MnSpring wrote on 01/20/23 at 19:00:30:



I was trying to figure out the DFI...............  

Best regards,

I suspect he will be found guilty and get the softest sentence possible........

Best regards,

"  I suspect he will be found guilty and get the softest sentence possible  "

He probably will.

Yet if he was,
Joe Blow from Cocomo,
The book would thrown,
and he would spend most of his life in Prison.

Let's see,
  two Cops kill someone.
One is in absolute, 'RACIST', Cold Blood.
One was doing what he was taught to do.

One gets 22 years in Solitary.
One gets less than 4 years in a Country Club Prison.

  Can you guess which one got what ?

IDK, I Think I saw something about the gun broke in testing and was
Destroyed..

 Charges have been dropped against Baldwin "without prejudice" which is good at least.

"Come now, the State of New Mexico, by and through special prosecutors Kari T. Morrissey and Jason J. Lewis, and enters a nolle prosequi in the above-numbered and styled cause, as new facts were revealed that demand further investigation and forensic analysis which cannot be completed before the May 3, 2023, preliminary hearing, the case is dismissed without prejudice and the investigation is active and on-going.”


 It looks like the pistol had been modified on the set.  This opens the door for the potential that it could have fired without trigger compression.  The words "potential" and "could have"... if Observed... will indicate that this assessment is NOT saying it "DID" happen, or any known words synonymous with the word "DID".  This statements means in exclusivity that an event might have happened, and as such must be recognized by the US Judicial system in this particular case.

 The DA, and law enforcement forensics did not acknowledge the potential firearm modification.  If Observed, the word "potential" means a percentage exists of the action happening, not a statement that it DID actually happen.

 This post is information about the actions of the New Mexico D.A, and reasoning for those actions at this time, and are in no way a "defense" or opinion of any kind as to what happened on a movie set I was nowhere near at the time.

Who do you think he PAID off ?

 Nobody.  I think the evidence provided is what happened.  The gun was allegedly altered so they are postponing the charges to avoid a mistrial/unfavorable outcome due to knowledge of evidence change.

 It would be pretty stupid for the Prosecution to have documentation of evidence change and ignore it for the trial.

"... The gun was allegedly altered ..."

Alteration of MOST things, do not change the function of that thing.
Take a RED Car that came from the factory, then the dealer put a Blue stripe on it, It is 'Altered' !!!!!!!!

A Firearm can have all sorts of, Alterations, that DO NOT AFFECT FUNCTION.

"...This opens the door for the potential that it could have fired without trigger compression ..."
So the FBI was incorrect when it tried it's hardest, and found that gun could not be fired, WITHOUT PULLING THE TRIGGER !!!!



No need to explain what, "allegedly" means.
  (Oh Wait, BOT thinks it is a fact)

That line sounds a LOT like DEFENSE !

"... which is good at least ..."

 Your insistence to provide a false narrative about my comments supersedes your ability to have a productive and honest conversation, and you obviously don't have an understanding about what the words I posted mean, in context, to how the US Judicial system works.

 I think it is a 'good" thing they can press charges against Baldwin again.  That's what "without prejudice" means.  



A Firearm can have all sorts of, Alterations, that DO NOT AFFECT FUNCTION.

 That's true.  Given the zero evidence we have on this, your assessment that the alteration did not disrupt function is 50% accurate.  Until we have evidence of the alterations, we can just imagine up scenarios out of thin air.



"So the FBI was incorrect when it tried it's hardest, and found that gun could not be fired, WITHOUT PULLING THE TRIGGER !!!!"

 Oh so now the FBI are experts that should be trusted and are completely competent.  

 I may be wrong but I will assume that the humans engaged in the actual trial, handling the actual evidence, that actually know what things like "without prejudice" means, know more about this trial than people reading about it on the internet.

 If the prosecution has NEW evidence that indicates, to them, they should further analyze and prepare that evidence for a successful trial, I say go for it.