Anson: You've heard that JD2 met the def in 1999 or 2000. Earlier than that her mom had introduced her to Sci. She didn't believe in medication. In 2002 or 2003, JD2 was dating another Scientologist.
And after they broke up, outside a party, that Scientologist raped her. JD2 went to the church and asked for help. The chaplain told her it wasn't rape, you pulled it in, and under no circumstance should you go to the police.
That had a lasting effect on her.
In 2003, JD2 was staying with her friend Ilaria, who was really close friends to def, and Ilaria asked her to go out to the Well with the def and Luke Watson.
When JD2 was drinking water, she saw the def was staring at her intently.
You saw her on the stand, she's a nervous person. She found the staring unnerving but also kind of flattering. She thought he had his stuff together. They exchanged numbers that night.
Ilaria told JD2 wow, I've never seen him act that way, he must really like you. That's what she believed.
So when the def began texting her, you are coming over, she was confused. Maybe this is his strange way of flirting.
So she sets conditions. No way I’m taking y clothes off, not getting in the jacuzzi. We can have a glass of wine and talk. And under those conditions, she was willing to go over
And her practice was to have a little bit of alcohol to calm her nerves, and she did that night. She wasn't drunk, just more calm.
She walked to his house. He invited her in to the living room, brought her a glass of wine. Drink it. Finish it.
She was embarrassed, she didn't like his eyes on her, but she was slowly drinking the wine. she remembers having that one glass.
He showed her around, they were outside by the jacuzzi.
She now begins to feel the effect. This is not about consent. when you drug someone, you take away their ability to consent.
She felt things she had never felt before. This is not consent. She begins losing control of her body, she can't see, she can't remember how her clothes came off and how she got in the jacuzzi.
She has memories of him kissing her heavily and touching her vagina. And she's trying to manage the situation. We can't do that, we can't have sex.
She doesn't remember how she got upstairs. She's not sure. She gets into the shower with the def, there's heavy kissing, he fingers her, she's saying no, this is getting too heavy. She's still experiencing the symptoms.
He put his penis in her vagina and she freaks out. No, I told you no sex.
He removes his penis. He then ordered her to go his bedroom. She goes.
She's kissing. Maybe there's some oral copulation. And she's feeling out of it and trying to manage the situation. Begging him, no sex. Do you hear me, no sex. Do you understand me?
The def then flips her over, on her hands and knees, and he's pounding her. She feels like a rag doll. The force is like a jackhammer. She throws up in her mouth. And she continues to tell him. She eventually realizes he's not going to stop, and she asks him, please, put a condom on.
This isn't to say she's ok with this. Asking for a condom is not consent, She was trying to protect herself.
They stayed in bed and spoke after. They talked. You herard that JD2 had already had this experience with the church, she was told it wasn't rape. She didn't want this to be rape. She knew the def. She didn't want it to be what it was.
And so she thought maybe he misunderstood -- she tried to reframe it. At about 6 in the morning she went home. She thought, Ilaria told me he really liked me. I'm going to reframe it. And so she waits for a call.
She called him: I thought you really liked me. He said I'm busy and hung up.
We talked about this in jury selection, and DR. Ziv talked about this. Victims who know their attackers, they reframe things. They don't fight, they don't push. They say no and try to manage the situation. and then they can't, they don't like to think of it as rape and they reframe it.
That's what she did. She tried to reframe it. But if you believe she was drugged, it is not consent and it is not rape. If she said rape, rape... (Obj. Overruled, but reminds the jury that they should follow her instructions.)
If she said no and he continues, that’s rape. It doesn't matter what reframing she did later.
If the facts are there and the law is there, it is what it was. JD2 was raped.
It doesn't matter if they started dating later and got married. It doesn't change the fact that she was drugged and raped. Reframing doesn't change that.
We know this happened. It wasn't some big conspiracy after they met and learned about each other. We know she told people when it happened -- her mother, Rachel S, and Jordan Ladd. And later, to Mariah O'Brien.
What she told each of them was he had sex with her after she begged him not to. That he was like a jackhammer and she felt like a rag doll.
She didn't use the word rape. And you heard from JD2's mother that she had an old-fashioned idea of what rape is.
Let's look at the law. Sexual intercourse means any penetration of vagina or genitalia by the penis. You heard from each of them that it was penetration and painful, that the was hitting the cervix in some cases.
They did not consent. That consent was taken from them.
They said no over and over. Some fought, like JD3 and JD1.
None of them consented.
A woman who initially consents can change their mind. But in this case none of them initially gave consent. But if you feel that JD2 initially gave some indication, that she was later voicing no, that's what matters.
Two of them did use some physical resistance. JD2 did not. She was scared, and she thought if the tried to resist, it would become more violent and she was terrified of that.
