Someone on Twitter posted a picture showing the area of their multi-million dollar home with the rustic wooden exterior where they filmed their apology, wearing ratty T-shirts, to try and seem relatable 😂

Anonymous wrote:A problem I have is that we are “allowed” to debate guilt versus innocence of so many convicted criminals. I noted Adnan from Serial before. He was convicted of a gruesome murder, and there was plenty of evidence he did it. And nobody seems bothered by anyone debating the merits of the evidence, case, and trial. Nobody is canceling Sarah Koenig.

Yet here, and in cases of rape, nobody is allowed to question anything. He is guilty. The trial was perfect. His friends may not question that, and they themselves should be subject to a brutal rape (?).

The reason is that rape victims have been ignored, silenced, and blamed for so long. And that’s a problem. What the correction to this problem is not “believe all women” and “never question anything.” It’s the opposite side of the same problematic coin. We have to be open to people and grey areas and the reality that the criminal Justice system is flawed and people are flawed.

Well first of all, Sarah Koenig did an in-depth, YEARS long investigation into Adnan's case where she also publicly published all of her findings. It was also a fundamentally different case from what we are talking about here, the most notable difference being that the victim in that case is dead and could not come forward and explain what happened to her. So Koenig's efforts were not only on Adnan Syed's behalf but ALSO on behalf of Hae Min Lee and her family.

But in THIS case, the victims are alive and telling their stories, as they have for nearly two decades. When you come along "just asking questions," you are directly contradicting not only what these women have said, consistently, for years about their own experiences, but you are dismissing the fact that they sat in a court of law and told those stories, and a jury of 12 people believed them.

Masterson was sentenced 100% within the guidelines for the crimes for which he was convicted. He was convicted of two counts of forced rape, each of which carry a sentence of 15 years to life. This is a longer sentence than it might be for other instances of rape, but in Masterson's case there are several factors present that subject him to the longer sentence: evidence the women were drugged against their will, the violence used in raping them, threats of bodily harm including threats involving a deadly weapon, etc.

Now, there are mitigating factors that might lessen a sentence for this crime. They include: acknowledging your wrong doing or making restitution to the victim. Danny continues to maintain his innocence and, not only that, has repeatedly smeared these women in the press and engaged in harassment, including of one of the victim's children.

So when you say "well 30 years seems like a long time," I must believe you are simply ignorant of the case and the law, because there is nothing unusually sever or onerous about this sentence, and Masterson himself could have done things to reduce it.

I am not interested in any mush-mouthed complaints about "gray areas" and how "everyone is flawed." Sure. Everyone is flawed and there are gray areas in life. But Masterson's violent rape of two women is not a gray area, and most of us are flawed in ways that don't result in either rape or the defense of rapists. Some things actually are very clear, and this is one of them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's really interesting how poorly thought out the Kutcher/Kunis letters were. Lots of people write letters to judges asking them to take the convicted person's young children/family into account when sentencing. It can be written in a non-offensive way. This was just...completely boggled and strange. Did their PR reps have any idea they were doing this?

I think Danny's defense team or Scientology wrote the letters. Ashton and Mila were blackmailed into signing them. And clearly, told they would never be released to the public.

Both of them have benefited from being in a cult, it's tough to feel sorry for them now

Ashton and Mila have never been members of the Church of Scientology. I'm totally disgusted by their actions, but they're not a part of it. Maybe they have been granted favors by the CoS, who knows. They are definitely friendly with Scientologists, including Danny.

There are several pictures online of them at Scientology events, including Christmas pageants and other holiday parties where they’re actively participating and on stage (with mics). Search on twitter. Their hands are not clean.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's really interesting how poorly thought out the Kutcher/Kunis letters were. Lots of people write letters to judges asking them to take the convicted person's young children/family into account when sentencing. It can be written in a non-offensive way. This was just...completely boggled and strange. Did their PR reps have any idea they were doing this?

I think Danny's defense team or Scientology wrote the letters. Ashton and Mila were blackmailed into signing them. And clearly, told they would never be released to the public.

+1 This is what it looks like to me too. But Kutcher and Kunis still shouldn't have done it. It was morally reprehensible to write those letters. They should have taken their lumps with the truth (whatever Kutcher may have done) and exposed scientology for trying to blackmail them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's really interesting how poorly thought out the Kutcher/Kunis letters were. Lots of people write letters to judges asking them to take the convicted person's young children/family into account when sentencing. It can be written in a non-offensive way. This was just...completely boggled and strange. Did their PR reps have any idea they were doing this?

I think Danny's defense team or Scientology wrote the letters. Ashton and Mila were blackmailed into signing them. And clearly, told they would never be released to the public.

Both of them have benefited from being in a cult, it's tough to feel sorry for them now

Ashton and Mila have never been members of the Church of Scientology. I'm totally disgusted by their actions, but they're not a part of it. Maybe they have been granted favors by the CoS, who knows. They are definitely friendly with Scientologists, including Danny.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's really interesting how poorly thought out the Kutcher/Kunis letters were. Lots of people write letters to judges asking them to take the convicted person's young children/family into account when sentencing. It can be written in a non-offensive way. This was just...completely boggled and strange. Did their PR reps have any idea they were doing this?

I think Danny's defense team or Scientology wrote the letters. Ashton and Mila were blackmailed into signing them. And clearly, told they would never be released to the public.

