Chris Shelton talks again to the Masterson trial jury foreman — and his daughter

George2

Member
I was wrong in my post above in so many ways - this is the video that woke me up. It is well worth watching if you want to know why it ended in a hung jury.

Aaron does similar things he accuses Tony of. He throws Nina under the bus, with no evidence. Sure it is a possibility but he acts so sure as if he knows everything. He excuses himself as not a journalist. But we want the truth. Also, I feel it is disingenous to pretend that the "prosecution side" of the subject was a major player who asked Tony to wait to publish the interview. Yes Aaron lists all the possible parties it could be at the beginning but not repeating that makes it sound that it is the prosecution or Jane Does themselves. He should not let his deep animosity towards Tony color this video without ever revealing what other problems were. We just have to assume the Aaron is telling the truth with no evidence.. I do agree that Tony should have done his due diligence as to Earl. If true that he threatened Jane Does, that is unforgivable. Is it true? One thing more on my rant on Aaron's video. I have heard Aaron say that someone is referring to himself in some response with no evidence that he would reveal. We are supposed to believe Aaron's claims just , well , just because! I enjoy his videos but he jumps to conclusions way too easily. Was Tony referring to his comment about a pretty black woman? I doubt that seriously. I especially like Aaron when he talks with the attorney. I am glad Aaron is helping people escape Scientology but he is too sure of himself for my liking. A good point of this video is that Tony didn't do due diligence but way too much speculation for my liking.
Rant over.
 

mimsey borogrove

Well-known member
Aaron does similar things he accuses Tony of. He throws Nina under the bus, with no evidence. Sure it is a possibility but he acts so sure as if he knows everything. He excuses himself as not a journalist. But we want the truth. Also, I feel it is disingenuous to pretend that the "prosecution side" of the subject was a major player who asked Tony to wait to publish the interview. Yes Aaron lists all the possible parties it could be at the beginning but not repeating that makes it sound that it is the prosecution or Jane Does themselves. He should not let his deep animosity towards Tony color this video without ever revealing what other problems were. We just have to assume the Aaron is telling the truth with no evidence.. I do agree that Tony should have done his due diligence as to Earl. If true that he threatened Jane Does, that is unforgivable. Is it true? One thing more on my rant on Aaron's video. I have heard Aaron say that someone is referring to himself in some response with no evidence that he would reveal. We are supposed to believe Aaron's claims just , well , just because! I enjoy his videos but he jumps to conclusions way too easily. Was Tony referring to his comment about a pretty black woman? I doubt that seriously. I especially like Aaron when he talks with the attorney. I am glad Aaron is helping people escape Scientology but he is too sure of himself for my liking. A good point of this video is that Tony didn't do due diligence but way too much speculation for my liking.
Rant over.
Thanks - good points.

For all of the good Tony does, he does have a shark to feed, and perhaps that's part of his problem. You may recall when Phil was going to do the billboard, Tony posted about it, thus alerting OSA, who forced Phil to find another location after they threatened the billboard company. In his rush to scoop a story, he aided Scientology. The things Aaron is pissed about currently is late on the chain.

Really, why not hold off the Earl interview a few days? If he was in fact asked not to publish and he did anyway - dicey.

Mimsey
 

mimsey borogrove

Well-known member
What I am really curious about is the affidavit Earl filled out - is it an attempt to duck responsibility?

Mimsey
Earl was contacted by Cohen et al a few weeks ago, and he provided them with the affidavit which they in turn, tried to use it to sway the Judge to drop the case. This is what Aaron meant by he was were helping the defence. His doing that really paints a clear picture: he was not an impartial juror.

Mimsey
 

marra

Well-known member
How does someone become jury foreman? Is it just a case of "Anyone who is willing to be foreman, raise your hand"?
 

Karakorum

Ron is the source that will lead you to grief
I was wrong in my post above in so many ways - this is the video that woke me up. It is well worth watching if you want to know why it ended in a hung jury.

