Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The posters blindly defending folks writing character references are completely missing the point. Nobody's saying convicted people can't have loved ones weigh in on their sentencing. No one.. it is totally reasonable to write a letter that says, his daughter would really suffer from not having her father, a shorter sentence would be appropriate, he wouldn't be a threat and he would be paying his debt....That's not what these letters did. These letters are saying that Danny is this person who has been wonderful every moment of his life and they have never ever seen him act inappropriately, and he just hates drugs.

He is convicted of drugging and raping these women. These letters are saying that these women are lying. Let that sink in. These letters are being written by people like Ashton kutcher, who personally knew these women. He knows that Danny Masterson is a slime ball. they also have a mutual friend who is a huge cokehead and that is common knowledge. It's all bs. The fact that Ashton has a charity for victims of sex trafficking makes it a million times worse. (Topher Grace never got along with the lot of them, and this is why. He has never been into bad behavior and this gross lifestyle. He also comes from money but was not flashy, which I think is telling.)

You can write a character reference for a friend. You cannot re-traumatize their victims and say quite blatantly that it's impossible he did the crimes he was CONVICTED of.

+1000

All of this. There is a version of these letters that would not anger people and which would be easy to defend. "He has a young daughter, we have known this family for years, I thought it was important for the court to know the longterm impact of a maximum sentence in this case on his family. The negative impacts of incarceration on the children of the incarcerated is well documented. I do not condone anything Danny did and my heart goes out to the victims in this case." Sure, it's a bit conflicted by life is messy and you know what? It is a tragedy that a 9 yr old girl is going to lose her father over this. She did nothing wrong.

They chose not to go that route, they wrote full-throated defenses of Danny Masterson AFTER all of these details of what he did came out and he was convicted by a jury. They deserve every bit of reprobation -- they are defending and excusing a convicted rapist. And I think it's also possible they are trying, in a very carefully worded and likely legally-informed way, to lay the groundwork for discrediting these women as drug-addicts and liars as Danny's appeals move forward.

Nobody is missing any point, we just don’t agree with yours. I don’t think the letters said anywhere that he didn’t commit the crimes he’s accused of. They’re character references that outside of these terrible crimes, for the past 20 years, he’s been a good friend, husband and father to his loved ones. It’s not to negate his crime, it’s to lessen the sentence to the shortest of the options.

Anonymous wrote:I think that if scientology money and scientology coercion/clout couldn't get him off, then he must have had an airtight case against him. I hope any future judges and jurors on his appeals realize this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The posters blindly defending folks writing character references are completely missing the point. Nobody's saying convicted people can't have loved ones weigh in on their sentencing. No one.. it is totally reasonable to write a letter that says, his daughter would really suffer from not having her father, a shorter sentence would be appropriate, he wouldn't be a threat and he would be paying his debt....That's not what these letters did. These letters are saying that Danny is this person who has been wonderful every moment of his life and they have never ever seen him act inappropriately, and he just hates drugs.

He is convicted of drugging and raping these women. These letters are saying that these women are lying. Let that sink in. These letters are being written by people like Ashton kutcher, who personally knew these women. He knows that Danny Masterson is a slime ball. they also have a mutual friend who is a huge cokehead and that is common knowledge. It's all bs. The fact that Ashton has a charity for victims of sex trafficking makes it a million times worse. (Topher Grace never got along with the lot of them, and this is why. He has never been into bad behavior and this gross lifestyle. He also comes from money but was not flashy, which I think is telling.)

You can write a character reference for a friend. You cannot re-traumatize their victims and say quite blatantly that it's impossible he did the crimes he was CONVICTED of.

+1000

All of this. There is a version of these letters that would not anger people and which would be easy to defend. "He has a young daughter, we have known this family for years, I thought it was important for the court to know the longterm impact of a maximum sentence in this case on his family. The negative impacts of incarceration on the children of the incarcerated is well documented. I do not condone anything Danny did and my heart goes out to the victims in this case." Sure, it's a bit conflicted by life is messy and you know what? It is a tragedy that a 9 yr old girl is going to lose her father over this. She did nothing wrong.

They chose not to go that route, they wrote full-throated defenses of Danny Masterson AFTER all of these details of what he did came out and he was convicted by a jury. They deserve every bit of reprobation -- they are defending and excusing a convicted rapist. And I think it's also possible they are trying, in a very carefully worded and likely legally-informed way, to lay the groundwork for discrediting these women as drug-addicts and liars as Danny's appeals move forward.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are disgusting.