Both of them have benefited from being in a cult, it's tough to feel sorry for them now

Anonymous wrote:I think it's really interesting how poorly thought out the Kutcher/Kunis letters were. Lots of people write letters to judges asking them to take the convicted person's young children/family into account when sentencing. It can be written in a non-offensive way. This was just...completely boggled and strange. Did their PR reps have any idea they were doing this?

I think Danny's defense team or Scientology wrote the letters. Ashton and Mila were blackmailed into signing them. And clearly, told they would never be released to the public.

I think it's really interesting how poorly thought out the Kutcher/Kunis letters were. Lots of people write letters to judges asking them to take the convicted person's young children/family into account when sentencing. It can be written in a non-offensive way. This was just...completely boggled and strange. Did their PR reps have any idea they were doing this?

Anonymous wrote:I can't excuse writing the letters.

I do realize that even murderers have friends and family who love them, who (think they) know another side of the person, and who plead for leniency. I don't thiink we can understand it unless we are ever in their position.

Write letters. Write letters all day long. Don't say, I can't imagine this person doing what he was convicted of.

If your brother violently murders someone with a gun, you don't write a letter saying how much he has hated guns his whole life and how much you respected him for it and what a gentle person he has always been for 30 years.

Anonymous wrote:Here’s what I think are reasonable responses:

Ashton and Mila defending Masterson: “It’s sad for them that their good friend was convicted of a terrible crime. I can see why they might want to help masterson’s family with a request to write a letter asking for a more lenient sentence, but I don’t agree with it. I hope the sentencing judge does not consider their letter, because they are likely biased and not seeing the full picture.” Not: “grab your pitchforks, guys.”

Good for you. But an actual reasonable person says: "it's morally repugnant to write a letter directly implying this convict could not have done the things he was convicted of[u]. Like DRUGGING people. Especially when I purport to be entirely about helping SA victims. Especially when I know THESE victims. And my apology failed to acknowledge THEM."

They did this because the Mastersons and Scientology have horrible dirt on Ashton. Period. Not, gee whiz we want to help our friend.

I can't excuse writing the letters.

I do realize that even murderers have friends and family who love them, who (think they) know another side of the person, and who plead for leniency. I don't thiink we can understand it unless we are ever in their position.

Anonymous wrote:A problem I have is that we are “allowed” to debate guilt versus innocence of so many convicted criminals. I noted Adnan from Serial before. He was convicted of a gruesome murder, and there was plenty of evidence he did it. And nobody seems bothered by anyone debating the merits of the evidence, case, and trial. Nobody is canceling Sarah Koenig.

Yet here, and in cases of rape, nobody is allowed to question anything. He is guilty. The trial was perfect. His friends may not question that, and they themselves should be subject to a brutal rape (?).

The reason is that rape victims have been ignored, silenced, and blamed for so long. And that’s a problem. What the correction to this problem is not “believe all women” and “never question anything.” It’s the opposite side of the same problematic coin. We have to be open to people and grey areas and the reality that the criminal Justice system is flawed and people are flawed.

I am not a believe all woman person, nor do I think one shouldn't ask questions. In this case based on the testimonies of the women, I believe them. The jury heard far more than I have seen and also believed them. The efforts of the Scientology church in trying to silence them and harrass them also supports there was something to hide. A belief or guilty or innocent is often based on the predonderance of the evidence. Asking questions that show critical thinking and that are informed by the context and the evidence are helpful to a discussion but simply stating you don't believe the women doesn't really add much to a discussion. If there is some evidence or deficit in the legal proceedings that you feel has not been considered, then voice it.

Anonymous wrote:Here’s what I think are reasonable responses:

Ashton and Mila defending Masterson: “It’s sad for them that their good friend was convicted of a terrible crime. I can see why they might want to help masterson’s family with a request to write a letter asking for a more lenient sentence, but I don’t agree with it. I hope the sentencing judge does not consider their letter, because they are likely biased and not seeing the full picture.” Not: “grab your pitchforks, guys.”

People saying the sentence was harsh: “I disagree. Here’s why the sentence was not harsh… (reasons).” Not: “You are terrible rape apologists who blame victims and I hope a violent rape happens to you.”

It's very important that everyone remains calm and nurturing towards rapists and their supporters. How very reasonable. /s

Anonymous wrote:Here’s what I think are reasonable responses:

Ashton and Mila defending Masterson: “It’s sad for them that their good friend was convicted of a terrible crime. I can see why they might want to help masterson’s family with a request to write a letter asking for a more lenient sentence, but I don’t agree with it. I hope the sentencing judge does not consider their letter, because they are likely biased and not seeing the full picture.” Not: “grab your pitchforks, guys.”

People saying the sentence was harsh: “I disagree. Here’s why the sentence was not harsh… (reasons).” Not: “You are terrible rape apologists who blame victims and I hope a violent rape happens to you.”

They defended a monster who they apparently enabled on set for years (it turns out Topher Grace was just a decent human being and not difficult to work with, but good job on derailing that career), so go ahead and grab the pitchforks. I hope every review for any movie they do for the rest of their lives mentions their defense of a convicted rapist

Here’s what I think are reasonable responses:

Ashton and Mila defending Masterson: “It’s sad for them that their good friend was convicted of a terrible crime. I can see why they might want to help masterson’s family with a request to write a letter asking for a more lenient sentence, but I don’t agree with it. I hope the sentencing judge does not consider their letter, because they are likely biased and not seeing the full picture.” Not: “grab your pitchforks, guys.”

People saying the sentence was harsh: “I disagree. Here’s why the sentence was not harsh… (reasons).” Not: “You are terrible rape apologists who blame victims and I hope a violent rape happens to you.”