The Danny Masterson Trial thread

[Karakorum]

While we have a lot of separate threads linking to various commentators and bloggers, I feel that perhaps isntead of discussing the same thing over 10+ disjointed threads, we can do it in one place. Here.

So, the trial begins next Tuesday.


Danny must be enjoying some last moments of rest & relaxation. Perhaps doing some exercise or maybe some light reading to cheer himself up?

I think I might have some books I could suggest to him:

 

[onceuponatime]

I hope the trial goes well and the victims get the justice they deserve.

 

[La La Lou Lou]

don't pick up the soap in the shower!

 

[Tanchi]

Maybe Donkey Punch can do a reality show from behind bars.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

..

THE DANNY MASTERSON TRIAL

PREDICTION FOR
DAY # 1

..



​

 

[Karakorum]

Aaron Smith-Levin video. I'm linking to a specific point in it, as I feel it might be interesting to discuss:

Aaron: "There's gonna be people testifying in this trial who the world has never heard from before. I'm talking SO members who were personally involved with dealing with the aftermath of what Danny did. I expect them to be testifying and these are people who do not have experience dealing with this stuff - the pressure of sitting on the stand. I expect these people to fold like cheap lawn chairs."

I wanted to bring you attention to this part, because that's one of the few items I would tend to disagree with Aaron. Maybe the SO members working in CC had it easier than the rest of us? But SO life is tough, you get used to being yelled at, accused of stuff you didn't do, being asked horrible questions... I'm no lawyer, but I feel like these are people who are more likely to be able to stand up to cross-examination, hard questioning and court pressure than the average Joe.

On top of that, I'm 100% sure scientology's in-house lawyers are gonna coach them and drill them 24/7 on what to expect and what to say. In short: I doubt they will fold easily if at all.

Not that it would necessarily derail the case even if each and every SO member stands firm never reveals anything big. I'm under the impression that the evidence already in the possession of the prosecution against Danny is pretty strong as it is.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Aaron: "...and these are people who do not have experience dealing with this stuff - the pressure of sitting on the stand. I expect these people to fold like cheap lawn chairs."

I wanted to bring you attention to this part, because that's one of the few items I would tend to disagree with Aaron. Maybe the SO members working in CC had it easier than the rest of us? But SO life is tough, you get used to being yelled at, accused of stuff you didn't do, being asked horrible questions... I'm no lawyer, but I feel like these are people who are more likely to be able to stand up to cross-examination, hard questioning and court pressure than the average Joe. On top of that, I'm 100% sure scientology's in-house lawyers are gonna coach them and drill them 24/7 on what to expect and what to say. In short: I doubt they will fold easily if at all.

.
You seem overly-impressed with Sea Org members' willingness to lie.

Sea Org members have a mythology about themselves, that they are "tough sons of bitches". If they were actually "tough" they would not be docile marks & masochistic slaves are who are so fearful of the outside world that they willingly give up their personal freedom in order to perform like pet monkeys for violently abusive organ grinders & gurus.

Aaron's expectation that they will "fold" on the witness stand is not simply a function of whether they are willing to lie. Of course they are willing to lie. But that's an entirely different subject than what happens when subjected to a brilliant cross examination that exposes their inconsistencies, contradictions, "acceptable truths", "shore stories" and other cheap Hubbardian deceptive gimmicks. What works inside an org (against other Scientologists) doesn't work well against professional, seasoned, hardcore litigators who have trained their whole lives to break down and expose criminals who think they are the smartest people in the room.

Criminals, con men, cultists and other perpetrators of fraud can go for a long time outside of a courtroom with nothing more than clever sounding lies. But if you've ever been directly involved in litigation vs. professional liars, you would know that "there are levels to this thing". Scientologists believe they are "total cause" liars, but that's all outside of the intense pressures and high-powered spotlight of a courtroom--in front of a judge, jury and under penalty of perjury. In fact, Scientologists and Sea Org members are very bad liars--which accounts for all their losses in court and decades of being afraid to sue anyone for the very reason that their lies crumble under the crush of facts and viewable evidence.

