I'm So Disappointed In You: Celebrity Missteps

[Notabug]

29 minutes ago, Milburn Stone said:

Can someone explain something to me? I fully agree that the prosecutors are the bad guys here. And I have to admit I just plain feel good that Alec Baldwin's nightmare is over. (He's brought me too much pleasure over the years for me to feel any other way.) But what bearing does it have on the case whether the bullets in the gun came from the armorer or the prop master?

I think we'll find out as the armorer Hannah Guttierez-Reed, is undoubtedly going to try to get her conviction reversed.  I don't think it matters what the evidence was or if it would've been able to prove Baldwin's innocence, it only matters that the prosecutor never informed the defense that they had this evidence which meant the defense wasn't able to investigate it to see if it was helpful or not.

From what I understand, a friend of Gutierrez-Reed's father, went to the police with several bullets supposedly from the same gun which were provided to production by the company that supplied the arms for the movie.  The owner of that company has denied that any live ammunition was ever supplied to the set, only unloaded weapons.  I presume that, had Baldwin's attorneys known that these bullets existed, they could've tried to assert that it was the fault of the gun supplier and not anyone on the set, that there were live rounds in the gun.  That the reason that Baldwin couldn't possibly have known the rounds were live is because nobody but the gun supplier knew.  Or something along those lines.

The part that is shady is that the prosecutor, having heard about these bullets and receiving the police report detailing their relevance to the case; decided not to place them in evidence for the shooting investigation, but, instead, opened a completely separate and distinct file for the information, not even cross referencing it in the prosecution's files for the Hutchins's case.  Either the prosecutor was highly incompetent or he/she didn't want the defense to know this information.  So, presumably, the prosecutor, at least, thought the bullets would not help them gain a conviction.  Very, very suspect and against all the rules.  The prosecutor, of course, says the bullets turned in after the shooting do not resemble the live rounds found on the set on the day of the incident which makes one wonder why they were so careful to keep them a secret.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Blergh]

I wish there was a way that the prosecution would be compelled to make an abject public  apology to the injured Joel Souza and, especially, to the family and other loved ones of the late Halyna Hutchins for how their evident botching of the evidence and  apparent not following legal protocols re sharing discovery with the defense IMPLODED the case involving Mr. Baldwin. If they HAD behaved professionally and followed  legal protocols, I believe that the case would have had a very different outcome - and I'm leaving it at that!

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Irlandesa]

2 hours ago, Notabug said:

I think we'll find out as the armorer Hannah Guttierez-Reed, is undoubtedly going to try to get her conviction reversed

Possibly but from what I've been reading, it sounds like her lawyers were aware of these bullets because they were brought in during her case. 

55 minutes ago, Blergh said:

If they HAD behaved professionally and followed  legal protocols, I believe that the case would have had a very different outcome - and I'm leaving it at that!

I don't know that it would have other than it might not have been brought to court.  It's hard to know what a jury would have done but the judge had already decided Baldwin's producing role couldn't be taken into account since it was clearly defined to some creative roles.  His producing role wasn't responsible for hiring the armorer or ensuring on-set safety.  He was being tried as the actor holding the gun, which he was given by the AD who assured him that it was cold.  From what I understand, the AD took a plea.  And the armorer was convicted. 

[Milburn Stone]

7 hours ago, Notabug said:

From what I understand, a friend of Gutierrez-Reed's father, went to the police with several bullets supposedly from the same gun which were provided to production by the company that supplied the arms for the movie.  The owner of that company has denied that any live ammunition was ever supplied to the set, only unloaded weapons. 

@Notabug, thank you for the entirety of your incredibly helpful reply.

From the above quote, I'm inclined to give a little bit of credence to the theory that the prosecution was just stupid and incompetent rather than evil. Why? Because @Irlandesa then shared that this evidence was brought into Guiterrez-Reed's case, and as we know she nevertheless was found guilty and sentenced. So the prosecution could have thought, "The existence that live bullets came from the prop master is a matter of public record and made no difference in the outcome of the G-R case, why could/should it make a difference in the Baldwin case?"

Edited July 13 by Milburn Stone

[merylinkid]

3 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

From the above quote, I'm inclined to give a little bit of credence to the theory that the prosecution was just stupid and incompetent rather than evil.

