Late morning session, Day 16 (Day 12 of testimony) Danny Masterson retrial
Continuing cross-examination of Det Esther Myape (Reyes)
Cohen puts a redacted and highlighted version of the transcript of interview with Jane Doe 3 into evidence.
Cohen: I've made some highlights on the transcript. The conversation on page 40 again has you asking about "other domestic violence incidents."
Correct.
And she tells you about two incidents in particular.
Yes.
Did she tell you that as the relationship got lengthier, Danny wanted to have sex more frequently than she did, and she would say no.
Yes.
And he would get angry and call her names.
Yes.
JD3 spoke to you about this dynamic?
Correct.
You then spoke with JD3 about the charged incident in this case.
Yes.
And she said to you that Danny was on top of her and she had pulled his hair to get him off, and he had hit her.
Yes.
And he said, basically, don't pull my hair.
Yes.
It was a slap, correct?
Yes.
And it was the only time he slapped her during their entire relationship?
Yes.
You then asked her if she was on her back?
Yes. She said she was.
Anything else?
Did she say "I guess." (Tape speaks for itself.) She says (in transcript), "I guess." (Same obj.) Did she say in this incident that Danny was "trying to" have sex with her?
Yes.
He was trying to get inside her.
Correct.
You had time to ask follow up questions.
Yes.
Did she ever say that at any point Danny had pinned her arms back on either side of her head?
No.
Or pinned her arms back above her head?
No.
Did she indicate a 30-minute struggle?
Time wasn't discussed.
Did she ever say there was some kind of lengthy struggle?
No.
In fact what we just looked at is the extent of what she said to you regarding the charged conduct in this case?
Yes.
You give an admonition in every case not to speak to other witnesses or victims.
Yes.
And that's an important admonition to give.
Correct.
Why do you give it?
To protect the case, the investigation. I don't want them to talk about the case so they change their own, or remember it differently than when they first spoke.
Are you concerned that if one victim speaks to another, they may get some similarities in their stories.
Yes.
And if a victim speaks to a witness before you speak to them, it could (influence them).
That could happen.
In this case it's your position that you did not have a concern about the victims speaking to each other.
About the case.
On Dec 15, 2016, you speak to JD3 for the first time. A short conversation and set up an interview.
That's correct.
During that first phone call you ask her not to speak with the other victims.
Probably.
That same day you get a call from JD2.
Yes.
You had not reached out to her.
Correct.
The very next morning you get a call from JD1.
Correct.
You had not reached out to her.
Correct.
(Warning to JD3: "If you continue to talk, it will be fatal to this case." So you had some reason to believe they were all speaking to each other.
Correct.
And you had some concern about that.
Yes.
Jan 26, 2017, you speak to JD2. You told her, "It's vital to the case that you stop talking to each other."
Correct.
Because you believed that JD2 and JD3 and JD1 were talking to each other (asked and answered) And then you admonished JD2 again?
Yes.
Then the next day, you speak to JD1.
Yes
You tell her, "It's going to contaminate the case" if you continue.
Yes.
You continued to have this concern about what was happening with them speaking.
Yes.
On Feb 20, 2017, did JD3 demanded from you a copy of her police report?
Yes.
And is it LAPD custom to release the report to a complaining victim? (Obj, irrelevant) Did you give a copy to her?
Yes.
How many pages?
One.
WAs that the whole report?
No.
WAs she happy about that?
No.
In early March, did JD1 demand a copy?
Yes.
Did you give her a copy?
Yes.
How many pages?
One
Whole report?
No.
Was she happy?
No.
Around the same time did JD2 demand a copy?
Yes.
Did you give her a copy?
Yes.
How many pages?
One.
Was she happy?
No.
There's a reason you didn't give a full copy?
Yes.
And it gets back to contamination?
Yes.
Did you have any concern that the JDs would release any portions to the press? (Judge: Irrelevant) Did you admonish JD2 about talking to the press (Obj, overruled)
Yes.
And you had found out she was indeed talking to the press.
Yes.
And in fact you had found verbatim passages from the police reports in the press.
Yes.