Even the slickest world-class con artists frequently fold under the tonnage of evidence. As mentioned, "there are levels to this stuff" and Scientologists' lying is at the very lower end of the lying scale near the label "RANK AMATEUR". LOL

Folding doesn't necessarily imply that they are willingly flipping and giving up their co-conspirators. Folding can simply mean that they are caught in their lies and react with inordinately lame sputtering and other embarrassing crimson-faced excuses when their testimony is impeached. It's quite a spectacle to watch.

If anyone doubts that Scientology witnesses will frequently "fold" on the witness stand, just look at the infamous litigation the cult launched vs. Debbie Cook. Cult management was so terrified after some of Cook's testimony that the COS "folded" even before they called their first lying Sea Org witness. And the cult offered many millions of dollars to the party they were suing (Cook) to settle the case. That's how weak Scientologists are in court...they fold even before they are given a chance to lie--because they can see already that their TR-L lying technology is not going to work in the slightest. In that moment of reckoning, Scientologists always fold. They romanticize the event and don't use the word "Fold"---they call it "Disconnection", LOL.

..

 

[mimsey borogrove]

Well, lying predicates knowledge of another truth. It's long been said the best liars are those that don't know they are lying. So they may be telling the version of the truth they believe.

The next thing is they don't want to end up on the RPF for saying the wrong thing.

The third thing is the "I know every inch of his body" problem. If they all parrot the same line - it won't be lost on the jury.

Mimsey

 

[mimsey borogrove]

.
You seem overly-impressed with Sea Org members' willingness to lie.

Sea Org members have a mythology about themselves, that they are "tough sons of bitches". If they were actually "tough" they would not be docile marks & masochistic slaves are who are so fearful of the outside world that they willingly give up their personal freedom in order to perform like pet monkeys for violently abusive organ grinders & gurus.

Aaron's expectation that they will "fold" on the witness stand is not simply a function of whether they are willing to lie. Of course they are willing to lie. But that's an entirely different subject than what happens when subjected to a brilliant cross examination that exposes their inconsistencies, contradictions, "acceptable truths", "shore stories" and other cheap Hubbardian deceptive gimmicks. What works inside an org (against other Scientologists) doesn't work well against professional, seasoned, hardcore litigators who have trained their whole lives to break down and expose criminals who think they are the smartest people in the room.

Criminals, con men, cultists and other perpetrators of fraud can go for a long time outside of a courtroom with nothing more than clever sounding lies. But if you've ever been directly involved in litigation vs. professional liars, you would know that "there are levels to this thing". Scientologists believe they are "total cause" liars, but that's all outside of the intense pressures and high-powered spotlight of a courtroom--in front of a judge, jury and under penalty of perjury. In fact, Scientologists and Sea Org members are very bad liars--which accounts for all their losses in court and decades of being afraid to sue anyone for the very reason that their lies crumble under the crush of facts and viewable evidence.

Even the slickest world-class con artists frequently fold under the tonnage of evidence. As mentioned, "there are levels to this stuff" and Scientologists' lying is at the very lower end of the lying scale near the label "RANK AMATEUR". LOL

Folding doesn't necessarily imply that they are willingly flipping and giving up their co-conspirators. Folding can simply mean that they are caught in their lies and react with inordinately lame sputtering and other embarrassing crimson-faced excuses when their testimony is impeached. It's quite a spectacle to watch.

If anyone doubts that Scientology witnesses will frequently "fold" on the witness stand, just look at the infamous litigation the cult launched vs. Debbie Cook. Cult management was so terrified after some of Cook's testimony that the COS "folded" even before they called their first lying Sea Org witness. And the cult offered many millions of dollars to the party they were suing (Cook) to settle the case. That's how weak Scientologists are in court...they fold even before they are given a chance to lie--because they can see already that their TR-L lying technology is not going to work in the slightest. In that moment of reckoning, Scientologists always fold. They romanticize the event and don't use the word "Fold"---they call it "Disconnection", LOL.

..

Well, lying predicates knowledge of another truth. It's long been said the best liars are those that don't know they are lying. So they may be telling the version of the truth they believe.