This was deliberate.   It's ammo related to a current case and you decide to give it its own file and separate case number?   So when the time comes to turn over all evidence, a search would not turn it up.   I would have believed incompetence if it were mistakenly misfiled.   Happens all the time.   But the testimony yesterday was the prosecutor herself went to the police station and told the evidence tech to put it in a different file.   That's deliberate.   That's knowingly concealing evidence.   She knows how the system works when turning over evidence.   She took deliberate, affirmative steps to hide the evidence.   

This is bad, very very bad.   Like career ending, disbarment bad.   The really scary part, happens all the time.   Just most people don't have an attorney with the resources to pursue it, or the luck to have it blurted out in open court, AND have a judge to take it seriously.   Most judges go "well we know about it now, so how about we give you half an hour to review this new evidence and prepare for cross."  

As for what difference does it make, I'm not sure for Hannah Gutierrez Reed.   Because it was still her responsibility to check the ammo before loading the guns.   But for Baldwin, big deal.   Because if it is presumed a prop supplier would be careful and never send live ammo, AND you believe the armorer checked (because its literally their job), you have no reason to know there are live rounds in the gun.    So you behave as a prudent person would in that situation.   This was negligence, so the element is "prudent person in that situation."    

What freaked me out is it came out that Jensen Ackles had a live round in his gun too.   No one knew until the investigation.   This could have been a whole lot worse.   

[Notabug]

4 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

@Notabug, thank you for the entirety of your incredibly helpful reply.

From the above quote, I'm inclined to give a little bit of credence to the theory that the prosecution was just stupid and incompetent rather than evil. Why? Because @Irlandesa then shared that this evidence was brought into Guiterrez-Reed's case, and as we know she nevertheless was found guilty and sentenced. So the prosecution could have thought, "The existence that live bullets came from the prop master is a matter of public record and made no difference in the outcome of the G-R case, why could/should it make a difference in the Baldwin case?"

The problem with that line of thinking is that it is unethical/unprofessional for a prosecutor to leap to conclusions as to what a jury might do, especially in a separate case.  The prosecutor doesn't get to decide whether the evidence is crucial to guilt or innocence, the jury does.  When the prosecutor told the staff to separate the file on the bullets from everything in Baldwin's case, meaning his lawyers wouldn't be given the files and wouldn't have the opportunity to use the evidence to defend him; it was a grave error and totally out of bounds.   The prosecution wasn't required to use the evidence in presenting their case, but they were required to allow the defense the same chance to decide on it, too.

Edited July 13 by Notabug

[Notabug]

33 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

This was deliberate.   It's ammo related to a current case and you decide to give it its own file and separate case number?   So when the time comes to turn over all evidence, a search would not turn it up.   I would have believed incompetence if it were mistakenly misfiled.   Happens all the time.   But the testimony yesterday was the prosecutor herself went to the police station and told the evidence tech to put it in a different file.   That's deliberate.   That's knowingly concealing evidence.   She knows how the system works when turning over evidence.   She took deliberate, affirmative steps to hide the evidence.   

This is bad, very very bad.   Like career ending, disbarment bad.   The really scary part, happens all the time.   Just most people don't have an attorney with the resources to pursue it, or the luck to have it blurted out in open court, AND have a judge to take it seriously.   Most judges go "well we know about it now, so how about we give you half an hour to review this new evidence and prepare for cross."  

As for what difference does it make, I'm not sure for Hannah Gutierrez Reed.   Because it was still her responsibility to check the ammo before loading the guns.   But for Baldwin, big deal.   Because if it is presumed a prop supplier would be careful and never send live ammo, AND you believe the armorer checked (because its literally their job), you have no reason to know there are live rounds in the gun.    So you behave as a prudent person would in that situation.   This was negligence, so the element is "prudent person in that situation."    

What freaked me out is it came out that Jensen Ackles had a live round in his gun too.   No one knew until the investigation.   This could have been a whole lot worse.   

Yes, exactly this.  And there are multiple government employees who heard the prosecutor say exactly that; that the bullets and the file were to be completely separated from Baldwin's file.  Why?  Both cases pertained to the same incident involving the same gun.  This is Law School 101 in rules of evidence.  It is hard to make a case that it was an inadvertent mistake.  I believe a couple of the people who were told to file it that way questioned it because it was not the way these things are handled and, even though they weren't lawyers, they knew it wasn't proper.  Hence, the judge had no choice.  Tampering with evidence is tampering with evidence and nobody can be allowed to get away with it.