Evidence that someone used a condom is not enough to prove consent.
Intercourse is used by physical force to overcome a woman's will. In each of these cases, he used force to overcome them.
When they said no and fought back, he used force.
Jordan Ladd, when JD2 disclosed what happened, she was not a Scientologist. And she told JD2 it sounded like rape. It was rape. JD2 was not in a place to accept that. She could not hear that. And she begged Jordan Ladd not to tell anyone and Jordan listened.
Kathleen J. is a woman from Toronto, she is not a Scientologist. She does not know the other victims. She doesn't know the def. She had never met him before the night in 2000 and had no contact later.
She described something remarkably similar, drugged and raped. She was working on a movie Angel Eyes in 2000 as a propmaster. At the end of the filming was a wrap party. She went with then husband and his two daughters to hotel for the party.
She drank during dinner, but nothing at the wrap party. She was invited up a party for a different film called Dracula 2000.
She loses track of where here family is. Her husband she thinks is on a balcony, her stepdaughters have gone back to their rooms.
A man, the def, brings her a drink, vodka orange juice. At that time she had no idea who he is. She has some of that drink. Shortly after that she begins not to feel well. She feels ill. Needs to go to the bathroom.
He offered to assist her. She opens a door and it's a bedroom. She thinks it's a mistake. She's not scared, oop, wrong room. AS she turns around, the def guides her back into the room.
She remembers being on her back, and the feeling of her nylons coming down, the def over her, and his penis going into her vagina. That's the last thing she remembers until she wakes up int he hallway of the hotel.
She goes to the bathroom, there is blood in her underwear, she throws it away, crawls into bed.
She doesn’t tell her husband that day. Several month slater they watch Dracula 2000 and for the first time sees her attacker's face in a scene of the movie.
Up to this point ,she didn't know who he was or his name. Now she breaks down, she's shaking. She tells her husband, but she doesn't go to law enforcement. She is ashamed. She decided to suffer in silence.
In 2021, she's having a conversation with her niece, and the subject of drugging comes up. This makes her think about it, she decides to Google the def. She sees headlines about him being charged. But she also feels some comfort, she isn't he only one.
She put out a tweet. She ends up tweeting and messaging with JD3. JD3 said I can't talk to you about facts. But here's the information for the detective.
Kathleen was then directed to Toronto PD and gave an interview. She is not involved in any lawsuit. She's not a Scientologist. She doesn't know these women.
What possible motivation does Kathleen J have to come and testify about this horrific thing. What's the motive?
This is the photo the defense uses: (Photo of J-Lo and Leah.) What does this imply, that 20 years ago there's a conversation between them? And that Leah is some disgruntled Scientologist? And they all concocted this plan to have Kathleen J come forward? Ridiculous.
The defense is going to say there's a big conspiracy, that they got together to concoct their stories. We know this isn't true because each of these women disclosed to others long before they knew about each other.
Also, that the def has an m.o., their rapes are unique. Their druggings are unique. JD3, full no memory. Kathleen, no memory after attack. JD1 and JD2, partial memories.
JD1 talks about a pillow on her face -- no one else talks about a pillow.
JD2 -- no others attacked from behind.
JD3 -- struck on the face.
These are unique attacks, made without consent..
We ask that you find the defendant culpable, and you find him guilty of these rapes. Thank you.
DEFENSE
Cohen: Hello, it's good to get to talk to you again. I like Ms. Anson very much and she did a very good job.
What scares me though is something she said. She said to ignore the little inconsistencies.
That is horrifying to hear from a prosecutor's mouth. Because when you're talking about things that happened 20 years ago, to demonstrate that they did not happen the way they are described, is all about inconsistency.
It's all about corroboration. All. We have a teacher here. We have parents here. Imagine, you talk to your child about something you are accusing them, and they tell you one story and you told a different story to this other teacher or to your dad.
And the kid says, ignore that. Here's what matters.
What Ms. Anson views as little inconsistencies-- and she did a very good job of ignoring them -- is the heart of trying to determine is someone reliable, believable for a criminal conviction?
You think I'm just making that up? Let's look at a couple of jury instructions. I've heard them a few times in a few different cases.
You're going to have the instructions with you, to read. They're critical. This is not like sitting around the dinner table and whoever talks the longest wins the argument. These instructions are critical.
One of the first to pay attention to is the duty of the jury. You might remember, as I do, when we were going through jury selection. Number 1, I said, let me know fi you just don’t want to be here. If you don't want to be here I don't want you here. But number 2, can you promise, regardless of emotion, and you're going to hear about a terrible boyfriend and Scientology, can you put what emotion aside and follow the law? And every one of you promised that you would. And that's why you're on this jury.
This system does not work, it cannot work, unless you live up to that promise.