The next thing is they don't want to end up on the RPF for saying the wrong thing.

The third thing is the "I know every inch of his body" problem. If they all parrot the same line - it won't be lost on the jury.

Knowing Miscavage's penchant for micromanaging - it could go down the toilet very easily. But the focus of the trial isn't that he's a scio, but that he's a rapist. Sure Scientology will extend it's already toxic pr, but the crime is more damming.

Mimsey

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

..

Well, lying predicates knowledge of another truth. It's long been said the best liars are those that don't know they are lying. So they may be telling the version of the truth they believe. The next thing is they don't want to end up on the RPF for saying the wrong thing.

The third thing is the "I know every inch of his body" problem. If they all parrot the same line - it won't be lost on the jury.
.

..
LOL. Exactly!

I was actually going to include that example but my post was already way too long, LOL.

What happens in my experience during real trials (where the credibility of witnesses and dozens of boxes of exhibits and forensic evidence are being hotly contested) is that liars are ultimately exposed. It's a torturously long and exhaustive process, but judges and juries typically have x-ray vision that sees right through all the fancy fakeries, fugazies, F/Ns and flim-flamming flights of fancy.

..

 

[Karakorum]

Well, lying predicates knowledge of another truth. It's long been said the best liars are those that don't know they are lying. So they may be telling the version of the truth they believe.

The next thing is they don't want to end up on the RPF for saying the wrong thing.

In my career as an ethics officer, I got the impression that the best liars are precisely those who are not afraid. Anxiety reads on the meter, fear makes people more likely to trip themselves up.

The third thing is the "I know every inch of his body" problem. If they all parrot the same line - it won't be lost on the jury.

That I very much agree with. But even if they give the jury some really bad vibes while not giving away any of scientology's secrets or abuses? That's a win for Davey, regardless if they convict Danny or not.
I'm sure that Davey couldn't care less if Danny goes to jail or not. As long as the cult doesn't get a PR black eye and is kept out the spotlight, Dave should be happy.

 

[onceuponatime]

Aaron Smith-Levin video. I'm linking to a specific point in it, as I feel it might be interesting to discuss:

Aaron: "There's gonna be people testifying in this trial who the world has never heard from before. I'm talking SO members who were personally involved with dealing with the aftermath of what Danny did. I expect them to be testifying and these are people who do not have experience dealing with this stuff - the pressure of sitting on the stand. I expect these people to fold like cheap lawn chairs."

I wanted to bring you attention to this part, because that's one of the few items I would tend to disagree with Aaron. Maybe the SO members working in CC had it easier than the rest of us? But SO life is tough, you get used to being yelled at, accused of stuff you didn't do, being asked horrible questions... I'm no lawyer, but I feel like these are people who are more likely to be able to stand up to cross-examination, hard questioning and court pressure than the average Joe.

On top of that, I'm 100% sure scientology's in-house lawyers are gonna coach them and drill them 24/7 on what to expect and what to say. In short: I doubt they will fold easily if at all.

Not that it would necessarily derail the case even if each and every SO member stands firm never reveals anything big. I'm under the impression that the evidence already in the possession of the prosecution against Danny is pretty strong as it is.

I agree with you, I think for the most part SO members won't have a problem lying and they will be well drilled on the story they need to tell to protect Scientology. At the same time, I'm not sure how many SO members they'll be calling and all it takes is one person deciding they need to tell the truth.

.
You seem overly-impressed with Sea Org members' willingness to lie.

Sea Org members have a mythology about themselves, that they are "tough sons of bitches". If they were actually "tough" they would not be docile marks & masochistic slaves are who are so fearful of the outside world that they willingly give up their personal freedom in order to perform like pet monkeys for violently abusive organ grinders & gurus.

Aaron's expectation that they will "fold" on the witness stand is not simply a function of whether they are willing to lie. Of course they are willing to lie. But that's an entirely different subject than what happens when subjected to a brilliant cross examination that exposes their inconsistencies, contradictions, "acceptable truths", "shore stories" and other cheap Hubbardian deceptive gimmicks. What works inside an org (against other Scientologists) doesn't work well against professional, seasoned, hardcore litigators who have trained their whole lives to break down and expose criminals who think they are the smartest people in the room.

