Chris Shelton talks again to the Masterson trial jury foreman — and his daughter

[Today’s guest post is by Chris Shelton.]

I first heard from a woman in Los Angeles named Nina in 2019.

On Facebook, I was getting questions about Scientology leader David Miscavige’s Sea Org uniform, and Nina pointed out that Tony had, with the help of a reader, decoded them at the Underground Bunker, and the result was pretty funny.

Nina thought it was funny too. “Wtf is the battle of Portland in 1985?”

It was the start of an occasional conversation that Nina and I kept up over the next couple of years. We talked about things like QAnon, independent Scientology, John Travolta and Kelly Preston, and of course Scientology itself.

And then, in October, the craziest thing happened. Nina’s father Earl, a former cop and grandfather, found himself on the Danny Masterson jury.

As the trial progressed, Nina and I traded excited messages, blown away that we had this personal connection to the trial — even though we both knew that she couldn’t talk about it with her dad.

On the second day of deliberations, November 17, I messaged Nina that I was anxious for a verdict, and whatever the outcome it would be interesting to hear from the jury. She responded, speaking of her dad, “He’s a former cop and like very straight laced. Very intelligent and a very strong sense of right and wrong. So him on this case…He’s a facts guy.” We were already talking about the possibility that Earl might be interested in an interview, even though neither of us could approach him yet. “I’m going to needle him into it, lol” Nina messaged.

On November 30, a mistrial was declared when it turned out the jury couldn’t reach unanimous verdicts on all three counts. It was a huge disappointment, but I still wanted to know what the jury had thought of the case. And Nina wanted her dad to talk to me.

“For me the important takeaway from this is what went wrong so we can do everything we can to prevent this in the future,” I texted her as we both hoped her father would be interested in an interview on my YouTube channel. And Nina was as good as her word, convincing him to give me that interview.

I asked Tony to join us. He had not only been in the courtroom and could positively identify Earl as the jury foreman, but he also knew the case much better than I did, and I was glad to let him ask most of the questions. I knew we needed to get as much information as we could in a short time.

We recorded the interview on December 6, which was six days after the mistrial was declared. I then had to edit it so Earl’s face didn’t show (and Nina was sitting right next to him throughout it). We posted it on Thursday, December 8.

Since then, questions have been raised about Earl, about Nina, and about our reasons for conducting the interview. Some of those questions are legitimate. Others are ludicrous, and some are even racist.

I decided the best thing I could do was to speak again to both Nina and her father to see if we could address the questions being asked. I spoke to both of them yesterday in phone calls, and took these exchanges from those calls.

Chris: Some claims were made in regards to your reporting on the jury questionnaire about the conviction of your son in regards to a sexual assault or child assault. Were you asked in the jury process on the form about previous convictions of family members? And if so, did you report about that?

Earl: No, I wasn’t asked that question. And no, I didn’t say anything about it. But I was not asked.

Chris: OK, so it was not on the jury form?

Earl: No.

[After my initial discussion with Earl, I obtained a copy of the actual jury questionnaire that was used in the Masterson case. And as you can see, there were three questions — numbers 10 through 12 — that should have required Earl to divulge that he had a son with a conviction for a sex crime. I called him back and asked him about that.]

Chris: Did you feel those questions didn't apply to you?

Earl: Going with Earl, I last lived with him in 1996. And the things that were told to me [about his case], were hearsay. I never talked to my son about it, and I've never been to anything related to anything going on with him legally. I have heard about the things with Earl, but I answered the questions on the form to the best of my ability. I didn't know that first hand. I heard the stories, I knew what people had told me. But my son has never talked to me about that, ever. I think that's part of the reason he doesn't talk to me. I've been as honest as possible about everything.

[Back to my original conversation with him.]

Chris: When did the defense team contact you about the affidavit that you submitted?

Earl: You mean, the conversation I had with him?

Chris: Yeah, the affidavit you signed, stating that you felt that the case should not be retried and the defense used that to try to get the case dismissed.

Earl: That was done about two weeks or so after the trial was over.

Chris: OK. And can you tell me exactly what happened?