Yeah, that's the one thing I did not know. That someone from the prosecution asked Tony not to publish the interview before the court makes a ruling about whether or not to retry Danny.

If they did and Tony declined, then he's lost his wits. And I have no reason to believe that Aaron is making any stuff up. I read many of Aaron's KRs and knew him from other PAC stuff and of all the "ex-scn celebs" he is the one I would trust above anyone else. Above Tony, above Leah, above Mike.

Also for the record: Either I missed it (I may very well have, I'm kinda overworked this month), but Aaron never mentioned who it was from the prosecution side who asked Tony to wait with the interview. Maybe there's a reason he doesn't do that (for example if it was Leah than he might not wanna give scn more ammo in the vein of: "OMFG Leah is always behind everything!!")

So I doubt tehre's anything nefarious to hide, but I do want to acknowledge that I still don't have the full picture and thus I want to suspend any further judgement.
 

mimsey borogrove

Well-known member
Yeah, that's the one thing I did not know. That someone from the prosecution asked Tony not to publish the interview before the court makes a ruling about whether or not to retry Danny.

If they did and Tony declined, then he's lost his wits. And I have no reason to believe that Aaron is making any stuff up. I read many of Aaron's KRs and knew him from other PAC stuff and of all the "ex-scn celebs" he is the one I would trust above anyone else. Above Tony, above Leah, above Mike.

Also for the record: Either I missed it (I may very well have, I'm kinda overworked this month), but Aaron never mentioned who it was from the prosecution side who asked Tony to wait with the interview. Maybe there's a reason he doesn't do that (for example if it was Leah than he might not wanna give scn more ammo in the vein of: "OMFG Leah is always behind everything!!")

So I doubt tehre's anything nefarious to hide, but I do want to acknowledge that I still don't have the full picture and thus I want to suspend any further judgement.
I haven't heard him mention it either. Perhaps he wants to protect his source. He just lumped them together so as not to point the person (s) out.

It's an interesting point he made - had Tony waited, he would have had a bigger story of Cohen using Earl's affidavit to request the charges dropped. The other point - him not being objective, not doing his due diligence in verifying his anonymous source, and thus uncovering the lies Earl was spouting in the interview, that he was a former cop, lying about his son's age and the sexual charges levied against him was a disservice and a breach of ethics.

Mimsey
 

Karakorum

Ron is the source that will lead you to grief
I haven't heard him mention it either. Perhaps he wants to protect his source. He just lumped them together so as not to point the person (s) out.

It's an interesting point he made - had Tony waited, he would have had a bigger story of Cohen using Earl's affidavit to request the charges dropped. The other point - him not being objective, not doing his due diligence in verifying his anonymous source, and thus uncovering the lies Earl was spouting in the interview, that he was a former cop, lying about his son's age and the sexual charges levied against him was a disservice and a breach of ethics.

Mimsey
Also, I just realized: If scientology (or just Danny's defence team) manages to sneak in another such "ineligible" juror that THEY know is shady but the DA does not... they can use that to great effect. How? Well look at the two scenarios:

1. Jury acquits Danny or is another hung jury. Then the defence keeps their mouth shut about the "ineligible" juror.
2. Jury convicts Danny. Then the defence jumps up and says: "Hey, we just found out this was an ineligible juror. We thus ask for a mistrial

What I'm getting at is: IF scientology somehow rigs the jury selection process, trhen the repercussions could be FAR more severe than what I first though.
 

mimsey borogrove

Well-known member
Also, I just realized: If scientology (or just Danny's defence team) manages to sneak in another such "ineligible" juror that THEY know is shady but the DA does not... they can use that to great effect. How? Well look at the two scenarios:

1. Jury acquits Danny or is another hung jury. Then the defence keeps their mouth shut about the "ineligible" juror.
2. Jury convicts Danny. Then the defence jumps up and says: "Hey, we just found out this was an ineligible juror. We thus ask for a mistrial

What I'm getting at is: IF scientology somehow rigs the jury selection process, trhen the repercussions could be FAR more severe than what I first though.
I don't think Miscavage is too interested in jury tampering. Other than the blowback if it is traced back to Scientology, when you look at all of the focus the church has on their public's sexual deviation - at FLAG you see people wandering around looking for signatures on their liability formulas because they beat off and it came up in sec checks, I think, to some extent Miscavage is content to let Danny's chips fall where they may.

