Danny Masterson

[Anonymous]

People in Hollywood are weird, how they protect their own. I worked as a nanny for a family who thinks Roman Polanski and Woody allen should be forgiven and that people need to get over it. Another family said the women with Harvey Weinstein knew what they were getting into, and they benefitted from their relationship with him. It’s really gross. After working for celebs for the past 25 years now I don’t have to work for just anyone and can pick and choose. I choose to not work for people like that anymore, people who don’t care, people who only protect their own. The silence and forgiveness for bad deeds is really grotesque.

[Anonymous]

I really hope the people defending the letter writers are just ignorant to the horrific details of this case. Because if not, holy crap. Gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t know if this has been said yet, but it’s crazy to put someone away for 30 years without hard evidence.

It’s hard to discount multiple women testifying that they were drugged and raped by him even if there was no dna evidence. I don’t know who else the jury heard from. But maybe other people corroborated their experiences.

The defense argued that due to the length of time(20 years) the women were able to work together to come up with a story/coordinate and that there were old interviews in which these women accused him of rape so other women dogpiled onto the story.

[Anonymous]

Maybe they really don’t think he did it.Neither did at least one person on the first jury. So what? That makes them evil?

A boatload of people don’t think Adnan killed that girl. Are they “evil” too? Is it really “evil” to take what you know about a situation and form an opinion, despite what a jury decides?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe they really don’t think he did it.Neither did at least one person on the first jury. So what? That makes them evil?

A boatload of people don’t think Adnan killed that girl. Are they “evil” too? Is it really “evil” to take what you know about a situation and form an opinion, despite what a jury decides?

Who’s Adnan?

[Anonymous]

All of the rapes supposedly happened with fellow cult members only, is my understanding, so from a community menace point of view, he's not a threat to the vast majority of women around him. That's why I think 30 years is too long considering he has a young daughter and Bijewel is probably not a great mother. I think that kid really needs her father more than society needs Danny in prison. Sorry to be callous but I dont have as much sympathy for Scientologists being victimized by other Scientologists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Do you believe most rapes have “recorded evidence”? By “recorded evidence,” do you mean a video recording preferably with audio where the victim repeatedly says “please stop this rape”? Because, well, that sure is how you’re coming across.

If “recorded evidence” means “contemporaneous police report of rape,” or “contemporaneous report of rape to a loved one,” or “contemporaneous report of rape to a higher-up in the victim and rapist’s shared religious community,” let me congratulate you! Because if that’s what you meant, there is a ton of recorded evidence of Danny Masterson’s habitual violent rapes!

None of you playing dumb can counter that Ashton and Mila deliberately emphasizing Masterson’s alleged distaste for drugs is anything other than them countering the victims’s reports that they were drugged by recidivist, habitual, violent, and now convicted, rapist Danny Masterson. Don’t be cute - cute is not a look you can hope to achieve.

No-I'm not "playing dumb" or "being cute." And of course I don't believe that most rapes have recorded evidence. I believe the victims, agree with Masterson's conviction and think Scientology is a cult. But I'm not a friend, family member or acquaintance of his (nor am I involved in the cult of Scientology). My point is that their perspectives (those who love and care about him and have spent years working with him, living with him, etc) are obviously biased by their positive experiences of him. How could they not be? I'm sorry, but I don't think it's fair to attack them for writing character references, not believing that he did it or being in denial. That's my opinion and obviously a lot of people disagree with me.

I agree with you. These other posters are being obtuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t know if this has been said yet, but it’s crazy to put someone away for 30 years without hard evidence.

There is no legal category of "hard evidence" which shows your lack of knowledge of the legal system and this case. In this particular case, the victims gave direct testimony under oath and subject to cross examination by the defendant's counsel. That is evidence. It is up to the jury to decide whether or not that testimonial evidence is reliable and truthful (which this jury found it to be) and up to cross examination to discredit (which this jury did not find). Masterson also waived his right to testify and exercised his right to remain silent. Hence he deliberately gave up his right to give his own testimony and allowed the only first hand account to be those of the accusers. This is not insignificant, it is a huge gamble and typically is not looked favorably on by juries as they want to hear both sides. Masterson did not provide his testimony, that was his decision.

Two of the victims also individually told third parties (friends) of these events after they happened. One even filed a police report in 2004. These facts were all permitted to be admissible as evidence.