[cynicat]

The prosecution was definitely incompetent, but as I said in another thread, the fact that they couldn't prosecute him as a producer likely impacted their whole strategy.   That was a mistake on the prosecution, because they should have either charged all the producers or none.  I think that's what they were hanging their hats on.

As to the bullets that were not shared with the defense, I can't help but wonder about chain of custody.  Someone off the street brings in live bullets and says they were from the set of Rust.  How do they know that for sure?  I thought chain of custody was a really big deal. It still doesn't mean that info shouldn't have been shared.  What a clusterfuck.

[Mabinogia]

Well, I hope Baldwin paid her a very hefty sum to blow up her career in order to get his case thrown out. IDK if that's what happened, but it is the only thing that makes any sense as to why she would bother hiding evidence that was used in the other case and did not end up swaying a jury. 

It just doesn't sound like this particular bit of evidence would have made much difference, so why the hell did she bother trying to hide it? It's very strange. I am glad it got discovered because regardless of how insignificant the evidence was, the hiding of it is very telling of how this prosecutor does her job and that should definitely be reviewed. 

 

[Notabug]

13 minutes ago, cynicat said:

The prosecution was definitely incompetent, but as I said in another thread, the fact that they couldn't prosecute him as a producer likely impacted their whole strategy.   That was a mistake on the prosecution, because they should have either charged all the producers or none.  I think that's what they were hanging their hats on.

As to the bullets that were not shared with the defense, I can't help but wonder about chain of custody.  Someone off the street brings in live bullets and says they were from the set of Rust.  How do they know that for sure?  I thought chain of custody was a really big deal. It still doesn't mean that info shouldn't have been shared.  What a clusterfuck.

Chain of custody begins once law enforcement collects the evidence.  It is up to the police to question the person presenting the evidence as to how it was obtained and do their best to verify all the facts.  The guy was a friend of Guttierez-Reed's father, I am sure he didn't go to the police trying to get her convicted.  The cops knew that too, from the start.  That's when the detectives get out there and track it down and figure out if the witness is telling the truth and the evidence is as expected.

If you watch true crime shows, there are plenty of cases where someone discovers evidence after the fact and turns it in to the police.  Whether it's a pair of bloody boots or a knife found in the bushes someplace, it is the job of the police to figure out whether it could be evidence in the case and gather the corroborating details.  If they weren't able to link the bullets to the gun that killed Hutchens, as the prosecution claimed, then a report debunking the friend's statement should've been submitted along with the information that the bullets existed and the original witness statement.

 

Edited July 13 by Notabug

[Notabug]

21 minutes ago, cynicat said:

The prosecution was definitely incompetent, but as I said in another thread, the fact that they couldn't prosecute him as a producer likely impacted their whole strategy.   That was a mistake on the prosecution, because they should have either charged all the producers or none.  I think that's what they were hanging their hats on.

Exactly, which is why they should've thought twice about making Baldwin the only producer named in the suit.  There is no way on God's green earth that anyone in a jury would be believe that Baldwin was a hands-on producer with the duty to make sure the prop supplier, armorer and the rest of the crew were up to snuff.  And, even reports that it was a very low budget, cost cutting production doesn't make him any more guilty that any other producer.  I doubt he was on set monitoring the budget and instituting cost cutting measures by himself. He is an arrogant asshat from what I've seen, but that doesn't make him responsible.

The fact that one of the special prosecutors in the case resigned before the judge even made the ruling, because she believed that the error was insurmountable and the state should dismiss the case rather than continue with the trial is also telling.  Apparently, she felt strongly that they couldn't continue and her fellow prosecutor overruled her and insisted they proceed which led to the judge's ruling.  Had the state dismissed the case before the judge ruled, they could've potentially re-filed in the future; now, they can't.

Edited July 13 by Notabug

[Shrek]

13 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

Can someone explain something to me? I fully agree that the prosecutors are the bad guys here. And I have to admit I just plain feel good that Alec Baldwin's nightmare is over. (He's brought me too much pleasure over the years for me to feel any other way.) But what bearing does it have on the case whether the bullets in the gun came from the armorer or the prop master?

I'm only speculating here as I have never shot a gun or held a bullet but I would expect the armorer to know the difference between a real live bullet & a blank bullet while a prop master might not have any idea which was which & would have to ask an expert (the armorer) to find out which was which unless already told that the bullets were all blanks. 