I’m not disgusting. I believe his victims and agree with his sentence. But you guys sound deranged with your conspiracy theories. It’s completely plausible that he did terrible things to a few women but was also a beloved friend to others who didn’t display any red flags of criminal behavior. And that he didn’t commit any additional crimes in the 20 years that have lapsed, so they are telling their account. He hasn’t appeared to be a threat to society at this time, so this is purely abojt punishing him for past acts , which, again, is right. But people become eligible for parole on the grounds of good behavior all the time- so it’s fair game for people who can vouch for you to write to a judge on the same grounds regarding sentencing, particularly in a case like this one where the verdict is decades after the fact.

Well said. People have many different sides. Those who wrote character letters for Masterson are attesting to their experience of him-they aren't saying that they know unequivocally that he didn't commit rape. I don't have a problem with it and they shouldn't be attacked.

I wrote a letter on behalf of a friend for her father who was charged with tax evasion (millions of dollars) and was going to go to jail. I knew the family for 20 years. I was instructed by his lawyer when writing the letter not to deny any of the charges because he was already found guilty. Obviously the letter is only written after being found guilty because it is otherwise not needed. Basically you are asking the judge for a more lenient sentence because there are some redeeming qualities to the person and they may shine in other aspects of their life. Clearly a white collar crime is different than rape but I can understand a very close friend still writing to the judge asking for a lesser sentence even if the crime is very serious.

That's fine but you are, presumably, not a famous person whose career depends upon the good will and interest of fans. You're just a private person.

If Ashton and Mila want to support their friend, fine. If they want to support their friend, the rapist, and then expect their fans to support THEM, well... that's a different proposition. It's a free country, they can do what they want. But I don't think I'm going to consume their entertainment anymore, and I don't want my money in their pockets. My choice.

I don’t think it’s going to hurt them much. Plenty of well regarded actors have supported Roman Polanski publicly and supported his return to the US. He is a child rapist.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are disgusting.

I’m not disgusting. I believe his victims and agree with his sentence. But you guys sound deranged with your conspiracy theories. It’s completely plausible that he did terrible things to a few women but was also a beloved friend to others who didn’t display any red flags of criminal behavior. And that he didn’t commit any additional crimes in the 20 years that have lapsed, so they are telling their account. He hasn’t appeared to be a threat to society at this time, so this is purely abojt punishing him for past acts , which, again, is right. But people become eligible for parole on the grounds of good behavior all the time- so it’s fair game for people who can vouch for you to write to a judge on the same grounds regarding sentencing, particularly in a case like this one where the verdict is decades after the fact.

Well said. People have many different sides. Those who wrote character letters for Masterson are attesting to their experience of him-they aren't saying that they know unequivocally that he didn't commit rape. I don't have a problem with it and they shouldn't be attacked.

+1

People are free to make choices in life. Kutcher and Kunis are free to use their time and resources to beg for a lighter sentence for a convicted rapist. I'm free to never support their work again.

They love to brag about advocating for victims of sex trafficking but when the rubber net the road they'd sooner support a rapist friend

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?

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.

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?

Anonymous wrote:The posters blindly defending folks writing character references are completely missing the point. Nobody's saying convicted people can't have loved ones weigh in on their sentencing. No one.. it is totally reasonable to write a letter that says, his daughter would really suffer from not having her father, a shorter sentence would be appropriate, he wouldn't be a threat and he would be paying his debt....That's not what these letters did. These letters are saying that Danny is this person who has been wonderful every moment of his life and they have never ever seen him act inappropriately, and he just hates drugs.

He is convicted of drugging and raping these women. These letters are saying that these women are lying. Let that sink in. These letters are being written by people like Ashton kutcher, who personally knew these women. He knows that Danny Masterson is a slime ball. they also have a mutual friend who is a huge cokehead and that is common knowledge. It's all bs. The fact that Ashton has a charity for victims of sex trafficking makes it a million times worse. (Topher Grace never got along with the lot of them, and this is why. He has never been into bad behavior and this gross lifestyle. He also comes from money but was not flashy, which I think is telling.)

You can write a character reference for a friend. You cannot re-traumatize their victims and say quite blatantly that it's impossible he did the crimes he was CONVICTED of.