Criminals, con men, cultists and other perpetrators of fraud can go for a long time outside of a courtroom with nothing more than clever sounding lies. But if you've ever been directly involved in litigation vs. professional liars, you would know that "there are levels to this thing". Scientologists believe they are "total cause" liars, but that's all outside of the intense pressures and high-powered spotlight of a courtroom--in front of a judge, jury and under penalty of perjury. In fact, Scientologists and Sea Org members are very bad liars--which accounts for all their losses in court and decades of being afraid to sue anyone for the very reason that their lies crumble under the crush of facts and viewable evidence.

Even the slickest world-class con artists frequently fold under the tonnage of evidence. As mentioned, "there are levels to this stuff" and Scientologists' lying is at the very lower end of the lying scale near the label "RANK AMATEUR". LOL

Folding doesn't necessarily imply that they are willingly flipping and giving up their co-conspirators. Folding can simply mean that they are caught in their lies and react with inordinately lame sputtering and other embarrassing crimson-faced excuses when their testimony is impeached. It's quite a spectacle to watch.

If anyone doubts that Scientology witnesses will frequently "fold" on the witness stand, just look at the infamous litigation the cult launched vs. Debbie Cook. Cult management was so terrified after some of Cook's testimony that the COS "folded" even before they called their first lying Sea Org witness. And the cult offered many millions of dollars to the party they were suing (Cook) to settle the case. That's how weak Scientologists are in court...they fold even before they are given a chance to lie--because they can see already that their TR-L lying technology is not going to work in the slightest. In that moment of reckoning, Scientologists always fold. They romanticize the event and don't use the word "Fold"---they call it "Disconnection", LOL.

..

I think that's the key thing, what evidence do the prosecutors have. From what little I've seen they probably (hopefully) have quite a bit, Scientology's love of reports and KRs might do them some harm. Sure, the church might've lost all their copies but it sounds like there were enough people who were aware, and wrote reports, that the prosecution will have their hands on some copies. I think the SO members will have no problem lying or telling whatever story they are supposed to tell, but what will the evidence say? How will they handle it when they are saying one thing and the evidence clearly points to something else.

Well, lying predicates knowledge of another truth. It's long been said the best liars are those that don't know they are lying. So they may be telling the version of the truth they believe.

The next thing is they don't want to end up on the RPF for saying the wrong thing.

The third thing is the "I know every inch of his body" problem. If they all parrot the same line - it won't be lost on the jury.

Knowing Miscavage's penchant for micromanaging - it could go down the toilet very easily. But the focus of the trial isn't that he's a scio, but that he's a rapist. Sure Scientology will extend it's already toxic pr, but the crime is more damming.

Mimsey

I think that's a good point, if they're all coached and tell exactly the same story (likely) it could come off sounding very strange to a jury. At the same time, even if they think it sounds strange and it hurts Masterson, they won't really care as long as the church is protected.

 

[Karakorum]

Chis Shelton made a vid with Ciprian. They discuss some of the more strictly legal aspects of the criminal trial, which I find interesting.

They also brought up one of the things we discussed here - that scientology might and most likely will bring a huge number of witnesses who would be willing to lie on the stand.
That will be the traditional character assassination common to all rape trials - "She was always getting drunk and sleeping around with all sorts of people and then didn't remember anything". Or: "She talked to me the next day and said her relationship with Danny is great".

I imagine scientology might round up 20+ men who will say they all had sex with the alleged victim and that she was drunk/stoned all the time and making stuff up the next day.
I think that, if anything, is able to throw a wrench into the prosecution's case.




Disclaimer: I do not know anything about these Jane Does and/or Danny personally. I also do not know for sure if he is guilty or not, though the details of the civil trial and the alleged harassment from the church makes me think he is more likely guilty than not.

 

[SuperstarNeilC]

 

[mimsey borogrove]

Chis Shelton made a vid with Ciprian. They discuss some of the more strictly legal aspects of the criminal trial, which I find interesting.
snip.
Disclaimer: I do not know anything about these Jane Does and/or Danny personally. I also do not know for sure if he is guilty or not, though the details of the civil trial and the alleged harassment from the church makes me think he is more likely guilty than not.

