several grounds prior to the prosecution giving evidence. The prosecutor chose to give evidence and it blew up in her face. As a lawyer she made a terrible witness and a massive mistake. She knew the disclosure game was up. Her speech on the stand was ridiculous. Her co prosecutor, who quit on the spot knew it too and left the courtroom. The judge herself opened the evidence bag and made the discovery of evidence under a different case number in the courtroom. The judge then explained in detail her reasons for granting the dismissal motion. All the ALEC Baldwin haters need to go watch the entire footage before slamming him. As a side note- Baldwin was not the only producer on that movie. They also carry responsibility? Hmm.
I was watching the trial from here in the UK and, with the jury out of the courtroom, I thought the proceedings would become very 'dry'; how wrong I was and I was glad I stayed with it. One point that struck me was when Kari Morrisey, the prosecution counsel, insisted that she give evidence herself to clarify her position. On standing, she asked the judge whether she should speak from her table, whereupon the judge said, 'No, take the stand'!
What is interesting/significant about this buried lead is, had the New Mexico authorities allowed ATF (Alcohol tobacco &Firearms a branch of the federal law enforcement) to participate or be involved. Now that this disclosure (I believe) have some interstate element, being that some munitions were in AZ, the federal authorities might enter and rip this open. It is quite unnerving that the munitions company Starline, supposedly manufacturer of non lethal rounds, may have been making material that could be modified or have not been limiting themselves to that scope, is called into question. I believe someone in your country once said "come Watson, the game is afoot"
I think one of the reasons for the 'with prejudice' dismissal was that it had already failed previously. And that there were other irregularities. While justice may not have been exercised here for the victim necessarily, the prosecution seemed so flawed, there could be little faith that other unknown faults may not have been made in procedure or in evidence in favour of the prosecution.
Personally, I think it was the right call. The attitude of the technician and prosecutor while giving evidence about the disclosure failure didn't seem forthcoming or unbiased to me. The prosecutor defended the non disclosure while she should have recognised the gravity of the error. Because of that the judge could not trust that other prejudicial failures had not taken place and that the investigation and evidence was not now tainted.
Good call.
I think the judge might call for an investigation into the Brady violation with possible sanctions for gross incompetence or bad faith if it's found. It's important, you have to trust the investigators and members of the bar.
We got cut off at Burgh Island once, walked over, had a mooch around, got a pint, barman said we'd better get a shift on as the tide was coming in, so we started back, and the tide came in quite quickly so we ended up wading.
I think letting the prosecution to "have another go" at it wouldn't work as dissuasion for withholding evidence. What stops the prosecution from hiding evidence from other cases? This evidence was sufficiently well hidden that it was only revealed because someone new came on the team and didn't know it was supposed to be hidden. This prosecutor cost the state a very public case, and has also put the other convictions in jeopardy, and that is going to be a big slap on the wrist to discourage prosecutors from doing that in the future. Most prosecutors will bend over backwards to make sure all their requirements are met because there is a real penalty. I wouldn't be surprised if every single conviction in her career has appeals swamping the court system looking for hidden evidence.
As for the families, they're still able to sue civilly and get monetary damages.
I worked for a port authority in Australia - the captain is still ultimately "responsible" although the pilot can be charged/dismissed etc...
The trial was dismissed and justly so. Watching the prosecutor try to justify her actions IN THE WITNESS BOX was very dramatic.
Also, she tried justifying her actions from the witness box, after the other prosecutor had quit in protest after learning what she had done...
@@janegardener1662 not the first time a prosecutor got overzealous and played it fast and loose-because the defendant was a celebrity.
It was EPIC!! I couldn’t believe what I was watching 🫣 the judge cutting open the evidence bag !! And inspecting the evidence ‼️ I’m still shookith 😥 🧨
He did break the 3 major rules of Gun Safety....
@@xaero76 Yes, and if he was on a live firing range or in a hunting scenario then there was a grievous lack of care on Baldwin's part, but he wasn't. He was on a film set where there should have been no live rounds, where someone was employed to ensure that all firearms are appropriately stored when not required between shoots (excuse the pun) and that they are loaded with either blanks or dummy rounds depending on what the scene to be filmed requires. This tragedy was inevitable from the point someone employed an unqualified armourer and someone permitted live rounds to be on set. I am not being pro or anti Baldwin, to me he is just an actor but I am serious about how justice is administered and this prosecution stank from the outset.
I think it was a waste of time and money that Alec Baldwin was indicted on any charges. He was always 100% innocent. The armourer checked that gun, and the assistant director, he was told it was a cold gun. It's not his fault in anyway whatsoever.