Anyway the prosecution was ridiculous & should never have been brought. The prosecutor was just trying to make a name for herself IMO.

[Dimity]

54 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

It just doesn't sound like this particular bit of evidence would have made much difference, so why the hell did she bother trying to hide it?

I doubt it was to do Baldwin any favours.  Sounds like she was trying to make a name for herself.   

 

55 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

Well, I hope Baldwin paid her a very hefty sum to blow up her career in order to get his case thrown out.

If I were to suspect she was on the take (which I don't)  it wouldn't be Baldwin's bank account I'd be checking.

[Lugal]

1 hour ago, cynicat said:

The prosecution was definitely incompetent, but as I said in another thread, the fact that they couldn't prosecute him as a producer likely impacted their whole strategy.   That was a mistake on the prosecution, because they should have either charged all the producers or none.  I think that's what they were hanging their hats on.

Especially since according to IMDB, Baldwin was credited just as a producer, not an executive producer or a line producer either of which would have more control over the production.

[Makai]

43 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

Well, I hope Baldwin paid her a very hefty sum to blow up her career in order to get his case thrown out. IDK if that's what happened, but it is the only thing that makes any sense as to why she would bother hiding evidence that was used in the other case and did not end up swaying a jury. 

It wasn’t just one person that hid it. The lead on the case said the decision to use a different case number was based on conversations between her, her supervisors and the special prosecutor. 
I think it’s more likely that this whole thing was political than bribery. 

 

17 minutes ago, Dimity said:

If I were to suspect she was on the take (which I don't)  it wouldn't be Baldwin's bank account I'd be checking.

Yep. 

[merylinkid]

2 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

Well, I hope Baldwin paid her a very hefty sum to blow up her career in order to get his case thrown out. IDK if that's what happened, but it is the only thing that makes any sense as to why she would bother hiding evidence that was used in the other case and did not end up swaying a jury. 

Prosecutors fail to turn over evidence all the time.   It's just usually not so blatant or they don't get caught.    It's not they are paid to throw cases, its that winning becomes everything.   Regardless of the rules.    Prosecutor did it because she wanted to convict Baldwin more than she wanted do the right thing.

[Irlandesa]

13 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

Why? Because @Irlandesa then shared that this evidence was brought into Guiterrez-Reed's case, and as we know she nevertheless was found guilty and sentenced. So the prosecution could have thought, "The existence that live bullets came from the prop master is a matter of public record and made no difference in the outcome of the G-R case, why could/should it make a difference in the Baldwin case?"

I apologize for the confusion.  The bullets were NOT used by the prosecution or defense in the HGR case.  They were only brought in around that time. I've read, but cannot confirm, that HGR's lawyers knew about them (probably because the guy who brought them in knew her dad) and thought they wouldn't help her case.  The friend then brought them to the NM authorities which is when they officially should have been a part of the case and turned over to Baldwin.  Instead, they were never investigated or tested, but rather filed in a separate case file. 

They might have helped Baldwin.  They might not have.  They might have even helped HGR for all we know but the lawyer was either not the brightest bulb or they knew they didn't have the resources to do the required testing/investigation on them. If her lawyers knew about them, then what happened in the Baldwin case won't matter to her conviction.

8 hours ago, cynicat said:

The prosecution was definitely incompetent, but as I said in another thread, the fact that they couldn't prosecute him as a producer likely impacted their whole strategy.   That was a mistake on the prosecution, because they should have either charged all the producers or none.  I think that's what they were hanging their hats on.

I think the title producer looks like everyone is equally responsible but I thought she said they couldn't use his producer title against him because each of the 13 producers had specific responsibilities and his had nothing to do with the crew.  If every producer had contractually specific roles, she probably would have dismissed the cases against any producer who didn't have that responsibility. 

8 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

Well, I hope Baldwin paid her a very hefty sum to blow up her career in order to get his case thrown out. IDK if that's what happened, but it is the only thing that makes any sense as to why she would bother hiding evidence that was used in the other case and did not end up swaying a jury.

I suspect prosecutors do this kind of thing all the time.  I've watched enough crime shows to know that the mentality of many cops and prosecutors is focused more on winning than justice.  In fact, once they suspect they've found the person, they can feel disincentivized to make sure they investigate all angles because a defendant can use anything else they discover, relevant or not, to paint alternative theories of a crime.  People with money can fund independent investigations.