If you are suggesting that "hard evidence" is only DNA to satisfy your personal comfort level, then you have zero knowledge of criminal court. And you should know that the overwhelming majority of sexual assault cases do not have any DNA.

DP but what does knowledge of criminal court or our legal system have to do with forming an opinion that it’s crazy to lock someone up for 30 years without hard evidence?

The point is that there actually is a ton of evidence in this case, including evidence from the police report filed back when one of the rapes happened. The evidence presented in this case was very strong, better than like 99% of rape cases, because there were multiple victims whose stories corroborated each other, the victims told others about what had happened within days of the rapes occurring (including one filing a police report), and the victim's stories remained consistent for the nearly 20 years since this all happened. That's "hard evidence" in the colloquial sense of the word. Very few cases of any kind of have DNA evidence because it is hard to collect, sometimes hard to test, and often inconclusive. Corroborated eye-witness testimony is actually some of the best possible evidence you can have as a prosecutor.

Your opinion is based on a misunderstanding of how criminal justice works.

No, my opinion is based on the fact that *I think* it’s crazy to lock someone up for 30 years without evidence beyond a bunch of people saying “he did it!”

I accept your explanation that this is how the system works… so I think the system is crazy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People in Hollywood are weird, how they protect their own. I worked as a nanny for a family who thinks Roman Polanski and Woody allen should be forgiven and that people need to get over it. Another family said the women with Harvey Weinstein knew what they were getting into, and they benefitted from their relationship with him. It’s really gross. After working for celebs for the past 25 years now I don’t have to work for just anyone and can pick and choose. I choose to not work for people like that anymore, people who don’t care, people who only protect their own. The silence and forgiveness for bad deeds is really grotesque.

Oh, celebrity nanny.

I always liked Mila Kunis. She seemed very grounded. I get that she and what's his name were on a show with the rapist for many years.

But still. Horrible judgment throwing in statements of support for a rapist while very publicly advocating for the victims of sexual assault.

What the hell, Mila?

Could you do me a favor? Who else should we be disappointed with?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t know if this has been said yet, but it’s crazy to put someone away for 30 years without hard evidence.

There is no legal category of "hard evidence" which shows your lack of knowledge of the legal system and this case. In this particular case, the victims gave direct testimony under oath and subject to cross examination by the defendant's counsel. That is evidence. It is up to the jury to decide whether or not that testimonial evidence is reliable and truthful (which this jury found it to be) and up to cross examination to discredit (which this jury did not find). Masterson also waived his right to testify and exercised his right to remain silent. Hence he deliberately gave up his right to give his own testimony and allowed the only first hand account to be those of the accusers. This is not insignificant, it is a huge gamble and typically is not looked favorably on by juries as they want to hear both sides. Masterson did not provide his testimony, that was his decision.

Two of the victims also individually told third parties (friends) of these events after they happened. One even filed a police report in 2004. These facts were all permitted to be admissible as evidence.

If you are suggesting that "hard evidence" is only DNA to satisfy your personal comfort level, then you have zero knowledge of criminal court. And you should know that the overwhelming majority of sexual assault cases do not have any DNA.

DP but what does knowledge of criminal court or our legal system have to do with forming an opinion that it’s crazy to lock someone up for 30 years without hard evidence?

The point is that there actually is a ton of evidence in this case, including evidence from the police report filed back when one of the rapes happened. The evidence presented in this case was very strong, better than like 99% of rape cases, because there were multiple victims whose stories corroborated each other, the victims told others about what had happened within days of the rapes occurring (including one filing a police report), and the victim's stories remained consistent for the nearly 20 years since this all happened. That's "hard evidence" in the colloquial sense of the word. Very few cases of any kind of have DNA evidence because it is hard to collect, sometimes hard to test, and often inconclusive. Corroborated eye-witness testimony is actually some of the best possible evidence you can have as a prosecutor.

Your opinion is based on a misunderstanding of how criminal justice works.

No, my opinion is based on the fact that *I think* it’s crazy to lock someone up for 30 years without evidence beyond a bunch of people saying “he did it!”

I accept your explanation that this is how the system works… so I think the system is crazy!

It says the reports were made in 2017 with an investigation that followed and it seems the women went together as a group but the rapes occurred in 2000 and 2003.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are claims on twitter and online, that Danny's sister Alanna Masterson (who was on the Walking Dead) bullied and mocked the victims in court, including following one into the bathroom and making the witness so upset that the witness advocate had to escort the witness out of the bathroom as Alanna wouldn't let her leave.