Baldwin wasn't the "Producer" of the film, he was an executive producer ... a big difference
Yeah. I think that's why that element got tossed. The judge knew that's just a title they give to people who put some cash into the film.
Right. My understanding is that there were 13 producers on that show. Some of them in name only, two or three of them were the money guys. It's also a way for an actor to take very low pay for his role in the film and make money on the back end of it. I believe OSHA cleared him of having any real say over what happened on the set. ❤
I love your relaxed approach to these videos. Also apprecaite the concise explanation. Thankyou
Thank you! Beautiful location- loved the sound of the sea waves at the end.
Actually the prosecution can Appeal, but there is no grounds for it. The Sheriff's department was Biased from the start they lied.
Firstly let’s get the flattery out of the way, I love your videos. Since hearing Baldwin was going to be prosecuted I’ve wondered why? Surly the criminal negligence was the armorer’s. Baldwin is just an actor and relies on the armorer telling him it’s safe. When I did A’ Level Law, many years ago, I remember the term ‘mens rea’ or ‘guilty mind’ being central in any criminal prosecution. That was totally lacking in this case.
I live in Devon and there’s lots of little bays like yours, I loved you dog walking story… beautiful dog too.
In the United States, the prosecution does not represent victims or families; the represent the People of the State or the United States as a whole depending on the court's jurisdiction.
I first came across you when you appeared on a Black Belt Barrister piece. He has recently posted about an insurance company that is failing to disclose some information. I commented the similarity with the Post Office. Now, you have explained another disclosure issue and also link to the Post Office. Perhaps we should both keep tabs on BBB's continuing efforts to have the redacted material released.
I believe there was also the factor that the prosecution was, arguably, politically influenced. A Special Prosecutor in the case was standing for election to the New Mexico House of Representatives. This did not go down well with the judge.
Alex Spiro saw the blood in the water--and went in like a shark at the end. He hammered Morrissey on her negative comments about Baldwin directly TO witnesses demonstrating--clearly--evidence supporting bad faith. Morrissey did not and could not deny. She only said she could not recall.
You're confused. He was not found innocent. The case was dismissed because of evidence that was hidden from the defense. This evidence in no way had any effect on whether or not Baldwin pulled the trigger. I do not believe the case should have been dismissed with prejudice.
He never said Baldwin was found innocent...
The case was dismissed
With your knowledge and videos you are making me a wiser person. I could listen to you all day,,,, THANK YOU 🙏 🙏
Good evening to you. Lushington.....a marvellous name and easy on the tongue. A lovely video again, keeping my interest to the end. I do appreciate your brief explanations of vocabulary as it goes along. Thank you. 😊.
In the USA the Double Jeopardy Clause in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits anyone from being prosecuted twice for substantially the same crime. Jeopardy attaches once a jury has been sworn in or when the first witness is sworn in during a bench trial. For the most part unless there is a hung jury or misconduct on the defense side the trial cannot be repeated.
Just so. And precisely because it is a constitutional provision, it can not be changed by executive policy or judicial interpretation lower than the Supreme Count - unlike (say) the UK. Even the supremes, as the final arbiter of what the constitution means, would go against the plain text only at their extreme peril.
Judge Judy eat your heart out you’ve got nothing on this guy,,,, keep it up!!!!
Seems a bizarre decision to dismiss _with prejudice_ on these grounds! Declaring a mistrial or indeed dismissing without prejudice seem like reasonable courses of action, but procedural failings on the part of the prosecution wouldn't appear to have any bearing on the material facts of the case...
Seems like an appeal would stand a good chance of reversing the decision, but to be honest I'm surprised the prosecution ever thought they had a case worth trying in the first place.
Ok, except it wasn't a 'procedural failing', it was a violation of our constitutional right to a fair trial. The part about it being 'with prejudice', I believe has something to do with the jury already being sworn in. Also, I don't think a prosecutor can appeal a case that has been dismissed. But yeah, the case seemed like kind of a stretch anyway. ❤
Two tiers of justice in America !!!
Attempting to frame someone, just like the Post office did.
So isn’t that basically the same ethical principle that Baldwin faced himself at an analogous level ? The prosecution who had personal responsibility to ensure the “safety” of the prosecution but failed because of the negligence of a subordinate charged with the responsibility of their role to disclose evidence is comparable to the role where Baldwin as producer employed someone to ensure the safety of the on set weapons.
I had been following the "Rust Trial" since this tragedy occurred. I know very little about Law, hence why I enjoy watching this channel and BlackBeltBarrister... And I know even less about US Law, but one thing I have become keenly aware of about US Law is they do love a show... US Lawyers obviously like any Lawyer are in a Business and in Business you want to get noticed to increase your profits...