Why the disclaimer? Do you think it will influence OSA?

Mimsey

 

[SuperstarNeilC]

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

..

One wonders how thoroughly Masterson's attorneys know the details of the alleged rapes. What will never be known but is entirely fascinating would be what conversations and questions/answers the lawyer had with Masterson. Obviously, the lawyer has to ask enough questions to delicately dance around anything which would tend to incriminate the client. But at the same time, the lawyer is charged with crafting a plausible defense narrative which typically has highly polished lies and/or "alternate fictional theories" that are sold as fact in order to raise "reasonable doubt". To wit, "If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit". That one was good enough to convince OJ Simpson jurors to find a not-guilty verdict for a murder case with overwhelming forensic proof that he did it.

And which questions the lawyers steadfastly avoided, including questions which implicate the client or directly reveal that client is guilty. That is to be expected for a multiplicity of reasons, particularly the following ethical obligations the lawyer has to the court. For those who enjoy a bit of a deeper dive, I'll paste an excerpt below from an online article:

Ethical Obligations of a Lawyer When His Client Has Committed or Intends to Commit Perjury​

​

QUESTION: What are a lawyer’s ethical obligations when his client reveals his intent to commit perjury? What are a lawyer’s ethical obligations when a lawyer learns that a client has committed perjury?​

​

ANSWER:​

Regardless of whether the lawyer is representing a civil client or a criminal client, the lawyer’s ethical obligations remain the same. Where a client informs counsel of his intent to commit perjury, a lawyer’s first duty is to attempt to dissuade the client from committing perjury. In doing so, the lawyer should advise the client that if the client insists on committing the proposed perjury then the lawyer will be forced to move to withdraw from representation. The lawyer should further explain that he may be required to disclose the specific reason for withdrawal if required to do so by the court. If the client continues to insist that they will provide false testimony, the lawyer should move to withdraw from representation.​

​

When a lawyer has actual knowledge that a client has committed perjury or submitted false evidence, the lawyer’s first duty is to remonstrate with the client in an effort to convince the client to voluntarily correct the perjured testimony or false evidence. If the client refuses to do so, the lawyer has an ethical obligation to disclose the perjured testimony and/or submission of false evidence to the court.​

​

DISCUSSION:​

Having a client threaten to commit perjury or actually committing perjury is one of the most difficult ethical dilemmas a lawyer can face. The lawyer is torn between his loyalties to the client and his duties as an officer of the court. In the context of the civil client, however, Rule 3.3, Ala. R. Prof. C., and its Comment clearly require the lawyer to place his duties as an officer of the court above his duties of loyalty and confidentiality to the client. Rule 3.3 provides as follows:​

​

RULE 3.3 CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL​

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:​

(1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal;​

(2) fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client; or​

(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures.​

(b) The duties stated in paragraph (a) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.​

(c) A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.​

(d) In an ex parte proceeding other than a grand jury proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer which will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.​

​

The Comment to Rule 3.3 provides in pertinent part as follows:​

False Evidence​

When evidence that a lawyer knows to be false is provided by a person who is not the client, the lawyer must refuse to offer it regardless of the client’s wishes.​

​

When false evidence is offered by the client, however, a conflict may arise between the lawyer’s duty to keep the client’s revelations confidential and the duty of candor to the court. Upon ascertaining that material evidence is false, the lawyer should seek to persuade the client that the evidence should not be offered or, if it has been offered, that its false character should immediately be disclosed. If the persuasion is ineffective, the lawyer must take reasonable remedial measures.​

​

Except in the defense of a criminal accused, the rule generally recognized is that, if necessary to rectify the situation, an advocate must disclose the existence of the client’s deception to the court or to the other party. Such a disclosure can result in grave consequences to the client, including not only a sense of betrayal but also loss of the case and perhaps a prosecution for perjury. But the alternative is that the lawyer cooperate in deceiving the court, thereby subverting the truth-finding process which the adversary system is designed to implement. See Rule 1.2(d). Furthermore, unless it is clearly understood that the lawyer will act upon the duty to disclose the existence of false evidence, the client can simply reject the lawyer’s advice to reveal the false evidence and insist that the lawyer keep silent. Thus the client could in effect coerce the lawyer into being a party to fraud on the court.​