Their decision to file the bullets in another case file is easily explained by looking at how they've over-aggressively prosecuted this case from the beginning.  In fact, both Baldwin and HGR were initially charged under a stricter version of the law that hadn't been the law at the time of the incident. 

Edited July 14 by Irlandesa

[Makai]

28 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

I apologize for the confusion.  The bullets were NOT used by the prosecution or defense in the HGR case.  They were only brought in around that time. I've read, but cannot confirm, that HGR's lawyers knew about them (probably because the guy who brought them in knew her HGR's dad) and thought they wouldn't help her case.  The friend then brought them to the NM authorities which is when they officially should have been a part of the case and turned over to Baldwin.  Instead, they were never investigated or tested, but rather filed in a separate case file. 

They might have helped Baldwin.  They might not have.  They might have even helped HGR for all we know but the lawyer was either not the brightest bulb or they knew they didn't have the resources to do the required testing/investigation on them. If her lawyers knew about them, then what happened in the Baldwin case won't matter to her conviction.

The friend was on the defense’s witness list for HGR’s trial but they didn’t have him testify. So it seems very likely they were somewhat aware. HGR’s lawyer is claiming he didn’t know the bullets weren’t tested until the issue came up in the Baldwin case and says he is going to file for a new trial. It will be interesting how that shakes out and how much her lawyer actually knew. 

[Makai]

5 hours ago, Lugal said:

Especially since according to IMDB, Baldwin was credited just as a producer, not an executive producer or a line producer either of which would have more control over the production.

One of the articles I read included a quote from an industry person that producer credits are handed out like tic-tacs. 

A few years back my brother invested to a small production company and now has a handful of executive producer credits even though he had very little involvement with the actual production. 

[Mabinogia]

I was only joking about him paying her off. If it really was to make a name for herself, well done, you are now going to be known for being shady and untrustworthy. good job. 

I do think the case was doomed from the start as, while Baldwin is a producer, he's most likely just a vanity producer rather than hands on. Many actors have in their contracts that they get a producer credit. 

Culpability, to me, lies in the armorer and whoever hired her. There are certain jobs that just shouldn't be nepo hires. Dealing with deadly weapons should be one of them. 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

10 hours ago, Shrek said:

I'm only speculating here as I have never shot a gun or held a bullet but I would expect the armorer to know the difference between a real live bullet & a blank bullet while a prop master might not have any idea which was which & would have to ask an expert (the armorer) to find out which was which unless already told that the bullets were all blanks.

There's been plenty of evidence right along that the armorer was incompetent, a nepotism hire that they got on the cheap, and I'm not even sure Reed's father can be given much 'blame' unless we want to hold him responsible for not teaching her better habits when it comes to firearms. Low pay or not, she's supposed to be a professional, and I don't think Baldwin was aware of exactly how bad someone could be at their job.

[merylinkid]

14 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

There's been plenty of evidence right along that the armorer was incompetent,

Even if she is granted a new trial based on this new evidence, I just don't see it going differently.   She was just that bad at her job that I think a jury is going to convict on ngelgience again.   So the prop guy sent over live ammo mixed in  with the blanks, how did she not notice and send back the live ones?   Or at least document the issue if the producers wouldn't let her send them back.

[Mabinogia]

31 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

Even if she is granted a new trial based on this new evidence, I just don't see it going differently.   She was just that bad at her job that I think a jury is going to convict on ngelgience again.   So the prop guy sent over live ammo mixed in  with the blanks, how did she not notice and send back the live ones?   Or at least document the issue if the producers wouldn't let her send them back.

Yeah, it's literally her job to catch shit like that. Unless this is an ep of CSI and someone secretly slipped live bullets into the gun after she handed it to the actor, this is on her. And I do not believe for a second that that scenario happened. This wasn't some complicated murder, it wasn't a freak accident, it was negligent homicide on the part of the person whose job it was to keep the cast and crew safe from weapon related activity.

[Notabug]

3 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

Yeah, it's literally her job to catch shit like that. Unless this is an ep of CSI and someone secretly slipped live bullets into the gun after she handed it to the actor, this is on her. And I do not believe for a second that that scenario happened. This wasn't some complicated murder, it wasn't a freak accident, it was negligent homicide on the part of the person whose job it was to keep the cast and crew safe from weapon related activity.