So, as an outsider - My personal opinion is something never sat right about this! Could Baldwin be considered Negligent and even be considered Guilty of "Involuntary Manslaughter"? - Yes, its plausible on the face of it... Yet to me there woudl be an additional factor I woudl want to take into account had I been sat on a Jury...
as it was Involuntary - Does the defendant have any guilt or remorse? Alec Baldwin has indeed been through HELL since this incident... N matter his excuses as to him never actually pulling teh trigger, which given the type of firearm that was being used - Doubtful but it is Plausible... YES, He has more or less already been punished, he will be punished for the rest of his life! He will live with the guilt of taking a life he never intended to take!
It is unfortunate that Baldwin was holding the weapon that caused the death... But it was for want of a better word for him at least a "Tragic Accident"
As for that Evidence the Prosecution failed to disclose... I think I have kind of gave it away that I have used Prop Firearms in the past ... The props I used though you could easily tell a live round from a Blank... As the Props used a Far Lower Calibre Blank than an actual weapon of the period woudl have fired. I woudl hazard a guess that on a movie set, There should be some kind of identifying Marker on Blank Rounds - Especially when they are using what would otherwise be a "Live Weapon"
For the defence, The Question woudl be could Alec Baldwin have known just by Holding the weapon and drawing the Hammer back that what was in the Gun was NOT a Black Cartridge... And if they could have proven there was NO WAY he could have known just by a cursory viewing - Any form of Manslaughter Charge would be null and void! Manslaughter presumes that you MUST HAVE some idea that something may be unsafe... That you are being irresponsible!
But having an Armour on set - That responsibility is THEIRS!
I feel the Prosecutors were desperate to see Alec Baldwin found Guilty for reasons of media attention with no disrespect intended - Again, I understand their position, but the Trial was as so many American trials are Televised, It was going attention, and had they won... As a Business, their profits woudl have indeed benefited!
For American Viewers - Maybe now you understand why here in the UK we are still very averse to Televised Trials... Lawyers be they defence or Prosecution are there to do ONE SINGLE JOB in a Court... The Courts understand they are a Business, but in that room they are there to dispense justice... Not gain Popularity, Not increase Shareholder Interest!
I am thankful the person MOST RESPONSIBLE for these deaths has been found Guilty... The fact that there was evidence that suggested they had been using Live Rounds between Takes... TOTALLLY IRESPONSIBLE of an Armourer! That should NEVER HAPPEN, EVER!
As for Alec Baldwin, He has to live with the Guilt that he indeed did kill someone innocent... He never intended it, It should never have happened but that guilt will live with him for the rest of his life - My Honest Opinion, He should never have been on trial in the first place Except of maybe charges of Negligence and not doing enough background checks into the staff that were hired.
8:08 Hmmmm... It seems the Judge in the case might be as "Distrustful" as I am... Putting aside personal beliefs, I feel "Dismissing With Prejudice" is sending the wrong message unless the Judge has VERY GOOD REASON to believe that the Prosecution DELIEBERATLY WITHHELD this evidence!
I am very distrustful these days - I often say "Trust no one, Not even Yourself!" hence my opening lines about Being a Lawyer in the US being a Business first... Yet I find that without a definitive statement form teh Judge as to if they felt the "Lack of Disclosure was deliberate" - This in my view was a bad judgement!
What I don't understand is how an entire trial can be thrown away on the basis of a clerical error involving certain undisclosed "evidence" without any consideration of the exculpatory or probative value of that evidence? If that evidence had been filed under the correct case number it would have been disclosed to the defence. The prosecutor who took the witness stand displayed a photograph showing that the ammunition handed in was not of the same type as the fatal bullet and moreover had been in another state during the relevant time period. It doesn't seem right that the mere fact of a failure to disclose should derail a trial.
It was done deliberately
Absolutely splendid advice for Law students who are striving to become part of the legal system in the future.
Jurisprudence ... whilst important ... THIS is the reality of day to day practice ... 👍 @ Art of Law
Other people commenting on US coverage said that the random block who turned up with bullets claiming to be from Rust was a friend of the armourer's father, and was handed in after her trial in Feb / Mar '24, not soon after it happened. I just feel so sorry for the cinematographer's family. Baldwin didn't need the gun for what they were doing. He did not show any regard for gun safety, regardless of whether he believed the gun was safe or not.
ITS A MOVIE SET. It’s in general illegal to waive around a gun. Should someone be arrested for menacing or terroristic threats if they waive around a gun on a movie set? If an actor has a felony record, and is on set and has a Gun for a movie, should they be arrested for being a felon in possession of a weapon?
