DEFENSE PROBES JANE DOE 1's PAYMENT: Danny Masterson trial, end of day 7
[This report was produced live during a court hearing with a lot going on. There will be typos. Please don't email us about typos that you find. We are reporting live from an ongoing trial and we do not have time to make such corrections.]
Late afternoon session
Cohen continuing cross-examination of Jane Doe 1
Cohen: I want to go back to the photos you provided to LAPD. In July 2017 Det Vargas comes in.
No.
Earlier than that?
Months before.
One of the requests that he makes of you is provide photos?
Yes.
And you then provide Det Vargas with the two pictures that we saw, the blowup Defence C.
No.
You provide different photos?
No.
You provide any photos?
No.
In June of 2004, you are dealing with talking with some detective as a followup to the statement you gave Schlegel. At some point you got a voicemail message from a detective, indicating that your case has been determined to be rejected by the DA.
No.
Never got that message?
What you just described didn't happen.
Did you ever get a message about the status of the case?
No.
It's your testimony you never got a message in June 2004 that the case was a DA reject. (Olmedo: Restate the question. Ladies and gentleman, it's not for the truth of the matter, but for the effect on the listener.) Similar question.
No.
So that's June of 2004, a few months later, are you aware that a draft civil complaint was sent to Mr. Masterson?
No.
In or around this period, June, July 2004, did you sign a retainer agreement with a civil attorney?
No.
Did you have a civil attorney working for you with respect to making a claim against Mr. Masterson?
Can you be specific about the time period?
This would be June, July, August, 2004.
No.
Are you aware of anyone on your behalf, talking about an attorney, sending a draft civil complaint to Mr. Masterson?
No.
Are you aware of anyone, an attorney, seeking money from Mr. Masterson? Based upon claims made by you?
Some attorney making claims?
An attorney on your behalf making a demand, a request, a draft complaint on Masterson seeking money on your behalf?
No.
Did you receive as a result as a demand on Masterson, $400,000?
A demand by whom?
A demand by an attorney on your behalf did you receive $400,000?
No.
Did a lawyer, Daniel Novek, earn 25 percent of the $400,000 based upon him... (Obj, sustained)
Cohen: Did you receive a large sum of money from Mr. Masterson at some point in 2004? (Obj, I'll alow it.)
I received an amount of money from Mr. Masterson.
And was that in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars?
No.
Do you previosly recall indicating that you recalled it being in the low hundreds of thousands?
I was asking your question if I received in 2004 that amount. No.
In 2004 or 2005 did you receive the low hundreds of thousands?
Yes.
Did you go through that money fairly quickly? (Obj, sustained)
All right, let's move on from 2004 and let's go to 20016.
OK.
In 2016, December, you speak with Det Reyes, correct?
I believe I also spoke with her then, it wasn't the first time.
You spoke to her before December 2016?
Yes.
Dec 15, 2016, you called Det Reyes, correct?
I don't recall making that call. I recall speaking to her in November, and I spoke to her multiple times.
I'm interested in the first time you spoke to her.
I think it was November 2016.
And it was your testimony she called you in November 2016?
I think she called me in November 2016.
Would it refresh your recollection to look at her December 2016 record?
Cohen: On December 15, 2016, you called Det Reyes, corredt?
That's what the log says, I have no recollection that goes against that.
Now prior to calling her, had you spoken to Jane Doe 3 regarding any matter relevant to Masterson?
Yes.
I understand your position that Reyes called you first, let's take that out of the equation first. You speak to JD3 before you call Reyes on Dec 15, 2016?
Oh yeah.
And you speak about Masterson?
Yes.
When you spoke to Reyes in Dec 2016, did she admonish you or direct you not to speak to other witnesses (Obj, overruled) regarding this case?
I believe on or around that date, yes.
Does December 16, 2016, sound correct?
Yes.
You then have an interview with Det Reyes on Jan 26, 2017, did Reyes tell you not to talk to JD3 or JD2 anymore? (Obj, sustained)
Cohen: Based upon what Reyes had told you, did you make any changes to the people you were communicating with regarding the case?
When?
On Dec 26, 2016 you have an interview, and she admonished you? Based on that do you take certain actions?
I thought I'd already taken the actions.
What actions had you thought you had taken?
I told (JD3) that we can't talk anymore and we both cried, and I wished her luck.
Is it your position that as late as January 2017, you ceased all communication with potential witnesses in this case? (Olmedo, needs to be more specific.
Cohen: Is it your position that you were told not to communicate to JD3
In 2017, we were told to communicate. We were instructed to be in contact with each other.
And Reyes told you to be in contact with JD2 as well?
I didn't have contact with JD2 at that time.
Det reyes didn't tell you not to communicate with potential witneesses.
I reemember the opposite. She told us that we should talk to witnesses and to record the calls.
What about Rachel?
We didnt have a conversation about Rachel, but it was anyone we could contact.
Did Det Reyes ever tell you not to talk to potential witnesses on this case?
Ever? Yes.
After she told you that, did you talk to your cousin Rachel?
Yes.
Did you talk to your cousin Rachel about this case?
Yes.
You knew she had not yet been interviewed about what happened in Florida?
I didn't know they had spoken to. They wouldn't tell me. I spoke to her months later to ask about getting the photos.