I am certain he hopes it goes away with minimal negative pr, and is hoping Scientology doesn't become an even bigger elephant in the room when the retrial happens.

I think the defence is more problematic than Scientology - they have no problem distorting the truth to get their client off. More than once Jane
Doe said X and Cohen called it Y changing the import of her X to whatever he was pushing.

It's not about the truth coming out or justice being served, it's about winning the chess game over the opposing counsel. Danny and the Jane Does are pawns in Cohen's game.

Mimsey
 
Last edited:

George2

Member
Yeah, that's the one thing I did not know. That someone from the prosecution asked Tony not to publish the interview before the court makes a ruling about whether or not to retry Danny.

If they did and Tony declined, then he's lost his wits. And I have no reason to believe that Aaron is making any stuff up. I read many of Aaron's KRs and knew him from other PAC stuff and of all the "ex-scn celebs" he is the one I would trust above anyone else. Above Tony, above Leah, above Mike.

Also for the record: Either I missed it (I may very well have, I'm kinda overworked this month), but Aaron never mentioned who it was from the prosecution side who asked Tony to wait with the interview. Maybe there's a reason he doesn't do that (for example if it was Leah than he might not wanna give scn more ammo in the vein of: "OMFG Leah is always behind everything!!")

So I doubt tehre's anything nefarious to hide, but I do want to acknowledge that I still don't have the full picture and thus I want to suspend any further judgement.
agreed, I don't think it's something nefarious. we don't know if he was asked by the prosecution or someone else. In the beginning of the video Aaron lists all the possible "prosecution side" types of people. I doubt the prosecution itself asked Tony to hold off publishing or Aaron would have said it was the prosecution but instead he says the prosecution side of things. I feel like it is disingenuous of Aaron to state "prosecution side" when it really isn't the prosecution. He could have chosen other words but he wanted to leave the impression it was the prosecution, imho.
 

Karakorum

Ron is the source that will lead you to grief
I think, to some extent Miscavage is content to let Danny's chips fall where they may.
If that was the case, he would have settled the civil suit and told all scientologists not to testify in favor of Davey. And if they are absolutely called to testify, they should just tell the truth.
Seeing how that one scientologist witness behaved on the stand, I have no reason to believe Davey is content to let Danny sink.

I would have thrown Davey under the bus long, long ago if I was in Davey's shoes. But for some reason (fear of Danny's family and blowback in hollywood maybe?), he ain't doing that.

I think the defence is more problematic than Scientology - they have no problem distorting the truth to get their client off. More than once Jane Doe said X and Cohen called it Y changing the import of her X to whatever he was pushing.
It's not about the truth coming out or justice being served, it's about winning the chess game over the opposing counsel. Danny and the Jane Does are pawns in Cohen's game.
To be fair, isn't that what attorneys do? They interview witnesses in such a way as to twist the testimony to fit their own narrative. David Boies does it, Kevin Downey does it. I'm under the impression that the vast majority (if not all) high profile attorneys do it.

I still think it is slimy, but at the same time I do not get the impression that what Cohen was doing was in any way out of the ordinary in his profession. But what do I know, I'm not a criminal case lawyer.

I feel like it is disingenuous of Aaron to state "prosecution side" when it really isn't the prosecution.
I really doubt it is disingenuous. Knowing Aaron he's either protecting the source, or he is not saing it because it could hurt the retrial.
 
Last edited:

mimsey borogrove

Well-known member
I have won some court cases, and been on the losing side of others for a variety of reasons, some spurious, and so I have come to think if you expect justice from a court, you're naive or delusional. One case I lost, the judge told me what a wonderful job my lawyer did on my behalf. Bastard. They are all part of the club, and I wasn't.