Using your logic, nobody can ever aim a gun at someone in a movie without being guilty of a crime.
Your comment is ridiculous. There’s no way someone on a movie set should be responsible for gun handling safety when they’re an actor doing a scene.
@@Meatball2022 Absolutely!
Garbage!
Exactly
He didn't need a gun, for filming a scene in which his character uses a gun?
It's like complaining the stunt drivers are following road safety when making a movie.
Should not have gone to trial to begin with. It was an accident, a tragic one but still an accident.
I would agree except that one has to ask, "Would a reasonably prudent person" have done the same thing? I think this is an exceptionally difficult question in this case. I have minimal experience with firearms and have never taken a firearms safety class but I would never point an unloaded gun at anyone, let alone pull the trigger. Am I the exception?
@@ScottDLR the armorer had declared the weapon safe. She bares more responsibility than him.
@@dkupke Armorer definitely bares more responsibility.
But Baldwin certainly also bared some responsibility, given his total lack of respect for gun safety rules. Whether or not it would have risen to the level of being convicted, that was the job of the jury to decide.
This was a textbook case of reckless homicide. It was not an innocent "accident", it was the result of Baldwin flagrantly disregarding several fundamental tenants of gun safety. Treat EVERY gun as loaded, regardless of what anyone else says. Never point a gun at something you don't want to destroy. Never put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire. Baldwin failed ALL of these. His actions were flagrantly reckless.
@@dkupke I agree 100%.
I know offically the defence didn't know about the ammo that was turned in but the defence lawyer knew word for word what conversation took place during the handover before the sudden appearance of the body cam footage.
What isn't that proof they had knowledge of the evidence and could have pursued it if they didn't want to use it as a means of getting the case dismissed?
Innocent and not guilty are two different matters.
Tout homme étant présumé innocent jusqu'à ce qu'il ait été déclaré coupable...
Please do more on “professional embarrassment” as it should be more widely known 😮
Wonderful . Thank you
It was astounding. I watched day 3 three times. The prosecutor seemed to unravel during the day, contradicted her witness' testimony, and continued to insist that the evidence (under consideration) was not relevant to the case. It is NOT--by law--the prosecution's determination of how the defense argues. She went legally bonkers. She left no alternative but for a dismissal.
Corruption
I did find this very interesting and informative. Thank you. My sister and I, with our children had a similar experience to your beach / sea exploration at a small inlet. Our season was Winter too, but in Australia this was winter. Waist high water was still scary for us. I enjoy your explanations scenery very much indeed.❤❤❤
You could read a telephone directory and make it sound interesting!
The mess known by some as the US Justice system has yet again, denied the victims justice but while I wanted Baldwin to answer the evidence, I fully support the Judge's reaction to one of the countless Brady suppressions US prosecutors use to railroad innocent defendants on a constant basis.
Interesting to hear the differences between the U.S. and British systems. Even in the U.S., though, Brady violations rarely lead to dismissal with prejudice. Judges have wide discretion to craft other remedies, and they often will find that the evidence in question was not material. In this case, though, the deliberate hiding of the material was considered so egregious by the judge that no other remedy would suffice. And once the jury has been sworn in, jeopardy has attached and a dismissal without prejudice isn’t possible.
Well, it's possible. But I agree, the judge made the right call here. Can't trust the investigation, evidence or the prosecutor in this case now. The cause has been burned.
One thing that bother's me, is how that "live" round ended up in that weapon?
Did someone set him up to give him a scare, and it went horrible wrong?
The hidden “evidence” consisted of another box of ammunition with a mix of live and dummy rounds supplied by Seth Kenney to the set. Seth Kenney supplied all the dummies to the Rust set.
One rumored idea is that the armorer and pals did some target shooting with the prop gun the day before, and the live rounds from that got mixed in with the dummy rounds.
@@jamesheartney9546 The Armorer wasn’t involved - it was the “Emeritus Armorer” Seth Kenney (who also supplied the all guns and dummy ammunition) who was involved. He has also been tied to the second box of mixed live and dummy round found on site (that was the evidence the prosecution hid) that caused the case to be thrown out.
Ever Given in Suez Canal pilots come under scrutiny after grounding of ship?
I dont understand how if new evidence has come forward that the judge can dismiss the case and never allow it to be retrialled! Yes I understand this case has to be cancelled because of the deceptions going on but it should be allowed to be reopened as a new case due to the evidence that was not disclosed. What about police investigations? If this is new evidence shouldn't it be reinvestigated from a police perspective?
Gorgeous backdrop 😊
Any firearms instructor will teach actors to aim away from anyone, as you will have a discharge and that it could also be live (H/S), actors that have real guns will know this ....Never point at anyone.