On May 3, 2017, did you text Det Vargas that she was going to reprint the photos.
Yes, she had negatives and was going to reprint.
So you knew she might be a witness and you were talking to her about the case?
Yes.
And then you tell Det Vargas that she's leaving Thailand and he might talk to her before she leaves for Thailand?
No.
You told Rachel soon after landing in Florida that something bad had happened.
Yes.
You never used the word rape or non-consensual.
No.
You said she became very scared.
Yeah.
Sounds like she's seeing the bruising, hearing what you're saying, within just a day or two of the rape? (That would call for speculation.)
You have interaction with Rachel in Florida, correct?
Yes.
You told her something really bad happened?
Yes.
Olmedo: This is all asked and answered.
Cohen: Off Schlegel asked you in 2004, who could be a witness. Did you provide Rachel's name to Shlegel?
I don't believe I did? I don't remember if I did.
(Shows her Schlegel's report.)
OK. I don't see her name on it.
That's my question, when you were asked for witnesses, whether you gave the name.
That's not what he asked me.
My question is did you give the name of Rachel D to Schlegel?
No.
When you spoke with cousin Rachel prior to her speaking to Vargas, did you tell her what to say what happened in Florida?
The truth.
The interview with Mr. Mueller, Apr 24 2017, Vargas was present for that interview.
Correct.
You were asked some questoins by Mueller.
Correct.
You gave him a lot of information.
Yeah.
Is it your position that your memory as to Apr 25 2003, the rape, that your memory as to that incident was better and clearer when you spoke to Mueller than when you spoke to Schlegel in 2004?
No.
Is what you told Mr. Mueller during that interview different than what you had told Off Schlegel regarding the Apr 25 2003 rape? (Obj, sustained)
Cohen: Well, at some point did you come to learn that what you had told Mr. Mueller had extensive inconsistencies from what appeared in Off Schlegel's report? (Obj, sustained)
Cohen: Were you asked by Det Vargas and go through Off Schlegel's report and change it or clarify it to make it consistent with what you told Mueller? (Obje, sustained)
Cohen asks if it's a good time to break. Judge says sure. She then speaks to the jury about the schedule for a bit.
Tomorrow will start at 10 am.
Cohen wishes to be heard.
Cohen: Here's what I would proffer. JD1 gives an interview to Mueller, Vargas is present, JD1 then speaks with Vargas and is told by Vargas that there are extensive inconsistencies with the report. Vargas says he's spoken to Mueller and tells JD1 to correct the report but doesn't want it in an email. Then Vargas and JD1 go through all of these inconsistencies with the Schlegel 2004 report. I think number 1 it's not hearsay. It's not for the truth of the matter. My position is none of these reports are accurate or the truth. It goes to motive and bias.
Olmedo: What's your hearsay exception. You're not going to try to argue that Vargas swayed the investigation, that's the truth of the matter asserted and I need a hearsay exception.
Cohen: To argue it that Vargas has done something untoward, that has to come from Vargas himself, ask him to make a statement and impeach. But that's not where I'm going with JD1. She takes steps...
Olmedo: What steps. What was the change in the statements after that conversrion.
Cohen: There's 25 of them, maybe? Inconsistencies between what Schlegel...
Olmedo: I'm just trying to understand where you're going. If the first initial desk report at Hollywood, is inconsistent with whta Vargas...So there's Schlegel report, Mueller report, Vargas report. Betwen the Mueller and Vargas was this stateement?
Cohen: Correct.
Mueller: This was the first oppoturntiy she had to see the Schlegel report. She had gone through and pointed out certain things that were inconsistent with what she had provided. And with how that interview came about. There was a follow up that was written by Vargas just indicating what those inconsistencies were. I still don't understand how these are coming in not for the truth of the matter.
Olmedo: If she made changes, verbal or written, that would probably be for the truth of the matter but for why she's making these changes. So for that reason I think Mr. Cohen has made a proper proffer on the matter. As for Det Vargas we'll see what he has to say when he takes the stand. I am inclined to allow Mr. Cohen to ask JD1 did she have a conversation with Vargas and did he ask her to go over any inconsistencies. I will allow him to ask the question tomorrow in the morning.
Cohen: Can I ask her that it not be done in writing?
Olmedo: Not in writing goes to police conduct and not the effect on the listener. You can ask Vargas that.
Court tomorrow at 10 am because she’s handling another case at 8:30.
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…
Wow. Cohen is weaving a web that seems to indicate police misconduct. Jane Doe 1 still comes off as credible. It looks like game-playing on the part of Cohen. Nothing he has said has anything to do with whether or not the incident occurred. I know he thinks he can show if she didn't say something once but says it later it's a question of her credibility. But actually, it just looks like a lot of poor police work. Personally, I wonder if that's because of the cozy relationship between Scieno and the LAPD.
JD1 is being asked questions about a police report she doesn’t remember giving to a person she doesn’t remember talking to. This is all so strange. I guess there would be a lot of confusion given the time, but it appears to be more mishandling or creative reporting too.
Also, she did not retain an attorney, an attorney was retained on her behalf by someone, probably her father, and she was not consulted. So much fraud there that a scientologist would not question. And if she was still active in scientology when she was paid the $, every cent of it went to sec checking.