Mimsey
 

Karen#1

Well-known member
He didn't answer these questions honestly which were part of the questionnaire given to potential jurors. His son was arrested for a sex crime.

View attachment 20135


Also, there was another question inquiring as to whether he's had any contact with the police.

He himself was a cop and had daily contact with other cops, but he failed to disclose that.
There is no evidence after multiple searches at PI level of internet search that he was a cop.
It is very rare that a cop with a resume of a cop would end up a mere security guard which he now is.
If anyone can find any evidence that he was a cop (Other than Nina saying so) please post on this thread.
 

Type4_PTS

Well-known member
There is no evidence after multiple searches at PI level of internet search that he was a cop.
It is very rare that a cop with a resume of a cop would end up a mere security guard which he now is.
If anyone can find any evidence that he was a cop (Other than Nina saying so) please post on this thread.

I don't know if Earl was a cop or not, but he said that he was in that last interview he did with Chris Shelton. That's very odd that he would say such a thing if it wasn't true.


Excerpt:

Chris:
The question that is basically being raised, bluntly, is your credibility because of a failure to report the thing with your son? You know, in a sexually charged case like this, how could there not be a conflict of interest there? What are your thoughts about that?

Earl: Whatever questions I answered, I answered truthfully. I didn’t omit or add anything. There was even one question they asked, do I have any friends or family in law enforcement? I had one friend in the CBP. And that was that, that was true. They never asked me if I was a former police officer or not, which I was, but they didn’t ask me that. But on the one that I answered, it asked me if I had any contact with police, prior convictions, arrests, whatever. And I gave them an instance in 1996 where I had contact with police and during voir dire the judge asked me about it, I said what it was. And she goes, OK, we’re fine. And they moved on. So that was it.
 

Lee #28

Well-known member
^^^^^^
I don't know if Earl was a cop or not, but he said that he was in that last interview he did with Chris Shelton. That's very odd that he would say such a thing if it wasn't true.


Excerpt:

Chris:
The question that is basically being raised, bluntly, is your credibility because of a failure to report the thing with your son? You know, in a sexually charged case like this, how could there not be a conflict of interest there? What are your thoughts about that?

Earl: Whatever questions I answered, I answered truthfully. I didn’t omit or add anything. There was even one question they asked, do I have any friends or family in law enforcement? I had one friend in the CBP. And that was that, that was true. They never asked me if I was a former police officer or not, which I was, but they didn’t ask me that. But on the one that I answered, it asked me if I had any contact with police, prior convictions, arrests, whatever. And I gave them an instance in 1996 where I had contact with police and during voir dire the judge asked me about it, I said what it was. And she goes, OK, we’re fine. And they moved on. So that was it.

Purple highlight.....

So....actually working for the police.....and sitting in a cop car or at a desk.....surrounded by fellow police officers....perhaps having a beer after work with fellow officers.....would not be considered "contact with police?"

Guy sounds loony....in his justifications.
 

Type4_PTS

Well-known member
If anyone can find any evidence that he was a cop (Other than Nina saying so) please post on this thread.
I couldn't find any evidence with a quick search. Is it possible that there would be no public acknowledgment of him being a cop if he did undercover work or was in some other sensitive position?

I did find this and have no idea what the case is about nor do I know if it is even the same person. (it could be Earl's son or someone else completely). But just posting it so it can be looked at to see if it possibly reveals anything.


Earl S. Battice Vs. Alhambra Police Dept.
State Civil LawsuitSuperior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. GC020211
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
..
There is no evidence after multiple searches at PI level of internet search that he was a cop.
It is very rare that a cop with a resume of a cop would end up a mere security guard which he now is.
If anyone can find any evidence that he was a cop (Other than Nina saying so) please post on this thread.

Here is some evidence from 2015 of Battice having been a Los Angeles cop—with his photo to confirm it is the same Earl Battice that served as jury foreman in the Masterson trial.