I would have thought it difficult to prove him guilty anyway, but since we didn't here the evidence it's hard to say. Usually it's the fault of the armourer to check and make sure the gun is loaded with blanks that will do no harm. The actor cannot be expected to be an expert in guns and bullets so would not know the difference. I would have thought, but hey, it will never be known now.
The disclosure rules are strict and long standing in the uk it doesn’t have to be deliberate failure if it’s wrong that’s it. Not allowing a retrial is perhaps unusual but fairness must be paramount
Alec Baldwin will carry the guilt of the young woman's death with him for the rest of his life. I don't think he has got away with anything.
He's wealthy, if he was on legal aid we know what the result would be.
@@andrewfrancis3591 That's not the point: You cannot run away or buy your way out of responsibility for someone's death.
@@banedon8087 I do not accept that wealthy people should be exempt from the law.
In practise who the hell are you kidding.
@@andrewfrancis3591 You misunderstand: I (and I think the OP) am saying that, despite him getting off, he cannot run away from or buy his way out of his own conscience.
@@banedon8087 That's a rich mans burden
I will sleep easier knowing that.
Alan if that ever happens again call the coastguard you could have been washed out to sea
Does a British jury HAVE to follow the judge's direction to acquit if asked to?
Interesting question. It would seem that directing the jury in any way to produce a particular verdict rather defeats the purpose of having a jury in the first place. I understand directions to disregard or understand the importance of certain things is a judge’s prerogative, but to direct a particular verdict seems senseless. Why not just dismiss the jury and return a judge’s verdict instead? I’d love it if a lawyer could explain this!
@@simontillson482it's because the jury is the only authority to say guilty/not guilty but it's the judge's duty to tell them what weight to put on evidence.
The judge can tell them that something doesn't amount to proof and they must acquit but the judge CANNOT direct them to convict.
If no reasonable jury could convict, a crown court judge will so direct.
@@DanBeech-ht7sw Oh, ok. I guess that makes a lot of sense, thankyou.
Even more so. I’ve seen a judge issue what we call a JNOV. Judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The judge can also issue a directed verdict, but not for guilt. Most dismissals happen before trial. I’ve gotten several. I won numerous suppression motions, resulting in dismissals, and two motions to dismiss, and one motion to strike numerous counts. So yeah, this is unusual but not unheard of.
The judge could have ruled it a mistrial. However, the prosecution had established a pattern of disclosure violations. Interestingly, the defense knew about this disclosure failure ahead of the trial but took a different approach this time, waiting until after the jury was seated and jeapardy had attached.
It’s a small legal distinction, but dismissing charges does not declare him innocent. There is no innocent verdict in the legal system there is only a guilty or not guilty verdict. Dismissing charges typically means that they were invalid charges to begin with or they don’t have the proof that they can bring to court to win a guilty verdict.
This is the best channel 🎉
Where did the "innocent" come from? The charge was dismissed on the basis of procedural definitions. He has neither guilty nor innocent.
That is because, until being found guilty by a jury of his peers, he is legally innocent.
Everybody who has not been convicted is legally innocent.
The post office shows why the American system is fundamentally more reasonable in this particular regard
Silly case, the films armourers are surely responsible, and in good faith Alex Baldwin just did what the script said, he's an actor, not a murderer
But he appointed them at least legally
He pointed a gun at a human without checking it, on a film set where live ammo was known to be used, and then he pulled the trigger, he bears some responsibility
@@lesigh1749 That's a moral case. But Lady Justice is blind to such, if the Prosecution's not been transparent. As it is, he may not suffer jail, but his life as a pariah outside may make him wish otherwise.
@@JelMain Anyone not connected would have been convicted of manslaughter or at very least negligent homicide. he is protected, pure and simple.
@@lesigh1749 Very plausibly, but that's America, nearly as bad as Russia. The UK should cut ties.
How very interesting. Thank you so much for explaining this. Already, I've been seeing a lot of commentary online that the judge's dismissal of the case was the elites defending one of their own. I don't like Alec Baldwin and I feel that he holds 'some' responsibility for the accident on his set as producer. That said, I like to be fair in my judgements and I felt from the very beginning that to accuse a man of murder just because he happened to be the one to pull the trigger was wrong when one weighs the circumstances of this tragic accident. I believe this was an accident or, at worst, negligence by the armourer. A live bullet on a film set should have never even existed. I don't think that even the armourer should have been convicted for this crime, however awful it was for the innocent victim. I think everyone in this tragedy was a victim of something .... incompetence, negligence (to some extent), sheer accidental inclusion of the fatal bullet among the dummies and blanks. I think this was just one of those flukes of fate, where something goes wrong when it shouldn't have. Can you blame anyone for an accident? I don't think so. I'm glad, in a way, that Alec Baldwin's case was dismissed, no matter how nasty a narcissistic individual he might be. It would have been a worse injustice to convict him of a crime that he never really committed.