In addition, Alanna's father (who is not Danny's father, they share a mother despite having the same last name) is publicly speaking out against Alanna and her full brother's character letters as being full of lies re their family life and that they were clearly written by the Scientologist Church members. The father was involved in their life until a few years ago when he left the church and as everyone knows once a Scientologist leaves the church they must be excommunicated, even if it's your father. It is a very interesting story and not surprising at all that Alanna is so aggressive in her false narrative about being abandoned by her real father at a young age and how Danny took over as her father figure when her real dad is WTF I was involved your entire childhood. Huh?

Can you link? I don't want to internalize this if it's a rumor, but I'm interested in how we untangle the lies from Scientology with what is real.

Jane Doe 1 discusses it in her impact statement which is here from a journalist who was in the courtroom as its read (scroll down or do a search for Jane Doe 1). She discusses defendant’s sister (he only has 1 sister and it’s Alanna). She is the victim who had the NDA.

https://tonyortega.substack.com/p/danny-masterson-sentencing-hearing

A tik Toker summarizes it here: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPRWKUwKe/

And here is an interview with Alanna’s bio dad (Danny’s ex-stepfather).

https://www.thedailybeast.com/danny-mastersons-ex-stepdad-joe-reaiche-says-his-kids-jordan-and-alanna-masterson-lied-to-help-actor

When are people going to actually stop trying negate what Masterson and his family have been doing and what Scientology is?! Is this enough for you now?

Wow, Reaiche plans to clear his name by suing his kids Allana and Jordan for perjuring their character letters. When will there be a mass lawsuit against Scientology. How does the law protect this cult under the guise of a tax exempt religion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of the rapes supposedly happened with fellow cult members only, is my understanding, so from a community menace point of view, he's not a threat to the vast majority of women around him. That's why I think 30 years is too long considering he has a young daughter and Bijewel is probably not a great mother. I think that kid really needs her father more than society needs Danny in prison. Sorry to be callous but I dont have as much sympathy for Scientologists being victimized by other Scientologists.

By the early 2000s many Scientologists were second generation who were born into the “religion” and their parents had signed their souls away to the Sea Org.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of the rapes supposedly happened with fellow cult members only, is my understanding, so from a community menace point of view, he's not a threat to the vast majority of women around him. That's why I think 30 years is too long considering he has a young daughter and Bijewel is probably not a great mother. I think that kid really needs her father more than society needs Danny in prison. Sorry to be callous but I dont have as much sympathy for Scientologists being victimized by other Scientologists.

By the early 2000s many Scientologists were second generation who were born into the “religion” and their parents had signed their souls away to the Sea Org.

+1

It's sad for people born into it, and it's sad for people brainwashed and compelled to join by an abusive partner, like Jane Doe #
.
PP, honestly what the hell are you talking about? You don't have sympathy for either of those cases? You think if you were born into it you would rise above it and be a perfect citizen? If that's even true, I wonder if that's because you are who you are because of your wonderful parents ... are you understanding how dumb you sound? You don't know women can sometimes make bad decisions under the duress of an abusive relationship? Enjoy your life of having no sympathy for those who have not been as blessed as you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t know if this has been said yet, but it’s crazy to put someone away for 30 years without hard evidence.

There is no legal category of "hard evidence" which shows your lack of knowledge of the legal system and this case. In this particular case, the victims gave direct testimony under oath and subject to cross examination by the defendant's counsel. That is evidence. It is up to the jury to decide whether or not that testimonial evidence is reliable and truthful (which this jury found it to be) and up to cross examination to discredit (which this jury did not find). Masterson also waived his right to testify and exercised his right to remain silent. Hence he deliberately gave up his right to give his own testimony and allowed the only first hand account to be those of the accusers. This is not insignificant, it is a huge gamble and typically is not looked favorably on by juries as they want to hear both sides. Masterson did not provide his testimony, that was his decision.

Two of the victims also individually told third parties (friends) of these events after they happened. One even filed a police report in 2004. These facts were all permitted to be admissible as evidence.

If you are suggesting that "hard evidence" is only DNA to satisfy your personal comfort level, then you have zero knowledge of criminal court. And you should know that the overwhelming majority of sexual assault cases do not have any DNA.

