Karakorum
千差万別
"The Clear Barcelet is THE ultimate chick magnet that can be obtained on this side of the gullibxy! Even a total washed-out shmuck like Danny Masterson can get laid by wearing these!"
The Danny Masterson Trial thread
- Thread starter Karakorum
- Start date
"The Clear Barcelet is THE ultimate chick magnet that can be obtained on this side of the gullibxy! Even a total washed-out shmuck like Danny Masterson can get laid by wearing these!"
HelluvaHoax!
Well-known member
..
.
Interesting that there is a consensus amongst those talk show lawyers that Masterson has to testify. The way the case is developing thus far that would seem like that counter-intuitive conclusion is perhaps his only way of sliming himself out of life in prison.
And unless the defense has some "get out of jail" card(s) they are going to shockingly drop at some point—that is probably Masterson's only hope of creating reasonable doubt in a juror's mind.
Certainly, if he testifies, it will have to be the "performance of a lifetime" that will tax all of his acting skills and blinkless TRs mastery, as well as favorably trying to leverage his own and his cult's sociopathic personality traits in order to appear calm, kind and appropriately bemused that the victims and prosecutors are wasting so much time on things that never even happened.
I wonder if Masterson is in the least nervous about the outcome or whether his personal and cult pathology is so delusional that he still believes himself to be "winning". For a normal person, that would seem quite impossible but we are talking about a serial rapist and a serially abusive cult here.
..
Karakorum
千差万別
I think I know where Danny's lawyer is heading. He's basically gonna make the argument:
"She claims Danny raped her twice. But after that she was still in contact with him, she continued to drink at parties where he was, she met with him alone and they even had consensual sex. Why would she do all that if he really was a violent rapist?"
Well, he is trying his best to stir up doubts in the jury. But the fact that the victim behaved in an irrational manner later on does not necessarily mean that the rape allegations are false.
But Cohen will want to push this case to a "he-said-she-said" state for all 3 alleged victims. Then he is gonna tell to the jury: "You can't convince him if there's any reasonable doubt - and there is reasonable doubt here."
"She claims Danny raped her twice. But after that she was still in contact with him, she continued to drink at parties where he was, she met with him alone and they even had consensual sex. Why would she do all that if he really was a violent rapist?"
Well, he is trying his best to stir up doubts in the jury. But the fact that the victim behaved in an irrational manner later on does not necessarily mean that the rape allegations are false.
But Cohen will want to push this case to a "he-said-she-said" state for all 3 alleged victims. Then he is gonna tell to the jury: "You can't convince him if there's any reasonable doubt - and there is reasonable doubt here."
onceuponatime
Well-known member
After how hard Cohen went on the victims recent testimony versus what they had initially reported I was expecting there to be some big differences between the initial reports and what has been said recently. Yes, there are some differences and there are some details that were left out (like the gun) but so far it seems very consistent to me. I think the defense has scored some points but so far it seems to me the prosecution is doing its work of proving the case, are there some inconsistencies? Sure, but the overall story has stayed the same and has been consistent. Yes, there were long delays in reporting and investigation, but I think they've done a good job of explaining that. Of course there's still a lot of testimony to come, and who knows what the jury is thinking.
onceuponatime
Well-known member
Ok, I found a puzzling item in this case transcript by Tony Ortega. it is something Jane Doe said about he misadventures with ethics after Danny 'allegedly' raped her.
Fair use quote, section underlined by me:
And the question is: Why a TTSNB and not a KR?
This really got me thinking, because the answer does not appear obvious at least to me and I've been an EO and an MAA and at inv for quite a bit.
In other circumstances asking for a TTSNB instead of a KR it could be to shield the person making the report from the wrath of the one being reported. Or not to "tip the accountable unit off" while the investigation continues, data is still gathered etc. But that doesn't seem to have been the case here, as Jane Doe already told Danny she's gonna report him.
So what is my best guess? It is just speculation, but I feel they didn't want Danny to have a copy, so that he would not be able to take that document and use it in court/police in case he would leave the church (or be thrown out of the church).
Anyone else has any good ideas?
It is interesting, why the TTSB instead of a KR. I have a couple thoughts about it. A KR is a report of something that happened, it says this happened and this is true. A TTSB report is more a report that says something is wrong here and it should be investigated, not necessarily this is a fact. More of an element of something is off/something wrong happened and it needs to be looked into vs this is exactly what happened. I also seem to recall that at various times OSA has had some strange requirements about how things were reported. I think in order to limit liability and to get around any requirements of reporting things to law enforcements, I think California in particular has some strict laws around this. I think this gets into the privileged vs non-privileged communication that was discussed a little bit earlier. A KR going to tons of people might cross the line and no longer be privileged, i.e. they are required to report it. A TTSB is more something that needs to be investigated, maybe easier to argue they didn't have any knowledge, just suspicions, if it's a TTSB. Of course it could also be they wanted to keep it off of Masterson's lines.
mimsey borogrove
Well-known member
I think the defence is setting the stage for "gotcha moments" in the closing arguments. But right now, they are falling flat.