Correction required, (if you wish.)
Access to the beach/mining tunnel must be at low tide, not high tide as stated.
Add caption to correct ?
By the way, I love your northern accent, and I am proud of you for retaining it, especially in your profession where it could be a disadvantage for you.
Where are you from ?
Wow, this guy really sucks at analogies! No, Mr. Baldwin didn't shoot anyone. He says he didn't pull the trigger, and no evidence suggests otherwise. The gun was there for a movie, not to shoot someone. The fact that live ammunition was anywhere on-set was the inexcusable breach of conduct, not Mr. Baldwin's acting.
Making a movie is nothing like operating a ship. But if you want to draw parallels, the DIRECTOR is like the ship's captain. It's a poor analogy, but since you made it, the producer would be akin to the ship's owner. And the owner isn't criminally responsible for the misconduct of a licensed crew. Under no circumstance would a ship's captain ever be held criminally responsible for an underling who disobeyed orders. That's not how chain of command works.
OTOH if a ship's captain (this time the licensed prosecutor) steered her ship to try to harm an innocent person in a lifeboat, that _is_ a crime with malice of forethought.
In films guns are used with the understanding that they are safe as when guns are handled as if the are always dangerous and loaded but how could you ever film a shoot out were guns are always treated as safe to show the needed realism of a real shoot out that’s why you have a armorer to assure this he could only be found guilty if he knew this person was incompetent
He was not practicing , he was actually filming a scene. That is why the director and the DOP were hit, they were standing where the camera was filming to see the view of the scene ass filmed.
Regarding his demeanour when the dismissal was announced, you can’t judge his physical reaction because it was not a pre-meditated act. He pulled the trigger in the act of playing a role as an actor in a scene. From footage that has been released through the press (which IMO should not have been), you can clearly see he is shook up and feels guilt as he was the one holding the gun, so from his personal experience he will feel guilt without any admission of guilt. He also has been (unfairly IMO) put through the ringer in this case unfairly as he was filming a scene and it was during that act that the gunshot happened.
The only possible reason to prosecute him would be in his role as producer on the movie, and they were not doing that as there are more than one producer on the movie and they all should have been prosecuted.
The entire trial has been a sham show trial against Baldwin by prosecutors to raise their own profile. The evidence that was suppressed and hidden away is evidence of how the live rounds got onto the set, and therefore presents strong doubt that it was Baldwin that did this and gives a very plausible way for the defence to create doubt, and point the finger at any number of other people as the culprit. It was a crucially devastating piece of evidence and had it been known when he was charged would likely not have not gone ahead with the trial because of said doubt. So this evidence being hidden shows how much the trial was all about the prosecutor’s PR status and not about finding justice.
Though the armourer has been found guilty in her trial, IMO she is guilty for failing to ensure the gun did not have live ammunition in it, but her conviction should be investigated further as if this evidence was not present for Baldwin’s trial, then it was likewise not present for hers. She failed it her job, but having found live ammunition on the set it raises the question if this was done by someone maliciously and intentionally, in which case the argument can be made that someone circumvented her role - and not knowing those bullets had been found would have affected her defence strategy had those been in evidence. I’m not saying her conviction should automatically be quashed, but she clearly did not receive a fair trial, it raises doubt about that prosecution and needs to be investigated.
No, it was a rehearsal. You are incorrect.
@@ace6285 Correct, it was rehearsal. And even during filming, you NEVER point the gun towards someone. As the movie gun expert on HGR trial explained, if they want a shot pointed at a camera, they will use mirrors or remote controled camera to get that, but you just NEVER EVER point a real gun (empty or not) towards a person. That's the first and most important of the gun safety rules.
@@ace6285It was filmed.
The bullet went through the camera lens.
@@daedalron I’ve seen thousands of film where they point guns AT other actors? What is the utter rubbish everyone is claiming?
@@ace6285 was sure I remember reading it was during a take which is why both the DOP and the director were standing in close enough proximity in front of Baldwin that the bullet passed through her and hit him as the gun was aimed in their direction for the camera angle?
"Cold Gun.."
Multiple Concordance theory , when a series of un lightly events coincide and result in an out come that happens too be overly convenient to a particular party or interest . Nothing to see here move along . 😊
It was called Rust, not Dust.
in the real world you never point a gun at anybody. A movie set is a rarified place where some rules are different. You only want experts responsible for the safety of guns. The last person to check the weapon should be an expert, not an actor who may not know what they are looking at. Saying "the actor should check the gun" adds a weak link to the chain.