And again you warn JD2 not to speak to witnesses or the press.
Correct.
And JD2 basically tells you I'll talk to whoever I want.
Yes.
When you interviewed JD1 on Jan 26, 2017, you conducted it in the same fashion as the others?
Yes.
Prior to the interview, had you reviewed the report JD1 had given Ofc Schlegel in 2004?
Yes.
Had you reviewed the report JD1 had given to Det Myers in 2004?
Yes.
Did you ever ask JD1 about any of the statements she had given to Schlegel or Myers?
I don't believe I did.
After you spoke to JD1, did you go back and look at the Schlegel and Myers reports?
Yes.
Did you then ask JD1 about any inconsistencies? (Obj, sustained) Did you ever interview JD1 with respect to what they had told Schlegel and Myer in 2004?
No.
Did JD1 make any mention to you in the interview that after the Sept 2002 intercourse with Danny that her anus had pain, and was bleeding?
I don't remember that.
Did JD1 say that when Danny had asked her if she wanted a drink (night in April 2003) that she said, I don't want anything.
Yes.
Did you ever compare that to Schlegel or Myers reports?
I don't remember.
Did you ever talk to JD1's cousin, Rachel D?
No.
Did you read any interview with Rachel D?
I don't recall.
Did you review statements by JD1 reported by Rachel D?
I don't remember.
Have you ever obtained a voice mail that JD1 said she left for her dad April 2003?
No.
JD1 said that Masterson had actually pointed a gun at her? (Obj, sustained)
Did you ever compare what JD1 said about a gun to what she told Schlegel and Myers? (Obj, asked and answered, rephrased)
No.
Did JD1 tell you that when she woke up after her rape at Masterson, that he was gone.
That’s correct.
Did she ever tell you that when she woke up, Danny was lying next to her?
No.
Did you ever follow up JD1 about that statement?
I did not.
Did JD1 ever make any mention of any red-purple dots on her neck?
Yes. I think she said it was bruising.
My question is a little different. Did she ever make mention of red-purple dots on her neck?
I don't recall.
Have you ever spoken with JD3's husband?
No.
Have you ever reviewed any interview he's given?
I don't recall.
Investigating JD3's allegation, did you ever ask her about any statements Cedric had made and ask her about those statements?
There was a conversation where she had told her husband about what happened to her.
And she told him about the uncharged December 2001 anal sex, correct?
She talked about, she did talk about sodomy, but I can't recall which one it was.
Did you ever review Cedric's interview?
I did not.
Did she ever do a demonstration of a pawn being crushed by a rock, something like that?
I don't remember that.
JD3 said she had called RAINN hotline?
I don't remember that.
Do you remember her saying she had called a hotline in late 2016 and asked them about anal sex between her and Masterson?
I don't remember that.
(Shows her a transcript) Did she say she called a rape hotline to ask about anal sex between her and Danny?
Yes.
And she made no mention of any other kind of assault.
Correct.
You interviewed JD2 in January 27, 2017.
Yes.
In person?
That's correct.
About 2.5 hours?
Yes.
All the same steps?
Yes.
Did she indicate some general anxiety?
Yes.
Did you take extra steps to make her feel comfortable.
Probably.
When you spoke to her, did you conduct the interview as this active interviewer as far as following up with her?
I guess.
And if you needed more information, you asked for it.
Yes.
Did you review the interview that Mueller and Vargas did of JD2?
No, I didn't.
After you spoke to JD2, did you ever speak with Jordan Ladd?
Yes.
Did you get a statemen from Jordan Ladd?
Yes.
Did you contact JD2 about anything Jordan Ladd had said?
No
Did you talk to Rachel S?
I did not.
Did you review LAPD interview of Rachel S?
I did not.
Did you review interview with JD2's mother?
No. Once Det Vargas took over, he was pretty much in charge of the investigation.
Did you tell you this is what this witness told me.
No, I was pretty much off the case.
Do you believe that you are in a knowledgeable position to opine as whether or not the Jane Does.... (Obj, sustained) Do you believe that you have a basis to give that opinion? (Obj, sustained) Do you think that opinion might have been helped if you reviewed those interviews? (Obj, sustained) What's your opinion based on that there was no contamination?
