Danny Masterson

[Anonymous]

Rapists deserve the death penalty.....he got off easy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

One of the victims went to the police and filed a report in 2004, shortly after she was raped.

And the police response was . . .

I think someone in the LAPD knows where Shelley Miscavige is and that Scientology is paying them off.

I am so impressed Masterson was found guilty and truly hope Scientology doesn’t kill the jury or wreck their lives some other way. That is what Scientology does. They will go through your trash and hire people to buy the house next door to spy on you. They are a sick organization run by a sick man.

They got tax exempt status by threatening individual IRS employees until they got their tax exemption. The Mafia is probably taking notes.

Where is Shelley?

[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!

If you believe that, then you should be against Shelley Miscavige being locked up. No one has seen her in years.

30 years for Danny is too short. He would not be a good father. No one listening to a cult leader for orders can be a good dad. Look at Tom Cruise abandoning his kid because the mom didn’t stay in Scientology.

Only sick cults make you stop talking to relatives.

The kids in Scientology used to be sent to live on a boat with the leader and he became their “father.” They floated around the world on a boat to evade the law. Not good parenting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Last comment on this - thinking the sentencing was harsh (in general, as well as given the evidence and time) is NOT rationalizing rape or making it seem like less of a big deal. It is merely saying, holy shit that seems like a crazy harsh sentence!

Similar to how some people are opposed to the death penalty. If it was someone you loved who had been horribly murdered how would you feel about a bunch of bleeding heart murder rationalization types demanding mercy for the killer because they think the death penalty is too harsh, or morally wrong, or dare I say crazy?

That’s all that’s going on here, a difference of opinion as to the appropriateness of the sentence.

Masterson is a SERIAL rapist, and 15 years to life is an appropriate sentence for violent rape. He’s serving 30 before eligibility for parole because he’s been convicted on two separate charges and the judge, after hearing the full context of what the victims were put through during and after the rapes, chose to exercise her judicial discretion to impose the sentences consecutively instead of concurrently.

Anyone who thinks this sentence is inappropriate should probably be violently raped and then systematically harassed for years - that will help them to reconsider the foolishness of their position. Or maybe it should be their daughter who is subject to violent rape and systematic harassment. Then get back to us with thoughts on the appropriate sentence for the poor lad who did it.

[Anonymous]

Surviving a violent rape can follow you the rest of your life. I am a rape survivor and have worked with other survivors. It is it's own kind of life sentence. I still sometimes have flashbacks -- they can hit me in the grocery store, when I'm with my child, when I'm out for a walk in my neighborhood. I have a lot of practice in working through it but it's not easy and has taken years of therapy and working on myself. I still sometimes have this feeling in my body like my skin is on fire and I just want to unzip it and take it off. I still sometimes feel shame and humiliation from it and have to talk myself through why I don't need to feel those things. It's been nearly 20 years.

Just some perspective for those of you who think 30 years is too long for for a rapist to spend in prison. My rapist is out there somewhere with a job and a child of his own, probably going hiking on the weekends and having dinner with friends and taking vacations. I feel pretty sure I'm not the only woman he did this to. He'll never see justice. But seeing someone else face consequences for doing this to someone else does bring me some comfort. All I know is I hope the women who survived Danny Masterson sleep easy tonight, and have peace. I don't really care whether Masterson sleeps or feels peace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Last comment on this - thinking the sentencing was harsh (in general, as well as given the evidence and time) is NOT rationalizing rape or making it seem like less of a big deal. It is merely saying, holy shit that seems like a crazy harsh sentence!

Similar to how some people are opposed to the death penalty. If it was someone you loved who had been horribly murdered how would you feel about a bunch of bleeding heart murder rationalization types demanding mercy for the killer because they think the death penalty is too harsh, or morally wrong, or dare I say crazy?

That’s all that’s going on here, a difference of opinion as to the appropriateness of the sentence.

Masterson is a SERIAL rapist, and 15 years to life is an appropriate sentence for violent rape. He’s serving 30 before eligibility for parole because he’s been convicted on two separate charges and the judge, after hearing the full context of what the victims were put through during and after the rapes, chose to exercise her judicial discretion to impose the sentences consecutively instead of concurrently.

