Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Donât know if this has been said yet, but itâs 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 itâs 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* itâs crazy to lock someone up for 30 years without evidence beyond a bunch of people saying âhe did it!â
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 âchurchâ 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 itâs a she said were the ones drugged, anally raped, woke up bleeding, and then got stalked and had their pets killed. Thatâs 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?
Thatâs all thatâs 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. Heâs serving 30 before eligibility for parole because heâs 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.
I saw news articles saying that in CA people convicted of sex offenses have to serve 85% of their sentences before being eligible for parole. So that means he won't get his first parole hearing for 25.5 years. He'll be 72 if he gets out at his first hearing and that rarely happens though with a geriatric it may very well occur to save the state money. He doesn't have a life to live on the other side of this. A serial rapist deserves no less. He could have easily had all the women he could have ever wanted but instead he drugged and rapped women. You know it's some sort of power fetish and it's a good thing he's going to spend (essentially) the rest of his life in prison.
This is what I don't understand about Ashton's letter. Masterson was going to get basically life, why would Ashton put himself out there for a sentence that wouldn't have changed regardless of what they wrote. It seems like the risk to their career is greater than any reward for Masterson.
I think his attorneys are trying to set up an argument for appeal that has something to do with the drug allegations. The letters all universally emphasized that Masterson not only doesn't do drugs but is fundamentally opposed to them, discourages others from using them, and dislikes being around people on drugs. But he was convicted of raping two women after drugging them. That can't be a coincidence, as that was a weird thing for all his character letters to focus on.
I wonder if Scientology is hoping to attempt to discredit these women by releasing info about their drug use (potentially using info they collected from the women when they were in the Church, or having other Scientologists testify to their drug use at the time) and then argue that Masterson could not have been responsible for these women being drugged because look at how everyone says that he has a long history of being opposed to drugs on principle. Maybe they would argue that the women were on drugs when Masterson was with them, and therefore their memories of the events are actually memories of drug trips. Maybe they would argue that Masterson would never have spent time with them on drugs and therefore it's all made up, I don't know. But the way the letters are worded, with so much focus and emphasis on drugs, makes no sense. If they were trying to simply defend his character and argue he's unlikely to hurt anyone else, the letters would have focused on him being non-violent. They don't. They focus on him being anti-drug, very professional, and loyal to his friends. It's a strange tactic.
I also agree that Kunis and Kutcher likely did not believe the letters would ever be made public. No idea whether they wrote them simply out of friendship for Danny, because they were pressured to by his team or by Scientology, or what. But I do feel confident that their letters were either written for them or coached, because they are strangely worded and focused. They are also way to consistent with what what was written by the Ribisis and the other 70s Show cast, to the point that it seems obvious they were all written together or in collaboration or by the same person. They don't read as spontaneous endorsements of his character, but rather as checklists of the same several talking points, most of which have nothing to do with (1) whether he poses a threat to society, or (2) the damage a long incarceration might do to his daughter or family. Which is normally what letters like that would focus on.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}