How do you know what you defense is, necessarily, when you don't have all the evidence? That in itself is prejudicial against the accused
The theory is you know whether you did it or not. So you can say "i wasnt there" or "he threw the first punch" etc.
I am still not convinced that the bullets, which were never present on the movie set, should be considered as material evidence in this manslaughter case. I cannot even consider these bullets as exculpatory evidence in this manslaughter case. How does the sourcing of these bullets affect the potential criminal negligence or recklessness of Alex Baldwin? While I agree that the prosecution has made mistakes, dismissing the case without prejudice seems more severe than mishandling this less significant evidence.
You just stated the reason. It's not up to you to decide anything about the evidence. Just like it wasn't the prosecution's job to make that decision. It was the jury's. That's why the judge threw the whole case out with prejudice.
@@kathleenmccrory9883 I agree that it is not the prosecution's job and I agree the prosecution failed to follow the procedures. I agree they should be reprimanded and fined. However, it must be shown objectively that missing evidence must be exculpatory and material evidence for the Judge to dismiss without prejudice.
1) this evidence was miscataloged and not properly disclosed
2) This was uncovered and requires judicial action
3) and this is my point, the judge must this evidence to be exculpatory & material evidence... this is where I can follow the logical outcome
It is like dismissing a hit and run manslaughter case but the prosecution failed to disclose the gas station receipts on where the gas comes from...
@@goaway2013 Ah, I see your confusion. This wasn't a failure to follow procedures, it was a violation of our constitutional rights to a fair trial. I've seen the State statues on dismissing cases on these grounds and normally the defendant would have to show that the evidence was fundamental to their case in some way or that there is obvious bad faith on the part of the prosecutor. After listening to the witnesses the judge found “If this conduct does not rise to the level of bad faith it certainly comes so near to bad faith to show signs of scorching.”
The prosecutor who resigned and the one who testified are two different people. Pat pat to the Hound.
Really if you have to ask why its rather silly its basically a case of intention if you intend to kill thats very different from someone playing with a gun that leads to a death if you assume the weapon was non lethal then why would you be held accountable of a crime, if a child picks up a water pistol and some has put in a type of caustic soda would the child be a mammer of others of course not.
It’s ridiculous to use real guns for a stupid movie
He wasn't found innocent. The trial was canceled for prosecutorial misconduct. Baldwin pointed the gun and pulled the trigger, two actions that were unsafe and inappropriate for what was to be a blocking sequence. His recklessness killed Halyna. I feel sorry for her family.
Thank you.
Rust (not Dust)
I followed this trial on YT,, @6:55 A mistrial they already had last year , jury could not come to to a full agreement , hence 👉🏻 mistrial,,
this trial occasion was a 👉🏻 retrial , and the non-disclosed /hidden evidence which was brought into the trial and examined the box with document enclosed with ammunition , it found that the bullets did NOT come from that gun ,
hence if they had that evidence at the first pretrial , there would be NO TRIAL,
the evidence and document of examination findings ,, was logged on another previous trial ,,,, see below trial also not disclosed
then of another trial on the same location of a woman found guilty of putting live ammunition on the tray,,, and found guilty ,and serving a sentence in prison ,, now why was this not disclosed AT that trial of that woman convicted ,this will now be brought up of that conviction proves that lady would not be found guilty or even went to trial,,
the problem with some of the state in USA , better too pleased guilty for lesser sentence even if you did not commit that office
hence in UK PACE was introduced , (with code of practice ) even that gets abused
Heads are going to roll here ,, especially there was a "conspiracy between proception and 3 police officers "" caught on BWV 🤷♂
on this case
hence as it was the 2nd trial and hidden evidence was not from the guns used ,, Judgement had to be "without prejudice "
it would only be torturous procedure to have a 3rd trial until they get what they want 🤷♂
love your watching your platform , squire , thankyou 👍🏻👌
I wonder if the prosecution or a prosecution team member made the so-called mistake on purpose because they thought that morally Alec Baldwin had no case to answer but the law forced the issue. In other words, was the prosecution scuppered deliberately?
Nice conspiracy theory, but no prosecutor would deliberately destroy her career (and risk jail) to save Baldwin from a couple of years of probation.
I wouldn't think so. You'd have to have numerous law enforcement personnel and people in the DA's office in on it. Also, there are pretty severe consequences for what they did. I think it's far more likely that the 'crew' and their PR firms are working together behind the scenes. The day this blew up, Hannah Gutierrez Reed was supposed to testify. I suspect that means that she was brought in from her 'temporary housing' to the local jail and might have been able to talk to somebody.