Anyone who thinks this sentence is inappropriate should probably be violently raped and then systematically harassed for years - that will help them to reconsider the foolishness of their position. Or maybe it should be their daughter who is subject to violent rape and systematic harassment. Then get back to us with thoughts on the appropriate sentence for the poor lad who did it.

You abhor rape yet hope those that disagree with his sentencing get raped? Wow.

[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.

Except he pressured women he dated to become Scientologist. So he was victimizing people from the general public. Also do we really know that the other cases that didn’t go to trial involved Scientologists? And it’s not a secret that Bijoux is a terrible person but maybe that’s why he chose her. There aren’t a lot of women that have publicly denied their siblings rape accusations against their own dad. Doesn’t seem coincidental that someone who was ultimately convicted of multiple rapes ended up with someone like that.

[Anonymous]

Just read one of the victim impact statements. Danny apparently paid a boy to tell the victim’s 7 year old that her mom was lying about being raped. Which the victim discovered when her daughter asked her “what does rape mean?” Now this POS’ supporters wants to try and say he doesn’t deserve 30 years because he’s a dad?

[Anonymous]

The scientologists have stalked and harrassed the women who were victims in this case for 20 plus years. They are relentless in their tactics to ensure they cause as much discomfort and pain as they can. Truly kudos to those women for publicly identifying themselves and testifying despite the attacks of scientology on them and their loved ones. Maybe publicly identifying makes one safer. Harder to disappear someone who has told their story to the world.

And Shelly's Miscavige's mother's death was ruled a suicide. Despite having a gun shot wound to the head and 3 rifle gunshot wounds to her chest. Two guns and four shots - not your typical suicide. Given she left Scientology and took confidential documents and was hated by David Miscavige who also hated that he was related to this traitor through marriage....someone in the autopsy office was clearly a scientologist or easy to pay off.

[Anonymous]

You cannot underestimate scientology's influence here. You just can't. This is finally *some* accountability for the cult because it was their work in the aftermath of these brutal assaults. I hope this is the first win of many and they are destroyed as an organization/cult.

[Anonymous]

I'm just happy that he has 30 years in jail to learn more about being a victim of rape

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Full text of letters from celebrities: Bijou, Ashton, Mila, the entire Ribisi family:

https://tonyortega.substack.com/p/letters-from-ashton-kutcher-mila

I've posted a few times in this thread. I am a survivor of both rape and a workplace sexual assault. I often find myself drawn to stories like this for that reason.

One thing I learned in my own experience is that people can do horrible, cruel, criminal things, and also have this whole other life where they are loved, respected, and surrounded by family and friends.

This is a very hard thing to wrap your head around as a survivor. Both of the people who hurt me are considered wonderful people by others. When I was raped, I very quickly realized that if I reported it, I would face a wall of people who would back up my rapist because of their positive experiences with him. Some of these people were even aware that he had some unusual and uncomfortable sexual ethics-- one of them told me later that my rapist had disclosed to her that he fantasized about nonconsensual sex. Despite this, she still excused his actions towards me and dismissed it as a "gray area." I never brought charges against him, and a major reason why is that I knew he'd be defended and supported, and I feared that I would not be. I was not as loved or liked as he was. But he raped me.

Years later, I was sexually assaulted by a superior at work. I was relatively new to the job and felt very socially unsure of myself there still. The person who assaulted me was high up in the organization, very well connected, and very well liked by both colleagues and clients. People barely knew me. I have an awkward personality and a lot of social anxiety. Again, I knew if I said anything, there would be a line of people ready to defend and excuse my assailant, and I did not feel confident that even one person would believe me. So I stayed silent.

People who commit sexual assault are often in positions of power and authority. Parents, teachers, clergy, bosses, leaders. People tend to gravitate towards, and respect, authority and leadership. It can create affinity, make someone desirable as a friend. Likewise, many people need strong social skills to gain power to begin with. Charisma, good looks, and affinity are common in authority figures because they engender trust and enthusiasm.

If you take two things away from these letters describing this man who was just convicted of two violent rapes as a wonderful friend, warm and caring husband and father, a leader, a consummate professional, it is this:

1) There is no definitive experience of a person. Having wonderful experiences with a person does not negate someone else's experience of being harmed by that person. Both experiences "count" in evaluating that person.

