Late afternoon session, Day 13 (Day 9 of testimony) Danny Masterson retrial
Another reporter showed us evidence that she had made an associate of Vicki Podberesky in the audience. (Apparently they can't send the Dillons anymore since we figured out who they are.)
Continuing with direct examination of Jane Doe 2.
Deputy DA Ariel Anson: When JD3 reached out to you, did you agree to speak with her?
Jane Doe 2: Yes.
On the phone?
First was over text, the Direct Message.
When you agreed to speak, how did you connect?
I think it was on the phone. I know it wasn't in person.
Did the two of you talk about what happened to you?
We spoke about both having been raped, without much detail.
By the defendant?
Yes, by Danny.
Not too much detail?
No, just bullet-pointed, not particulars of the assaults, no.
Did she ask you if you would be willing to talk to law enforcement.
Yes. I don't remember when though.
Did you then speak to police after that?
I did.
When?
The first interview was in January 2017. Whether or not I spoke on the phone with Det Reyes to set up that interview is not something I can recall.
But that first interview was with Det Reyes?
Three of us. She brought her partner to my apartment.
How long was that interview?
It felt like 2.5 hours, but I couldn't tell you exactly.
Were you aware that was recorded?
I am now.
When you did that interview, had you talked to someone named [Jane Doe 1]?
(Shows photo of JD1, she IDs her)
Do you know the first time you spoke to her on the phone?
I thought it was months after I had talked to Reyes, Mueller, and Vargas.
When you first spoke to Reyes and Viegas, was the first time you talked to law enforcement about this?
Yes.
How were you feeling?
Pretty nervous. And I was uncomfortable. I don't know these people and I'm telling them about something very graphic, painful, and I'm trying to recall it for the very... Other times when I thought about it, I wasn't thinking of in detail. I wanted to quickly move away from the thought, not go through it with a fine-tooth comb. I hadn't done that before.
Had you ever been asked what Det Reyes asked before that?
No.
Did you feel comfortable speaking to police?
No.
Why not?
Well, in Scientology, I had already read policy that they call it "safepointing," with different law enforcement agencies, even the government high up, IRS, police departments. Orgs are instructed to do safepointing. This means that in order to protect the church you become friendly with, or you pay them to protect the church from any trouble. And Scientology has a long, well-documented history of being very close friends with the LAPD. And because of that (Obj, overruled), because I had read that on policy, I knew it was possible that I was not necessarily speaking to someone who was neutral. I new it was a well known thing and it was talked about in Scientology, yeah, we (something) with the LAPD. (Obj, overruled) this is a method to secure and protect themselves, that they have an alliance that won't rat them out, basically. But I didn't have a bias my own about the LAPD, it was just from knowing that, you know, I didn't know what to think because of that.
In 2017, when you were speaking with Reyes and Viegas, did they ask you about people you told closer in time? Did they ask for names.
I think so. I thought I might have and I tried to remember. This was my first dive in.
Did you tell them about Jordan Ladd and Rachel Smith?
I don't think so, no. I might not have remembered that right then. I think I told them about Mariah, but I don't think I had remembered Jordan or Rachel yet.
After this initial interview did Reyes ever give you some kind of admonishment about speaking with either the other victims or witnesses?
Yes.
What admonishment did she give you?
She did not want me speak to the other victims. Her manner of doing that was odd. And there were things going on that were really odd, that stood out to me as suspicious or a little bizarre.
Things related to her?
Yes.
When she asked you not to have contact with the victims, did you comply?
I thought I did initially but then no, because we thought there was something really odd going on. There was something going on as far as being unprofessional. And I already had an understanding of the lengths that Sci will go to, in terms of protecting themselves. But something was fishy.
Were you suspicious of the investigation?
Very much so. I thought there was corruption going on. How Reyes was speaking to me, how she asked me for witnesses, and then she would not call them. At one time she called me screaming at me, which was completely unnecessary, she put on someone else and they were yelling at me.
Eventually you did not listen to her admonition.
Yeah. She was sending me happy face emojis. Something was weird.
Did you speak to JD3 or JD1?
I had not spoken to JD1 at that point. But JD3 and I...
How did you stop? What did you do.
I remember, we would still just communicate. I told them, I think something is up. I thin she might then have told JD1. I don't know. I just thought something wasn't right and there was more than one reason. it wasn't just, oh she sent me an emoji, it was a series of things that were odd.
And then you and JD3 were talking?
On and off, not every day.
And then you and JD1 were speaking?
a little later. I didn't know anything about here. and by the way, when JD3 and I had discovered... I'm sorry, I’m not sure what i can say.
When you spoke to them, was it ever all three together?
Usually it was just me and JD3. Then later the three of us occasionally would talk. And then JD3 and I weren't talking and then JD1 and I were talking, and then it switched, I don't know.
When you were talking just to JD3, did the two of you share the facts of your incidents?
Very minimally. Not details, not like that.
What about you and JD1?
No, not like details. Very, bullet-pointed, broad. We were not doing that. We're not each other therapists. Not in detail. We were talking about what Scientology was doing.
So the three of you in a coveraastion, did you share the specific facts?
No, not like that. We weren't talking aobut our rapes at all. WE were talkiogn abou the harassment, and that the church knew what Danny was doing (Obj, last part stricken)
Did you ever comment to Reyes, the three of you were flooding each other with stories.