I can hear him posturing in front of the jury -"she said bla bla but the report she gave the cops back then, now she says that scientology told her not to say that. She can't keep her story straight - in the words of Johnny Cochran - if the words don't fit, you must acquit."
Mimsey
Reyne Mayer
Pansexual Revolutionary
yes, thanks for that, i haven't thought of it in a while for some reason, but in the past i have wondered and brought up while the CoS and individuals aren't running into more trouble over Cali's mandatory reporter laws. in this case though, i think statues of limitations have expired. but maybe after this, they are going to start to have problems with it.
onceuponatime
Well-known member
Yes, I have heard rumors that even though LRH policy says you write KRs of all crimes and send them to HCO (even if they aren't actionable), OSA has been increasingly limiting that and issuing strict instructions about what reports to write and where to send copies, or saying don't write a report at all. My understanding is this is to get around the mandatory reporting guidelines. The auditor can get away with not reporting it because it's a privileged communication, the MAA or any other terminal that gets the report? I'd guess not so much. And yes, now the statue of limitations has expired but it was very much still in effect when the report was originally written. My guess is that a KR would be something you have to report because it says this happened, a TTSB can be treated as something to be investigated (and the "investigation" would be in session so it would be privileged). The mandatory reporting laws have been changing and getting stricter in some states, I would guess OSA is not doing a good job staying in front of it.
Agreed, I think they are trying to show inconsistencies, but when you look at everything that's been reported, even going back to the original reports to the police, it's very consistent. They need to have some ace up their sleeve, the victims behavior and reports all make sense to me. Of course we also have full knowledge of what Scientology is and its impact on this case, the jury might not really get it.
Reyne Mayer
Pansexual Revolutionary
except that after one of the cases over supposedly 'confidential' files, ruling that they weren't really, they probably don't actually now have that protection.
other of their ruses may not hold up well legally, either.
this may come to bite them eventually....
onceuponatime
Well-known member
Well the issue was what we've been talking about, that the information was then passed on to others, put in reports, etc. I think the communication between the PC and auditor, and recording it in the PC folder, is still going to be fine, it will stay protected. Maybe some of the changes I've been hearing about are a result of losing that case. I've always thought the fact that "confidential/confessional" information wasn't confidential at all would come back to bite them.
They should lose that protection but I'm not sure they did, as far as I know it was just about that one case (so far). It could definitely be pointed to as far as precedent but you might still need to prove that the information wasn't kept confidential on a case by case basis. And of course Scientology will fight every step of the way.
Type4_PTS
Well-known member
It varies depending on which State one is in. In California, if one is charged with multiple rapes and convicted than the defendant is looking at a sentence of 15 years to life for each count if I remember correctly. So Masterson could be sentenced to 45 years to life if convicted on all three counts.
He wasn't charged with any gun crimes as there wasn't sufficient evidence to do so. There was testimony from one of the victims but no corroborating evidence.
HelluvaHoax!
Well-known member
..
..
If the defense doesn't throw the victims' testimony into a tailspin DURING the trial proper, it's far too late to attempt to manufacture/synthesize a "gotcha moment" in the closing arguments. Just ask the Scientology's lawyers from the Debbie Cook trial--they bailed out after just a couple days and paid millions to the defendant in the lawsuit that they brought against her in the first place! You can't lose a case worse than that.
As you suggested, Scientology's last desperate hope is to come up with a catchy slogan to win over the jurors who (unless the cult has covertly bribed one) will send Masterson to prison for a long time as well as zero-out any remaining shards of his shattered fame & fortune by the time he "confronts"the civil lawsuits.
We should continue trying to help Scientology come up with a compelling rhyme so that the cult can maintain its perfect record of being "the only game in the universe where everyone wins!" How about this one?
..
If the defense doesn't throw the victims' testimony into a tailspin DURING the trial proper, it's far too late to attempt to manufacture/synthesize a "gotcha moment" in the closing arguments. Just ask the Scientology's lawyers from the Debbie Cook trial--they bailed out after just a couple days and paid millions to the defendant in the lawsuit that they brought against her in the first place! You can't lose a case worse than that.
As you suggested, Scientology's last desperate hope is to come up with a catchy slogan to win over the jurors who (unless the cult has covertly bribed one) will send Masterson to prison for a long time as well as zero-out any remaining shards of his shattered fame & fortune by the time he "confronts"the civil lawsuits.
We should continue trying to help Scientology come up with a compelling rhyme so that the cult can maintain its perfect record of being "the only game in the universe where everyone wins!" How about this one?
"If the rape victims are SP—Masterson must go free!"
.
.
Last edited:
Karakorum
千差万別
In other words:
I would have single-handedly saved the church the from all these legal fees and bad PR.
... also I'd have made Danny's and the Jane Doe's lives a living hell along the way. Oh well, you can't make an omlette without cracking a few eggs.
See? In some way Co$ pulled this in. They gave this case to some weenie loser like Julian instead of leaving it to the real heavy-ethics professionals. Serves Davey right for being such a craven brown-noser.
I note that no involvement with law enforcement or the justice system factors into your "handling".