2) Sometimes the very thing you like and find most compelling about a person can be used as a tool for terrible deeds. Masterson's charisma, professionalism, leadership qualities, humor, eloquence, etc. we're all very useful to him in raping women. He used these qualities to draw women to him, to control them, and later to silence them. Once you see this, it might change how you think about what qualities, or combination of qualities, are most valuable in other people. It's certainly changed mine.

I am in the middle of reading this thread but I wanted to post a thank you to you for writing this post. I found it very poweful, and very true to my own experiences.

I am so sorry that those men did those things to you, and that you had to navigate such non-supportive environments. I hope that you have people in your life who wholeheartedly believe you and who are able to confirm how courageous and perceptive you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Last comment on this - thinking the sentencing was harsh (in general, as well as given the evidence and time) is NOT rationalizing rape or making it seem like less of a big deal. It is merely saying, holy shit that seems like a crazy harsh sentence!

Similar to how some people are opposed to the death penalty. If it was someone you loved who had been horribly murdered how would you feel about a bunch of bleeding heart murder rationalization types demanding mercy for the killer because they think the death penalty is too harsh, or morally wrong, or dare I say crazy?

That’s all that’s going on here, a difference of opinion as to the appropriateness of the sentence.

Masterson is a SERIAL rapist, and 15 years to life is an appropriate sentence for violent rape. He’s serving 30 before eligibility for parole because he’s been convicted on two separate charges and the judge, after hearing the full context of what the victims were put through during and after the rapes, chose to exercise her judicial discretion to impose the sentences consecutively instead of concurrently.

Anyone who thinks this sentence is inappropriate should probably be violently raped and then systematically harassed for years - that will help them to reconsider the foolishness of their position. Or maybe it should be their daughter who is subject to violent rape and systematic harassment. Then get back to us with thoughts on the appropriate sentence for the poor lad who did it.

Thought experiment:

What if his victims had expressed doubt as to the appropriateness of a sentence meted out to some different rapist before they themselves were the victims of rape? By your logic, they would have deserved what they got?

(And what kind of horrible person wishes rape on someone’s innocent DAUGHTER just for having the audacity to disagree with them?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are Ashton and Mila in Scientology?

I can see pressures on them via Scientology if they are. That video was odd. The tone and script was just off for an apology video or even an explanation video.

They’ve never announced it publicly. However, Masterson was very involved in Scientology and as they emphasize in their letters, they worked together and were friends for many years. Given that information and the fact they even wrote these letters, it is very likely that Masterson tried to bring one or both of them to the Scientology celebrity centers. It’s well known that they keep tapes of sessions and who knows what Ashton and or Mila divulged. They would have both been very young and naive.

Whatever Scientology has on them must be really bad for them to become rape apologists.

You guys are reading into this. I grew up in a wealthy circle and a few of my friends parents were prosecuted for white collar crimes. Friends and clergy of their religious institutions certainly wrote letters. The rapes happened more than 20 years ago. Danny should’ve been prosecuted then, but he wasn’t, and in that time, he led another life where he was a friend, husband and father. Doesn’t make him less of a monster, but they are writing letters of their account of him over the last 20 years.

Imagine a Nazi being tried for war crimes decades after the fact. They may have run a gas chamber in the war, but gone on to be typical people after that. They should get prison (and worse), but it doesn’t change who they were to the people in their lives who knew them as entirely different people in the aftermath.

Ummm if I found out my neighbor was a former Nazi who murdered tons of people, there’s no way in hell I would write him a letter of support.

Do you have no soul?

Or maybe are you high on meth?

+1 Good lord who are these "OK, so you gassed a bunch of people as part of a fascist genocide plot but NBD" Nazi apologists???

wait you're making the nazi comparison to suggest that in both cases we should be forgiving - not that in both cases they are monsters who deserve every punishment, even if later they were friendly with folks at the country club?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Last comment on this - thinking the sentencing was harsh (in general, as well as given the evidence and time) is NOT rationalizing rape or making it seem like less of a big deal. It is merely saying, holy shit that seems like a crazy harsh sentence!

Similar to how some people are opposed to the death penalty. If it was someone you loved who had been horribly murdered how would you feel about a bunch of bleeding heart murder rationalization types demanding mercy for the killer because they think the death penalty is too harsh, or morally wrong, or dare I say crazy?

That’s all that’s going on here, a difference of opinion as to the appropriateness of the sentence.

people here love danny masterson?