She asked me how I knew about JD3, and I told her she reached out to me, and we were in shock, and we were both, and you know, I wasn't talking about JD1, I was saying to JD3, like, and I said to Det Reyes we were just flooding each other, we were in shock that there were other girls and we weren't the only ones, and all of this had happened, and it hadn't been reported before..
Is that what you meant by flooding each other?
Yes, when I said that to Reyes that's all I was referring to. It was only to JD3, and it was about how we were both in the same church and knew the same people. I had been out a while, and she was, her mind was kind of blown.
Did you and JD3 share some details about Masterson?
Yes. Not a lot yet, but yes.
And JD1?
Eventually, some. This has been six years now we’ve been supporting each other through this horrific time.
Did you and JD3 and compare details about your incidents relating to Masterson?
I don't think so, or not in any detail. More in shock, like, he did this to me. Nothing meticulous, ever.
Same thing with JD1?
No.
You and JD3 and JD1 talked about harassment, have you talked to JD3 about harassment?
Yes.
And to JD1?
Yes.
Do you feel as if you've experienced stalking and harassment?
Yes, absolutely.
When did it start?
Right around the week I had the interview with Reyes.
Has it continued?
To this day.
At the hands of the Church of Scientology?
100 percent.
Based on those allegations of harassment you filed a lawsuit against Church of Scientology, David Miscavige, And Danny Masterson.
Yes.
Are damages being requested?
Yes.
Are monetary damages the main reason?
No.
What is the main reason?
To get the harassment to stop, to get the stalking to stop. And now, six years later, to have some of the damages compensated that have accumulated for six years.
No further questions.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
Defense attorney Philip Cohen: You talked about a lawsuit against Church of Scientology, David Miscavige, Danny Masterson.
Jane Doe 2: Yes.
Do you think that lawsuit has impacted your truthfulness today?
No.
Has it impacted how you present yourself to the jury?
No.
We took a break because you indicated there were two people who walked in during your testimony and were concerning to you.
I wasn't sure.
We took a break because of your uncertainty
Yes
They made you nervous.
They made me uncomfortable.
You thought they were Scientologists
I thought they were Sea Org, which is different.
Do you believe that Det Reyes is Scientology?
No.
Det Viegas?
No
Do you feel they are being paid or influence by Scientology?
I have no idea.
Do you believe that Reyes is crooked in some way
I have no idea.
It sounds like it impacted how you interacted with her?
No.
When you spoke with her, were you truthful?
Yes.
You answerd to the best of your ability.
That's fair.
(Puts up a list of interviews and dates.) This just lays out the interviews that you've given, the major ones.
OK.
The rape allegation stems from late 2003.
Correct.
And the first time you ever give an interview is January 27, 2017.
Correct.
First interview to anybody.
To anybody, yes.
When you gave that statement, the events that what had happened in late 2003 were certainly fresher than they are today.
I don't know that to be true, because when an event is very singular, first of all, in different proceedings, I've had to keep remembering, some of it comes back to me. And also, when something is really singular, whether it's getting married, or a breakup, or a rape, those have pieces that don't leave you.
I understand, pieces may not leave you. so the things that happened in 2003 may never leave you.
Yes.
With respect to certain facts, your memory has gotten better? (Obj) Is it your testimony that from January 2017, your memory has actually gotten better in some instances?
Yes.
OK. When you interviewed with Reyes in 2017, did she aske you if at any point Danny would hurt you?
She did.
What did you tell her.
I said no, because it was the first time I was trying to remember.
Was that the truth?
Yes.
Did she also ask you if he was going to hit you?
Yes. I said no.
Was that the truth?
Yeah, because at that moment, I don't know if I entirely knew what she meant. And like I said earlier, (she talks about not having coherent thoughts during the rape, and she speaks sounding like a robot, to give the impression that the thoughts weren't that coherent.)
The interview was recorded?
Yes.
Did Reyes and Viegas take steps to make you comfortable?
Yes.
They came to your house?
Yes.
They were there for 2.5 hours?
Yes. They could have been there 10 hours and I'm going to remember what I remember in that moment.
Judge Olmedo says we're going to break for the day.
She has an admonition for the jury after the witness steps out.
It's a stipulation, actually, from the attorneys.
Cohen: The two women who were seated in the third row, that Jane Doe 2 had referred to, neither one of them are associated with Scientology or Masterson in any way. (DA agrees.)
Jane Doe 2’s cross-examination will resume on Tuesday morning, May 9.
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.
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
Some memories never leave you, that’s so true. When I smell Old Spice, I think of my father, he died in 1984. That’s a pleasant olfactory memory.
Yesterday I discovered a fearful memory that has stuck with me all these years, but had to be triggered for me to even realize it caused me fear. I was talking about the State budget with a member of the judicial appropriations committee and he pulled out a copy of the printed biennial budget, what the legislators call “the goldenrod”.
Just the sight of a goldenrod brought a fearful feeling to me. For those of you who don’t know, when you are declared a suppressive person and kicked out of scientology, your declare is printed on goldenrod paper and is sometimes just referred to as a goldenrod.
JD2 would have had no reason to remember specific memories, and she noted she avoided thinking about them, until Det. Reyes asked specific questions. After that, other memorable moments probably came back to her.
I hope by now JD2 has gotten help with her anxiety. What a horrible thing to put anyone through.
I think we have a winning court situation. Does anyone here think otherwise?