So what do they say? You must not let bias or public opinion influence your assessment of the evidence.
You know, Ms. Anson Mr. Mueller, I enjoy working with them, they have a job to do, to get a conviction.
As the trial went on, we saw these photos of JD1 with her dad, and photos of great modeling photos with JD3, and images of a TV show with JD2. Why?
Because they want you to consider things you aren't supposed to consider.
Now, let's talk about little inconsistencies, or what the jury instructions refer to as the most important things you should consider when it comes to judging the credibility of a witness.
(Reads instruction: Use common sense, evaluating a witness's testimony.)
Let's look at a couple of those things. How well could they remember? Not just on direct, but when they're asked questions by the defense as well.
It's very, very easy for someone to say, that light was green. Takes ten seconds. To demonstrate through that witness if it was actually green, takes a bunch of questions. What time of day was it, how is your eyesight, etc.
(Going through more of the instructions. That the jury should pay attention to inconsistencies, etc.)
The instructions tell you that in a sexual assault case, the testimony of one person, the named victim, is enough to convict a defendant. I have no problem with that. But if you find them credible, believable, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Reading instruction about what to do if you find someone lied on the stand, and that you should keep that in mind for all of their testimony.
"I like to call this the liar, liar, pants on fire instruction."
It's a critical instruction he says.
He finally walks away from the display of instructions.
Now to themes: If you recall Mr. Mueller's opening statement, referred to gun as not a major part of JD1's experience. We then hear from JD1 and the gun is at the center of the narrative she gives.
That was the first example. There were multiple examples when I listened to direct testimony and they said something really, really different than before. Onus on me to ask about it.
Time and again something came out on direct, and you would hear, wait a minute, you previously said this. An inordinate amount of times.
Another thing that was really significant, the govt did not call the lead investigating officer, Det Vargas. Think about that. In putting on their case in chief, to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt, the govt did not call the lead investigator who has been on this case since 2017.
They can certainly choose who they call. But imagine that. Why is that important?
Well, Det Reyes got on the stand, she said she found no contamination. She was very firm in that opinion.
Then I asked her, how do you determine that, might it be by comparing different statements in different interviews? She said yes.
OK, did you review Vargas's interviews with the witnesses to determine whether things have changed?
No, I didn't.
Interviews with these other witnesses? The mom? The friend?
No, I didn't.
Did you have those all available?
Yes I did.
Then the govt chose not to call the detective who conducted those interviews. Is that a "little inconsistency" that you all should ignore?
Let me go through a couple more jury instructions and then when we come back from lunch we'll go into the facts of these cases.
Let me show you a couple of these rules.
You heard an instruction about circumstantial evidence. (Puts up a display of that instruction.)
In circumstantial evidence -- talks about seeing a wet ground and infer that it rained. That's circumstantial, and it's just as strong as direct. But here's the key about circumstantial evidence for you. If you can draw two or more conclusions from circumstantial evidence, one points to innocence and one to guilt, you must accept the one that points to innocence.
Where you have two pieces of evidence, and the govt has asked you to draw a conclusion, and one explanation points to innocence and another to guilt, you must accept the one that points to innocence. Very important instructions.
JD testimony: You can concluded that Masterson raped them. There are a number of circumstantial inference, and you must accept the conclusion that points to innocence.
Now puts up a display about "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
You must have an abiding conviction in the jury room of the charge.
Many people describe it as that belief that you would use in making the most important decisions of your life. Why? Because the decision you are going to make IS the most important decision in someone's life.
So how do you judge if something is beyond a reasonable doubt?
(Same chart he used last trial.)
“I think it is unlikely he is guilty” -- What's your vote? Not guilty.
“He may not be guilty.” Ms. Anson said some compelling things, but after haring that, you may not think he's guilty. So what's your vote? Not guilty, not even guilty.
“I suspect he may be guilty.” You know we have three Jane Does, we have a fourth, I suspect that he may be guilty. You have to vote not guilty without hesitation.
“I think he is probably guilty.” And this is where we get into how we think inside and outside court. You know what this thought leads to -- not guilty.
“I think guilt is highly likely.” There's a strong likelihood that he is guilty. And this applies to every count in this case. If you think guilt is highly likely this is, under the law, and under your sworn duty, that is not guilty.
Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt -- that is the cornerstone. It's what separates us from most of the countries in the world. It truly is what seoarates us and protects us. So, have a good lunch, think about that, and we'll take it up after.
Judge Olmedo excuses us for lunch.
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
I can’t read Cohens slimy defense argument. He may dress nicely but he’s still a snake. Anson did a great job
The only real question here is did or did not forcible rape occur? Cohen dances all around that. Casts doubt on everything else but the act and consent. It’s his only angle. Not guilty by association? Come on.