​

Remedial Measures​

If perjured testimony or false evidence has been offered, the advocate’s proper course ordinarily is to remonstrate with the client confidentially. If that fails, the advocate should seek to withdraw if that will remedy the situation. If withdrawal will not remedy the situation or is impossible, the advocate should make disclosure to the court. It is for the court then to determine what should be done–making a statement about the matter to the trier of fact, ordering a mistrial, or perhaps nothing. If the false testimony was that of the client, the client may controvert the lawyer’s version of their communication when the lawyer discloses the situation to the court. If there is an issue whether the client has committed perjury, the lawyer cannot represent the client in resolution of the issue, and a mistrial may be unavoidable. An unscrupulous client might in this way attempt to produce a series of mistrials and thus escape prosecution. However, a second such encounter could be construed as a deliberate abuse of the right to counsel and as such a waiver of the right to further representation.​

* * *​

Duration of Obligation​

A practical time limit on the obligation to rectify the presentation of false evidence has to be established. The conclusion of the proceeding is a reasonably definite point for the termination of the obligation.​

As such, a lawyer may not submit false evidence to a court or assist a client in doing so. When a lawyer learns that a client intends to commit perjury or to offer false testimony, the lawyer should counsel the client not to do so. The lawyer should inform the client that if he does testify falsely, the lawyer will have no choice but to withdraw from the matter and to inform the court of the client’s misconduct. If the client insists on testifying falsely, the lawyer should refuse to offer the perjured testimony or should immediately move to withdraw from the representation.2 In counseling the client, the lawyer should inform the client that if the client continues to insist on testifying falsely, then the lawyer will be required to withdraw. The lawyer should further explain that he may be required to disclose the client’s intentions to the court, if the court requires the lawyer to disclose a specific reason for the withdrawal.​

..

 

[Karakorum]

Why the disclaimer? Do you think it will influence OSA?

Mimsey

Well, I realized that writing some of these posts I'm coming off as if I'm somehow 100% convinced he is guilty or that I somehow know his guilt through my previous work with the archives and/or as an MAA and later inv

Which is not the case.

I have absolutely zero insider knowledge about Danny in specific or the rape allegations. I do not know who the other Jane Does are.

Maybe once I do find out who they are, it will turn out I interrogated them for hours upon hours and know everything about them. But at this point I do not know.

The one reason I tend to find it more likely than not that Danny is guilty, is the lengths to which the CoS appears to have gone to intimidate witnesses.
Basically the existence of the civil suit makes me think there must be something real in the criminal suit, not vice versa.

 

[Type4_PTS]

I genuinely believe that Scientology can cause a person to suffer temporary insanity. If I was Masterson's attorney would have had him plead "not guilty by reason of insanity".

Then during the trial bring in a series of expert witnesses that would make that case to the jury (and the judge).

Of course, I would also have hired a couple of off-duty police officers to provide 24/7 security for my pets as well.

 

[mimsey borogrove]

Well, I realized that writing some of these posts I'm coming off as if I'm somehow 100% convinced he is guilty or that I somehow know his guilt through my previous work with the archives and/or as an MAA and later inv

Which is not the case.

I have absolutely zero insider knowledge about Danny in specific or the rape allegations. I do not know who the other Jane Does are.

Maybe once I do find out who they are, it will turn out I interrogated them for hours upon hours and know everything about them. But at this point I do not know.

The one reason I tend to find it more likely than not that Danny is guilty, is the lengths to which the CoS appears to have gone to intimidate witnesses.
Basically the existence of the civil suit makes me think there must be something real in the criminal suit, not vice versa.

If I was a Las Vegas odds maker, I'd not want to take bets on his innocence, and while he may believe he did nothing wrong, unless it's all fake news, I think he will have a change in his dress code in the not too distant future.

Mimsey