Detective Reyes backs up the Jane Does: The case has not been contaminated

Morning session, Day 16 (Day 12 of testimony) Danny Masterson retrial

We will be continuing with the direct examination of LAPD Detective Esther Myape (Reyes) this morning.

SARTORIAL SPLENDOR ALERT: Defense attorney Philip Cohen once again does not disappoint, arriving in a powder blue windowpane three-piece suit, with a pecan tie and caramel shoes. He's ready for battle.

Judge Olmedo and the attorneys discuss some issues with the transcripts of the video segments the jury has been shown.

Cohen raises an issue with a statement by Jane Doe 3 about sleeping with Danny's brother Christopher when she was in Paris that was redacted from one of the transcripts. He says he understands why it was kept out by the prosecution, but he would like to bring in the fact that she said she slept with someone in order to help explain why things had escalated.

Mueller answers that JD3 had not denied it in previous testimony, and it is hearsay.

Judge Olmedo agrees that it is hearsay, but it is relevant to what happened that night, so she will allow Cohen to ask about it, but the witness should be admonished not to mention the name of the brother.

Now they are doing a sidebar to discuss scheduling matters. We're getting the sense that we're real close to finishing testimony today or tomorrow, and then Judge Olmedo will give both sides a day off before closing arguments.

Detective Myape is on the stand. The jury is coming in.

We will continue with the prosecution playing an audio segment from Det. Myape's interview of Jane Doe 1.

Mueller: We left off yesterday where we were about to play an audio clip of an interview that you had with Jane Doe 1. (Hands out transcripts of the segment to the jury.) Jan 26, 2017.

Audio: "Danny's like, what are you drinking? He has a beer in his hand... Red drink, it's fruit punch, it's really fruit punchy... talking, there are other people. I still haven't been inside.... I remember Jimmy DeBello and two girls... Well, [JD1's] going in the jacuzzi. Danny comes out and announces that... Oh my god, no... He knows it's upsetting because you go in with your clothes on... There's one girl in the jacuzzi maybe two... He throws you in? Uh-huh.... You were drinking. Yes, but only one, and I don't know how much I had... (Lots of noise making it hard to hear)... I curl up on the cement on the patio in a ball. I can't even tell my eyes were open... Danny and I don't have a great, I'm more comfortable with Luke... he's like a brother... She needs to throw up... I'll take her upstairs... I'll do that, let me take care of that... Oh my god, you think I'd do anything with her? Are you kidding, she's my homie... I'm still saying no, no put me down. For some reason I had my phone. I had it in my hand but I couldn't see. Then Luke started following me and Danny was carrying me up... I called my dad at this moment... This was a voice mail my dad had, with me crying... Then I'm on the bathroom floor, he's sticking his fingers down my throat and I'm throwing up on my hair... He drags me off by my hair... To the shower... He grabs me by the hair... And then I get carried off into a dark... I don't really remember anything there. I just remembers bits... He carries to me to a bed and then I don't know what happens then for a while... There's one (memory) where his hands are on my throat. That was one when I thought I was going to die... "You're not going to tell..." At one point I tried to grab his hair, that really triggered him... I knew there was a gun in his drawer. There was a gun there... Then at some point, I felt paralyzed. I don't know how to explain it.... "Don't fucking move." And he gets up and he goes somewhere, and I can't move, almost like it's a command... It's really pitch black I guess. I didn't know where I was going... A walk-in closet, I wake up with my knees like this... Do you remember him ever having sex with you? Yes... It was really painful... He wasn't successful with anal. I think he was... I had two days of pain and diarrhea... I told that to the detective and he said it was a lie, he did have a gun, but they said he didn't have a gun. When you say "they" you mean the Church of Scientology. Yes... I was trying to figure it out, what happened... I went downstairs and I saw Luke Watson. About what time was it in the morning... What the fuck happened? I don't want to hear it. You are going right into the president's office and take care of this shit. But can you tell me what happened? No, and I don't want to hear it."

Mueller: Did Jane Doe 1 express to you any concerns about her reporting to law enforcecment?

Yes, she said that the church, she was afraid because the church did not want her to report to police, and they also gave her an NDA to signn.

What did she tell you about immediately after leaving Masterson's house.

She went to Brie's house. Her keys, she had left them before going on. She left her purse and keys to her car there.

What did she tell you about any plans she had for that day?

She was going to her father's birthday, a family trip.

You also conducted an interview with Jane Doe 2.

Yes.

Where?

At her home.

And when?

January of 2017.

And was that you alone?

I had Det Viegas with me.

How long was it?

It was probably two or three hours.

How did Jane Doe 2 appear to you?

She was worried, she was calm, a little anxious about talking to us, telling what happened to her. Maybe a little distrustful of us?

What did she tell you about that/

It was because she was a former Scientologist. She was afraid they would do something to her. Just worried just in general, because she knows what they can do.

Did you arrange for any pretext calls to made by any of the witnesses.

Yes.

All three?

JD1 and JD3.

(Explains a pretext call.)

Did you provide any equipment?

Yes. It was a remote system our technical division set up, in their offices. They would call a number, enter a code and remotely access it. They would dial the number then the target's number.

Did you explain to them how to do it and when to record?

Yes.

Was there an issue?

Yes.

Jane Doe 1 told me that she Googled the number that was provided and it came up as a police sting number. Of course this was alarming to me, and that the numbers are randomly assigned and there was no number.

How long had they been assigned the number.

I would say a couple of weeks.