That's the whole thing, there was a ton of evidence that she was too busy partying to follow the rules and her inability to recognize live bullets from blanks was part of a long chain of negligent behavior on her part.  Even if those bullets somehow came from a different source, there are very stringent rules for armorers on movie sets and she should've caught it long before anyone else handled that gun (or the other one which also had live ammo in it at the same time).

[akg]

On 7/13/2024 at 12:27 PM, Mabinogia said:

I am glad it got discovered because regardless of how insignificant the evidence was, the hiding of it is very telling of how this prosecutor does her job and that should definitely be reviewed. 

I'm glad it was discovered for this reason but also because this was a high profile case and it's good to remind other prosecutors they can get caught doing this kind of thing and there will be consequences. Plus, there are a lot of people who now know about this rule that didn't last week and being aware might help protect them in the future.

[AimingforYoko]

When your rendition of the national anthem is so bad you have to go into rehab.

[Palimelon]

I guess Roseanne can breath a sigh of relief, then, as she is no longer the celebrity with the worst rendition of the national anthem anymore?

[Trini]

4 hours ago, AimingforYoko said:

When your rendition of the national anthem is so bad you have to go into rehab.

Guess it's a good thing I've never heard of this person before?

[Makai]

4 hours ago, AimingforYoko said:

When your rendition of the national anthem is so bad you have to go into rehab.

The singer best know for a song called Wishful Drinking has a drinking problem?

[Blergh]

50 minutes ago, Makai said:

The singer best know for a song called Wishful Drinking has a drinking problem?

You mean, she wasn't talking about looking forward to sipping milk or juice?

Seriously, I hope she gets the help and doesn't get overwhelmed by the replays of one of her  . . .worse intonations. .

[andromeda331]

15 hours ago, Palimelon said:

I guess Roseanne can breath a sigh of relief, then, as she is no longer the celebrity with the worst rendition of the national anthem anymore?

Wow, I didn't think anyone could top that. 

[Crashcourse]

4 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Wow, I didn't think anyone could top that. 

How about Fergie?  The looks on the players' faces were hilarious.

 

[DearEvette]

Naw.  Fergie's was terrible.  But at least she stayed on key (mostly). 

Hilariously, someone wrote a book rendition of Fergie's version and it is hysterical!!

 

 

[Palimelon]

Quote

How about Fergie?  The looks on the players' faces were hilarious.

"This is supposed to be in English, right?"

 

[proserpina65]

On 7/12/2024 at 11:22 PM, AimingforYoko said:

I always side-eyed this prosecution and that was before the Brady violation.

I figured it was doomed from the moment the judge ruled that the prosecution couldn't include their claim that it was partly Baldwin's role as a producer which made him responsible for the accident.  That was their only real argument.

[Palimelon]

Was Baldwin an actual producer, or was it just one of those in-name-only titles some actors work into their contracts for extra $$$?

[Crashcourse]

1 hour ago, Palimelon said:

"This is supposed to be in English, right?"

 

All she needed was a stripper pole.  The players would have loved that! 🤣

[Notabug]

3 hours ago, Palimelon said:

Was Baldwin an actual producer, or was it just one of those in-name-only titles some actors work into their contracts for extra $$$?

It seems like he had a little more involvement than that, but he wasn't the one who hired the armorer or ordered her to cut corners or whatever it was that went wrong here.  He wasn't on-set as a safety expert to monitor the production.

[Jaded]

Jeffrey Dahmer Victim's Family Calls Ariana Grande 'Sick' for Naming Murderer Her Ideal Dinner Date

[Spartan Girl]

2 hours ago, Jaded said:

Jeffrey Dahmer Victim's Family Calls Ariana Grande 'Sick' for Naming Murderer Her Ideal Dinner Date

I mean…did she even take a minute to think about that before she said it out loud?!?

[Notabug]

1 hour ago, Spartan Girl said:

I mean…did she even take a minute to think about that before she said it out loud?!?

If you read the article, she was asked the question at a meet and greet by some little kid. Her answer was that, as a child, she was fascinated by serial killers and wanted to meet Dahmer to explore his thought process.  Good lord!  She even said that her parents ultimately explained about serial killers in detail and she then stopped wanting to meet them.

I am sure her PR people prepped her for the press conference.  Asking celebs who they admire and would like to meet is not unusual. It's hard to believe that she wasn't briefed at some point on how to answer this question.  For sure, no one told her to reference serial killers.  