Earl: On the day the trial ended, we were a hung jury. The defense and prosecution asked if they could come back and talk to the jurors who wanted to talk. And all 13 of us said yes, we would stay there and talk to them…So all four of them came back and were asking questions. And Cohen asked about Scientology — he called it the elephant in the room. Mueller asked about some of the main points that we were talking about, as far as how we deliberated, what was important for this particular jury. We talked about the evidence that was presented versus what was said in their first statements and what they said in court, and it really came down to their own credibility by the differences in their stories. We went through all of that. And then at the end, [defense attorney Karen Goldstein] asked me if I would be willing to talk to them about the jury deliberations. And I said, sure, no problem. And then about a week later, they called me and we talked a little bit, and a week after that — because we couldn’t do it all at one time — they called again, we talked. And then she finally emailed me the affidavit and I sent it back to her.

Chris: OK, so that was all done via email. And that was arranged via phone calls, after they met with you in the jury room after the trial.

Earl: Correct.

Chris: And can you tell me what was it that compelled you to do that affidavit? I mean, did they try to get all the jurors to do that?

Earl: They did. They asked all the jurors. And they told me in the conversation, they reached out to all the jurors, but it’s not often that they get all jurors to respond. But I knew they had talked to others because we were talking about one juror in particular who was stuck on guilty no matter what. And they knew his name. I never told them his name, but they knew his name and I said, well, you got it right. So obviously, they were talking to other people. They said, we’ve talked to other jurors, and we’re reaching out to everyone to see who we’ll get responses from. I was not the only one.

Chris: The question that is basically being raised, bluntly, is your credibility because of a failure to report the thing with your son? You know, in a sexually charged case like this, how could there not be a conflict of interest there? What are your thoughts about that?

Earl: Whatever questions I answered, I answered truthfully. I didn’t omit or add anything. There was even one question they asked, do I have any friends or family in law enforcement? I had one friend in the CBP. And that was that, that was true. They never asked me if I was a former police officer or not, which I was, but they didn’t ask me that. But on the one that I answered, it asked me if I had any contact with police, prior convictions, arrests, whatever. And I gave them an instance in 1996 where I had contact with police and during voir dire the judge asked me about it, I said what it was. And she goes, OK, we’re fine. And they moved on. So that was it.

Chris: Did it ever occur to you that that could come up as a potential conflict of interest?

Earl: What part?

Chris: Apparently the fact that your son is convicted of a sexual crime?

Earl: No, because I don’t have that kind of relationship with him. He and I haven’t spoken in a very long time. We don’t say happy birthday or Merry Christmas or anything like that.

Chris: And would you mind telling me what happened? Because the reason I ask is because Nina mentioned to me last night when this first was coming up that you in fact, or you and your wife had in fact, taken action to have him turned in.

Earl: It wasn’t me. That was all my ex-wife. I had nothing to do with that.

Chris: Would you be willing to tell me briefly what happened?

Earl: With Earl, or with the situation?

Chris: Well, with your son and what happened there. Because I’m in total mystery. All I know is there’s a conviction on record. And I don’t have any specifics of what actually occurred.

Earl: I don’t mind. If you did the research you’d find it. But what happened, so my ex-wife was married to a guy named David and he had children, so all of them live together. My kids — Earl, my son — lived with his mom, and my other son, Adam and David and his children. One of the kids was a young girl, she was about 12 or 13 at the time. And I think Earl might have been 18. Something happened where he touched her and they called the police and they made this case. I wasn’t living with them. I had contact with my kids. But at that time, Earl, after that, for some reason, and I really don’t know why, I’ve got a text message I sent to him like a year or so ago just asking him what was going on. I didn’t really ask him why he doesn’t call or stay in touch, you know? He used to be really good about keeping in touch with everyone, but then he didn’t even start keeping in touch with his kids. I’m taking care of them, my grandsons, so I do know that he got accused of touching this girl and then he admitted to it. So yeah, he admitted to it. And he was arrested. And after being arrested he admitted that he did it. So, that’s what happened.

Chris: OK, got it. So he went guilty and then he got his punishment and that was that.

Earl: Yeah.

Chris: OK, fair enough. And so when was the last time that you’ve actually spoken with him then?

Earl: I’ve got it on my phone, hold on for a second. Oh it looks like I cleared that out. But I’m going to guess and say the last time I talked to him was probably April or May last year. I’ve tried to talk to him, but I don’t know. And I haven’t really investigated why he has responded the way he has. I’ve always been reasonable with him even after the things that he’s gone through. I extended an olive branch, taking his kids shopping for school, my grandkids, but something happened, where he just believes, for some reason he has something against me. I don’t know what, but I never really tried to follow up on it.

Chris: So would you classify this is an estranged relationship?