Also evidence he worked as bodyguard for Michael Jackson. Possible connection to Scientology there since Jackson was married to Lisa Marie Presley and Jackson was directly connected to Scientology too, as they were trying to recruit him.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

LINK TO WEBSITE:
American fan gets Manny Pacquiao attention, autograph thanks to cool '47-1' shirt
by SNOW BADUA
APR 27, 2015



Earl Battice proudly shows off his '47-1' shirt signed by Manny Pacquiao. Snow Badua

LOS ANGELES - A former bodyguard of the late 'King of Pop' Michael Jackson gave Manny Pacquiao a smirk as the black American fan asked the Pinoy fighter to sign his shirt with a huge '47-1' printed at the back.
“Oh 47-1 to ah,” Pacquiao told the tall American named Earl Battice to the delight of the members of his team.
The 47-1 represents the record that Mayweather will end up with if he loses to Pacquiao in the so-called 'Fight of the Century' to be held at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas on May 2 (May 3, Manila time).
Battice bared that he got his shirt from a Filipino friend who designed it to include a play on Floyd Mayweather’s 'The Money Team (TMT) logo, which was turned into TFL for 'The First Loss.'
“I got this shirt from a friend. And I loved it. I know it will happen on Saturday. Mayweather’s gonna get some beating,” said Battice, a former US Army Serviceman and Los Angeles Police.

The outspoken Charlotte native said it was a joy to meet Pacquiao for the second time. “He (Pacquiao) looked at it (47-1 shirt) and said, ‘Oh, that’s nice,’ so I said thank you very much. He signed it, and he said, ‘Thank you very much.' And I said, ‘No, thank you very much,'” recalled the American in between giggles. “That’s one of the reasons why I root for Manny, his humbleness, he stopped because I asked him. I said, ‘Hey, will you sign?' then he stopped his entourage and he signed my shirt and he shook my hand,” he added. Asked why he is rooting for Pacquiao and not for countryman Mayweather, Battice said: “I like what Pacquiao does for his people. I like his humility. I prefer Pacquiao. Mayweather is a great fighter, but I don’t like his arrogance. “It’s not about your nationality and compatriotism, it’s about who your heart chooses, and with this I choose Manny.”

. . .
 
Last edited:

Type4_PTS

Well-known member
Hey this is a good find. Could be the son ?
One would hope in any jury that the person made the foreman would be very TRUTHFUL no ?


Had Masterson been convicted the defense attornies could have used the dishonesty of the jury foreman to get the verdict overturned.




Excerpt:
So what happens when, after a conviction, it is revealed that a juror concealed material facts or lied about his or her past?

As early as 1933, Justice Benjamin Cardozo, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, declared that a juror who lies his way into the jury room is not a juror at all. “If the answers to the questions are willfully evasive or knowingly untrue, the talesman, when accepted, is a juror in name only.” Cardozo continued, “His relation to the court and to the parties is tainted in its origin; it is a mere pretense and sham.”

California courts have also recognized the fundamental importance of juror honesty. One of the first California cases to consider a juror’s concealment of material facts is People v. Blackwell, decided in 1987. Blackwell, who was charged with killing her husband, presented a battered-wife defense based on a long history of abuse at the hands of her alcoholic husband. During voir dire, Juror R denied any experience with alcoholism or physical abuse in her family. After Blackwell’s conviction, it came to light that Juror R had been abused by a former husband who became violent when drinking and that she believed the defendant should have handled the problem without resorting to violence.
Blackwell’s new trial motion argued that Juror R’s failure to reveal her prior experiences proved bias. The 1st District Court of Appeal agreed and reversed Blackwell’s conviction, finding that the juror was intentionally dishonest when she falsely answered a specific, unambiguous question.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
..

There is also an EARL BATTICE that lists himself online under a recently inactive networking site:

Earl Battice
Security Director at Universal Services of America


That entity ("Universal Services as America") has other information indicating it does Private Investigations, which is consistent (i.e. doing PI work) with someone like Battice who was a former policeman and bodyguard.


..
 
Last edited:
Top