My experience and training, and my interviews.
Based on any interviews they gave to anyone else?
No.
By the way, do you have access to those statements?
Yes.
Was there an NDA in this case?
Yes.
Have you seen it?
I don't remember.
(Shows her a document) Did JD1 use the term with you "NDA"?
Yes.
What's this document entitled?
"Confidential Settlement and Non-Disclosure Agreement."
Did JD1 tell you she received money?
She did.
About $400,000?
Yes.
Nothing further.
REDIRECT
Mueller: JD3, did she provide you with a time frame of when this incident, having to pull Masterson's hair and he hit her, did she tell you when that occurred?
She said it was a few years (after initial violent incident)
Did she tell you when it occurred in relation to the paparazzi incident?
She might have.
Who brought up the fact that Mr. Masterson had "hit" JD3? (Judge warns him about going back over previous questions) You were asked about the police reports.
Yes.
What is that one page?
It's the first page, and it states limited facts, what the dates were, suspects names, witnesses names.
So it's like a face page to a report?
A face page, yes.
You mentioned that they were upset about only getting that?
Yes.
Did they tell you why?
I believe they wanted the full report.
Why?
To review the report, what was written.
Did they tell you that they had concerns?
Yes. I think they were a little distrusting of police and they didn’t think what I wrote might have been accurate.
You were asked about a report being in the press.
Yes.
You don't know whether any of these victims released a page or more than one to the press, correct? You don't know that.
Correct.
JD3's interview, did you ever ask her how long that incident occurred that the def. had pulled her hair and hit her?
I don't think so.
When did you get off the case?
I believe it was in March 2017.
And shortly thereafter Det. Vargas took over?
Yes.
During interview with JD2, did she ever say that she does not know a victim by the name of [Jane Doe 1] at that time?
I don't remember.
(Shows transcript) Did you ask JD2 about whether she had spoken to a person named [name]?
Yes.
What was her response?
No.
Did she tell you whether she knows this person?
I don't think she did.
Did she say, I don't know [name]?
Yes.
Did she tell you she thought that was the other girl that was raped.
Yes.
Did she tell you she had never talked to that [name]?
That's correct.
You were asked about JD3 contacting RAINN and that she had reported a sodomy, is that what she told you, that she had called to report a sodomy.
I believe she called to ask if someone has sodomy while you're unconscious, is that considered rape.
(Shows her transcript)
She said the word "sex." If you're in a relationship for six years, and if the person has sex with you while you're unconscious, would that be rape. And the answer was yes from the person on the other end.
When you do these interviews, can you expect that you're initially going to be provided every detail (Obj, sustained) Have you found it to be the case where victims of SA, when they're being interviewed will provide every detail? (Obj, sustained) From your experience, victims who might have been interviewed separately, would you expect to see the same details in each interview?
No, different details may change. They might withhold something because they're afraid to be judged. Or maybe they're nervous. There could be a multitude of reasons.
And because there are multiple interviewers?
Yes.
No further.
RECROSS
Cohen: Could it be because they aren't being truthful?
Sure.
In your opinion that inconsistencies may come about because they're not being truthful, comes from your experience as a SA investigator?
Yes.
Your testimony is that the JDs wanted to look at your report to see if what you said was accurate.
Yes.
There are tape recordings of everything they said?
Correct.
They knew they were recorded.
Correct.
No further.
Det Myape is excused.
We're breaking a little early for lunch. So we'll try to start a little early after the break, maybe 1:15 pm.
Want to help?
You can support the Underground Bunker with a Paypal contribution to bunkerfund@tonyortega.org, an account administered by the Bunker’s attorney, Scott Pilutik. And by request, this is our Venmo link, and for Zelle, please use (tonyo94 AT gmail).
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.
Paid subscribers get access to two special podcast series every week…
Up the Bridge: A weekly journey through Scientology’s actual “technology”
Group Therapy: Our round table of rowdy regulars on the week’s news
Cohen is such a snake.
Thanks, Tony.