Danny Masterson retrial: No, the DA is not putting less focus on Scientology

[Danny Masterson and Deputy DA Reinhold Mueller]

We mentioned yesterday that we were in New York filming with a foreign news crew, and so we were not able to attend the pretrial hearing in Danny Masterson’s retrial that took place in a Los Angeles courtroom.

Several reporters we know did attend, and let us know that it was a brief affair, and the most important thing that came out of it was that after discussing the availability of witnesses, Judge Charlaine Olmedo moved the start of the retrial back a couple of weeks, to April 11.

But then, there was a little controversy that emerged. The Hollywood Reporter’s piece on the hearing carried a headline suggesting that the DA’s office indicated it would “put less focus on Scientology” in the second trial.

We weren’t the only ones raising an eyebrow over this notion. Yashar Ali, at Twitter, expressed outrage that Scientology would be downplayed.

We certainly understood Yashar’s point of view. We remembered that Deputy DA Reinhold Mueller had expressed his own concern, in a January 9 filing and at a January 10 hearing, that when he interviewed jurors after the November 30 mistrial, he learned that they had ignored much of the Scientology evidence in the first trial. And as far as we knew, based on our own sources, the DA’s office was more determined than ever to make sure a second jury understood how Scientology’s policies and reputation for retaliation had affected Masterson’s victims in the years after they were allegedly attacked.

The Hollywood Reporter story, however, seemed to be referring to that January 9 filing, and we examined it again, looking in vain for anything about the DA’s office lessening its focus on Scientology.

We also reached out to the writer, who indicated that there had been some miscommunication in the story’s editing process, and they were fixing the error. A correction soon appeared, and the headline was changed.

We also heard from Deputy DA Mueller himself, who responded to our inquiry by pointing out that the publication had posted its correction, so that’s reassuring.

We feel for the reporter, who we think was blameless, and we really don’t want them to come under criticism for the mistake. But the reason we are writing this story is simply to get out in front of a misconception in a major publication, the kind of thing that has a tendency to proliferate online.

No, Scientology will not get a break in the second trial. It can expect to be a major subject of testimony, just as it was in the first trial. And we can only hope that a second jury will pay better attention and try to understand how these women were cowed into silence by a totalitarian organization that is built on fear.

---

Bonus items from our tipsters

Another one of those wacky long fliers, this time for Montreal!

---

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 for 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…