I've seen her interviewed a couple of times, and while she's not the sharpest tool in the shed, she seemed to have some common sense.  I guess not.

[bluegirl147]

4 hours ago, Jaded said:

Jeffrey Dahmer Victim's Family Calls Ariana Grande 'Sick' for Naming Murderer Her Ideal Dinner Date

 

1 hour ago, Spartan Girl said:

I mean…did she even take a minute to think about that before she said it out loud?!?

She said it on a podcast and the above article doesn't give any details.  Was she asked who her ideal dinner date would be?  Did she explain why he would be her ideal dinner date?  For someone who is 31 yrs. old I find her very immature.  She has been in show business long enough to know not to say stupid things.

 

Edited to add now that I know the details I guess I was right about her being immature.

Edited July 18 by bluegirl147

[Cobalt Stargazer]

On 7/16/2024 at 12:54 PM, AimingforYoko said:

When your rendition of the national anthem is so bad you have to go into rehab.

I almost choked to death.

[BetterButter]

Sean Kingston Facing Decades in Prison Following Indictment Over Wire Fraud Charges

Quote

Sean Kingston and his mother were indicted in Miami federal court today in connection with a $1 million wire fraud scheme. If convicted, both face up to 20 years in prison for each of the six charged counts.

 

[merylinkid]

Remember Ariana Grande and the donut licking thing?   This is who she is.   A little twerp who thinks she funny when she does stuff like this.  It's a little past time she grow up.

[Wiendish Fitch]

On 7/18/2024 at 10:48 AM, Jaded said:

Jeffrey Dahmer Victim's Family Calls Ariana Grande 'Sick' for Naming Murderer Her Ideal Dinner Date

When the hell are people in the public eye going to learn to think first, talk later?

 

32 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

Remember Ariana Grande and the donut licking thing?   This is who she is.   A little twerp who thinks she funny when she does stuff like this.  It's a little past time she grow up.

While I grudgingly admit Ariana is a heckuva singer, she seems like an unbearable human being. 

Edited July 20 by Wiendish Fitch

[SunnyBeBe]

On 7/13/2024 at 2:31 PM, merylinkid said:

Prosecutors fail to turn over evidence all the time.   It's just usually not so blatant or they don't get caught.    It's not they are paid to throw cases, its that winning becomes everything.   Regardless of the rules.    Prosecutor did it because she wanted to convict Baldwin more than she wanted do the right thing.

Prosecutors rarely get any consequences for their behavior.  Usually, a dismissal or an overturned conviction is the worst that happens.  It’s disturbing for sure.  

[Vermicious Knid]

Chris Brown at it again. 

Chris Brown, entourage accused of brutally beating North Texas concert-goers in $50 million lawsuit

Quote

 

After the show, the four plaintiffs, and roughly 40 women, were invited backstage to Chris Brown's VIP area, an event promoted and marketed by LiveNation, according to the lawsuit filed on behalf of the four plaintiffs by The Buzbee Law Firm...

Just before leaving, Plaintiff One approached Brown to shake his hand and congratulate him on a good show, stating "Good show, it's been a while, but I'm glad to see you are doing well. It's been a long time since I have seen you." 

Brown shook the man's hand and replied, "Hey, yeah it has been, and I appreciate it." 

A member of Brown's entourage then said loudly to Brown, "Man, you don't remember you two were beefing," court documents state.

Brown then allegedly picked up a liquor cup and responded, "Oh yeah, we were. What's up, n****? I don't forget s***." 

The R&B singer then allegedly told his entourage to "f***" the man "up." 

Hearing this, Plaintiff One tried to get his friends and leave; however, Brown and approximately seven to 10 members of his entourage followed them into the hallway and began to beat them, the lawsuit alleges...

Brown, three members of his entourage and LiveNation are named in the lawsuit, which seeks $50 million for compensatory and punitive damages.  

The lawsuit states that LiveNation failed to ensure that concertgoers who may be around Brown and his associates were safe.

 

[Palimelon]

‘Greed, power and fame’: inside pop music’s biggest Ponzi scheme.

A new Netflix docuseries spotlights Lou Pearlman, the man behind the Backstreet Boys and ‘NSync – and a criminal mastermind.

[Soapy Goddess]

What a horrible man. His actions resulted in at least one suicide and multiple broke investors.