I can see a massive weakness in with this prejudice. What would happen if it was subsequently found that the disclosure lawyer had taken a bung.
@@janegardener1662 Bribe, lol sorry.
@@andrewfrancis3591 it’s over. Cry more.
@@andrewfrancis3591 in general, yes, that's a possible concern. There have been cases where the prosecution of the case has almost certainly been sabotaged. That one with the American rapper murder trial imo looked like an instance to me. But I don't think this one.
@@andysPARK Thanks I remember that one.
Was posting more as a general comment.
I personally think wealth, connections political and legal are grounds for close scrutiny.
Certainly before dismissing the case with prejudice.
It also emerged during the trial that the prosecutor had been present at the law enforcement meeting where it was decided to file the new evidence under a different case number. The general view seems to be that she’s likely to be sued for doing that.
That was law enforcement being idiots just for the hell of it. And she went along with it because she thought they were on her side. (She never thought leopards would eat her face....)
Oh, yeah! That was crazy! Lying as a prosecutor is bad enough but taking the stand and lying under oath cooked her goose. I wouldn't be surprised if Baldwin sued the state for malicious prosecution and apparently because she took the stand he might be able to sue her personally. SMH, that was nuts.
It was a stage prop, not a gun. Pointing it and pulling the trigger were irrelevant because he had no reason to think it was dangerous.
it was a functional firearm and there's plenty of footage of AB using it to fire blanks.
a prop is *any object* used in a play or a movie.
AB acknowledged even the danger of blanks being used.
"Cold Gun".
No blanks, no danger to anyone... If only it had been true.
It should have been. Or the weapon rendered inert (and easily verified as such). It wasn't. It was live. They used a live firearm, didn't inert it, didn't check the rounds and then he pointed it at someone and pulled the trigger.
It was a functioning gun. You are incorrect.
It was a real weapon. It had been modified to make it easier to pull the trigger, potentially to the extent that it could have fired without the trigger being touched as contended by Baldwin. However this was impossible to test in court as the gun was significantly damaged during initial testing. Further, the blank ammunition once loaded was effectively identical to the live rounds that were in fact loaded. Baldwin, not knowing that live rounds were present on set could not be held criminally responsible.
There's no plausible theory of the case in which Baldwin, in his capacity as an actor, would have been responsible for live rounds being in the prop gun. Some have suggested he should have checked the gun himself, which flies in the face of longstanding safety practices with firearms on a film set. Actors are not expected to be gun experts (Baldwin isn't), and having them opening up and checking magazines is actually forbidden. Baldwin was told this was a safe prop, and he handled it as such. He should never have been charged.
There is the other theory of the case in which Baldwin would have been responsible for the armorer given he was a producer (note: A producer, not THE producer; there were multiple producers on the film, including another who hired the armorer). This was already dismissed before the whole suppressed evidence issue came up. I'll repeat - Baldwin never should have been charged in this case.
Totally agree. The armourer was the only one responsible for gun safety on set. Nobody else. To even suggest that Baldwin was disregarding safety in any way is a complete misnomer. It was not his responsibility. Whether the armourer should be expected to recognise a live round vs a dummy round is a totally separate issue, and was settled separately. Baldwin should never have been charged.
@@simontillson482 I read somewhere that the armourer was using cocaine. Is there any truth on this?
@@jono1457-qd9ftA woman testified at her trial that Hannah gave her a baggie to hold for her... but of course she destroyed the evidence like everybody else on that side was doing! Apparently the police didn't do any drug testing.
Ah, yes... Gabriella Pickle. Line producer, hired and oversaw the crew including the props Department. I believe she was the one on the 911 call. It seems like maybe she stopped for a little pow wow to decide who they would point their finger at to blame before making the call.
It's not Alec Baldwin's fault that the evidence was not disclosed. But not allowing a retrial seems a bit extreme.
It's the law. It's to discourage other prosecutors from being similarly stupid. They are not the determiners of fact in a trial, the jury is. All evidence must be disclosed. No trial by surprise.
As much as I'm unsure of the concept of double jeopardy, I think it's right to punish prosecutors in this way. Without serious consequences for nondisclosure, you effectively make it fine, as even if you get caught, you just get to go again. However, that sort of system doesn't work as well when you have the ability to privately prosecute too.
@@janegardener1662 Then fire the prosecutor or cancel their license.
@@rndompersn3426
Yes, as well as dismissing the case with prejudice.
{:o:O:}
@@rndompersn3426 then alot of lawyers would be fired lmao
Beautiful dog, beautiful place. Great vlog. Thanks.
Loadsa money cures most things.