DP but what does knowledge of criminal court or our legal system have to do with forming an opinion that it’s crazy to lock someone up for 30 years without hard evidence?

The point is that there actually is a ton of evidence in this case, including evidence from the police report filed back when one of the rapes happened. The evidence presented in this case was very strong, better than like 99% of rape cases, because there were multiple victims whose stories corroborated each other, the victims told others about what had happened within days of the rapes occurring (including one filing a police report), and the victim's stories remained consistent for the nearly 20 years since this all happened. That's "hard evidence" in the colloquial sense of the word. Very few cases of any kind of have DNA evidence because it is hard to collect, sometimes hard to test, and often inconclusive. Corroborated eye-witness testimony is actually some of the best possible evidence you can have as a prosecutor.

Your opinion is based on a misunderstanding of how criminal justice works.

No, my opinion is based on the fact that *I think* it’s crazy to lock someone up for 30 years without evidence beyond a bunch of people saying “he did it!”

I accept your explanation that this is how the system works… so I think the system is crazy!

It says the reports were made in 2017 with an investigation that followed and it seems the women went together as a group but the rapes occurred in 2000 and 2003.

Guys can we NOT? Can we please not deal with rape rationalization?

The women REPORTED THE ASSAULTS to “church” higher-ups when they happened, and they told loved ones they happened, and at least one police report was made.

I wish the women minimizing this like uhhhh it’s a she said were the ones drugged, anally raped, woke up bleeding, and then got stalked and had their pets killed. That’s what happened to some of his victims. You deserve it if you hide behind the internet to make it seem like less of a big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t know if this has been said yet, but it’s crazy to put someone away for 30 years without hard evidence.

There is no legal category of "hard evidence" which shows your lack of knowledge of the legal system and this case. In this particular case, the victims gave direct testimony under oath and subject to cross examination by the defendant's counsel. That is evidence. It is up to the jury to decide whether or not that testimonial evidence is reliable and truthful (which this jury found it to be) and up to cross examination to discredit (which this jury did not find). Masterson also waived his right to testify and exercised his right to remain silent. Hence he deliberately gave up his right to give his own testimony and allowed the only first hand account to be those of the accusers. This is not insignificant, it is a huge gamble and typically is not looked favorably on by juries as they want to hear both sides. Masterson did not provide his testimony, that was his decision.

Two of the victims also individually told third parties (friends) of these events after they happened. One even filed a police report in 2004. These facts were all permitted to be admissible as evidence.

If you are suggesting that "hard evidence" is only DNA to satisfy your personal comfort level, then you have zero knowledge of criminal court. And you should know that the overwhelming majority of sexual assault cases do not have any DNA.

DP but what does knowledge of criminal court or our legal system have to do with forming an opinion that it’s crazy to lock someone up for 30 years without hard evidence?

The point is that there actually is a ton of evidence in this case, including evidence from the police report filed back when one of the rapes happened. The evidence presented in this case was very strong, better than like 99% of rape cases, because there were multiple victims whose stories corroborated each other, the victims told others about what had happened within days of the rapes occurring (including one filing a police report), and the victim's stories remained consistent for the nearly 20 years since this all happened. That's "hard evidence" in the colloquial sense of the word. Very few cases of any kind of have DNA evidence because it is hard to collect, sometimes hard to test, and often inconclusive. Corroborated eye-witness testimony is actually some of the best possible evidence you can have as a prosecutor.

Your opinion is based on a misunderstanding of how criminal justice works.

No, my opinion is based on the fact that *I think* it’s crazy to lock someone up for 30 years without evidence beyond a bunch of people saying “he did it!”

I accept your explanation that this is how the system works… so I think the system is crazy!

It says the reports were made in 2017 with an investigation that followed and it seems the women went together as a group but the rapes occurred in 2000 and 2003.

Guys can we NOT? Can we please not deal with rape rationalization?

The women REPORTED THE ASSAULTS to “church” higher-ups when they happened, and they told loved ones they happened, and at least one police report was made.

I wish the women minimizing this like uhhhh it’s a she said were the ones drugged, anally raped, woke up bleeding, and then got stalked and had their pets killed. That’s what happened to some of his victims. You deserve it if you hide behind the internet to make it seem like less of a big deal.

And threatened at least one with a gun afterwards.

And said repulsive things to HER POOR 9 year old daughter who will always be affected by this.