Earl: Oh absolutely. I sent him last year, whenever Father’s Day was, I sent him a message happy Father’s Day. And even on his birthday, happy birthday. His birthday is in August. No response on Father’s Day. No response on birthday. No response to Merry Christmas. So I just, I just left it alone.

Chris: Were you ever or are you aware of ever having been contacted by anybody connected with the Church of Scientology in regards to this case? Or otherwise?

Earl: No. I’ve talked to you, and the other guy who was on the interview with us the first time. And I’ve talked to those folks on the defense team. Other than that, about this case I haven’t talked to anyone.

 
I also spoke with Nina. I have been proud to consider her a friend for a few years now, and those raising questions about why a young black woman in Los Angeles might watch my videos, well, it was painful to think that we still have people who think like that.

Nina: My intention for reaching out was, you know, let’s have a celebration. You know, we’re going to get this guy. And for it to go sideways, like…

Chris: Yeah, that’s exactly how I remember it.

Nina: People are going to say, why didn’t the daughter tell him? But I couldn’t tell him anything the minute that he was on that jury. It was like I can’t say anything to you. I can’t talk to you about anything. I wasn’t in a position to say, like, Dad, you gotta look at this video. Let me show you this. He didn’t know my obsession with Scientology or North Korea or, you know, Heaven’s Gate and all these different cults. There was no way that conversation could happen in that time frame.

Chris: That’s why we’re talking, because I want to get the facts.

Nina: You know, Chris, I’ve talked to you for years. There’s no way I, like, set this up in 2019. You know, like, let me butter up Chris, like that’s crazy. I mean, I have a past history of talking to you about random things as far as Scientology and other stuff. Your videos are more thorough, a lot more cerebral, the type I like, you know. Like, there’s a type of journalism there that was more in line with the way I think. So that’s why I reached out to you.

Chris: It’s quite something to be misrepresented this way. I wish I could say this is the first time this has happened to me, but it’s not.

Nina: For someone to go, look at Chris’s numbers, how is this black woman going to be reaching out. Excuse me? Like what the fuck. Yeah, black people can’t be smart enough to like, follow something this complex, like we have to have myopic interests? Fucking bizarre.

Chris: I was appalled at that language. I was just like, holy shit. I have followers in New Zealand, Spain, Germany. The fact that you’re following me in Los Angeles is not a surprise at all.

Nina: It’s an interest. You know, there’s so much history here in LA. I’ve been to Florida twice in my life, both times visiting my boyfriend. And there’s no way I’m coming to Florida, to Bradenton, this close to fucking Clearwater and I was like, I want to drive through there. It’s a macabre, tight interest, whatever.

Chris: That you as a young black woman in Los Angeles is interested in Scientology, and that it’s being called a statistical improbability has definitely got racist overtones.

Nina: Definitely. If the Aftermath Foundation checks their roster, they sent me a package because at the time I was going to Kaiser all the time right there on Sunset, and I was, like, hey, send me a pack of those little cards. And every time I would go over there, I would put those little cards where they would stand out there. I mean, that’s what’s really offensive. It’s like, I’ve reached out to that foundation.

Chris: The one thing that could have been easily fact checked with a phone call would have been the simple question, when did she reach out to you? No one asked me that. No one asked me anything.

---

A special treat for our subscribers

Today at noon our subscribers will receive the third episode of our new podcast series, “Group Therapy.”

Once again we have assembled the same great crew of Underground Bunker regulars — Andrea “i-Betty” Garner, Lynette “Observer” Waggoner, Phil Jones, and “Panopea Abrupta” — and we discussed the Scientology news of the week with them.

We’re offering this new series as thanks to our subscribers for helping to support the work we do here at the Underground Bunker.

---

Thank you for reading today’s story here at Substack. For the full picture of what’s happening today in the world of Scientology, please join the conversation at tonyortega.org, where we’ve been reporting daily on David Miscavige’s cabal since 2012. There you’ll find additional stories, and our popular regular daily features:

Source Code: Actual things founder L. Ron Hubbard said on this date in history

Avast, Ye Mateys: Snapshots from Scientology’s years at sea

Overheard in the Freezone: Indie Hubbardism, one thought at a time

Past is Prologue: From this week in history at alt.religion.scientology

Random Howdy: Your daily dose of the Captain

Here’s the link to today’s post at tonyortega.org

And whatever you do, subscribe to this Substack so you get our breaking stories and daily features right to your email inbox every morning…