What did you do?

I think we either did not use that number any more, or we could have changed that number. I'm not sure.

What was JD1's reaction to you over this.

She was very upset. Because she was already in a state of, I don't want to say distress, she was just very unhinged about this whole situation, and rightly so.

What about Jane Doe 3? Did she have the same number?

I'm not sure. I think they each had their own line.

What was JD3's reaction?

The same reaction. She felt now, well are the church and police talking to each other. They were becoming a little distrustful of the police.

Would you say there was already some mistrust of these victims from the beginning?

I would say yes. (Says that Scientology told them not to talk to law enforcement.)

You have set up a number of pretexts with other victims.

Numerous. And that had never happened.

Did you have a conversation with any of the victims with regard to communication between themselves?

Yes.

Was that any one or all three?

All three.

Did you advise them that they should not be talking to each other about the case?

I did.

Do you recall a reaction that stands out in your mind?

I know that JD2 said she could pretty much talk to anyone she wanted to.

But you told them they needed to talk to some witnesses as part of the pretext calls.

That's correct.

When you told JD2 that she should not be talking to other witnesses, she told you that she understood and that it could cause cross-contamination.

Yes.

(Asks about "cross-pollination," but she doesn't remember that specific term. So Mueller shows her a transcript.)

So when you advised JD2 best not to talk to other victims, she understood and said it might cause cross-pollination.

That's correct.

And that's what she told you.

Yes.

When JD2 told you this, from your investigation up to that point in time, and your having met all the victims, you told JD2 that you didn't believe they were doing that.

Yes.

When you were advising victims about not talking to one another, that it's a general adomonition.

That's correct.

Not specific to this case?

Correct.

And today, are you still of the opinion that these three victims have not contaminated this case? (Obj, overruled, but clarify) What is your opinion about the conversations they had?

I think that each victim can speak for themselves. But I don't think they colluded or contaminated the case. (Striking word "colluded" but leave the rest.)

No further.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

Cohen: Just for clarification, you used to be Det Reyes.

Det Myape: That's correct.

Do you have any interest in which side wins this case?

No.

Are you here to testify the same way to both sides?

Yes.

You just indicated that you do not believe that this case has been contaminated in any way based on the discussions the women had (Obj, sustained) Do you think the case has been contaminated?

No.

And that is based on your review of various reports and interviews?

That's correct.

(They go over a timeline of interviews)

When you came into the case before you interviewed JD3, did you review the Austin report.

Yes.

You then used that as a springboard into your interview in January (2017)?

Yes.

Is one important thing to do is compare what a witness has said in different interviews?

Yes.

And to look at the consistency of statements, it's important to review them.

Yes.

So you conduct your interview Jan 2017, and you reviewed it in detail before testifying today.

Correct.

You then spoke to JD3 the next day, Jan 18, 2017.

Yes.

The first one was tape recorded.

Yes.

And it's up to you if it's recorded.

Yes. I usually record my interviews.

Jan 18, 2017 with JD3, is that recorded?

Yes.

And a transcript prepared?

Yes.

You were the I/O on Jan 17, 2017. The IO is the investigating officer, and you remained that until March 2017.

Yes.

Then Det Vargas becomes IO and sits in on another interview of JD3 in June 2017.

Yes.

And that was recorded.

Correct.

Have you reviewed that transcript?

A while ago.

Have you listened to the audio recording with Vargas?

I did not.

Why not?

Because Det Vargas took the case over.

Is it your position that the statements made by the three Jane Does during your interview with them in early 2017 are consistent with the statements made by the JDs with Vargas? (Obj, sustained.) Do you have an opinion?

Yes.

Asks her if she reviewed prelim transcript. She has not. Reviewed transcript of prior proceeding in October? No, not since that trial.

Would it be accurate to say that you do not know if any of the statements made to you are true? (Inappropriate question) (Judge's admonition to the jury: The credibility of any witness is up to you and you alone to determine.)

As part of being a sex assault detective, is your training specifically about how to interview someone disclosing.

Yes.

Making them comfortable.

Yes.

Asking open-ended questions.

Yes.

And giving them time to answer.

Yes.

And you did that for all three Jane Does.

That's correct.

And you are also following up (not just passive).

Yes.

In your training and experience, if you believe that more information is needed, you'll ask that question, correct?

Yes.

And that's what you did with the three JDs.

Yes.

We heard two tapes yesterday. The first one, with JD3... (He shows a transcript with a large portion blacked out.) "Before the incident you reported," see that?

Yes.

The incident she reported was a Dec 2001 allegation that Danny had had anal sex with her while she was unconscious. That's the incident she reported to Austin PD.

Yes.

And that's the incident the first 39 pages of the interview was concerning.

Yes.

You then asked if there were any other "domestic violence" incidents.

Yes.

By the way, did you determine what JD3’s age was in 2000?

I believe she was in 17.

When they started dating?

Wait, she was 17 in 1995 when they started dating. So in 2001 she was 23?

Did they start dating when she was 18? And he was...

20, 21?

Did you ask her about how their sexual interaction evolved?

I think I just asked her about her relationship.

At some point, JD3 talks to you about a time when she and Danny got into an argument, and he dragged her out of the room. (Obj, sustained.) Did she tell about a time when he dragged her out of the bedroom?

Yes.

Did JD3 indicate, in the portion that is blacked out, that she had slept with somebody else?

Yes.

Did JD3 ever mention to you a "big loogie" that had landed on her face?

I know that, I remember that she said he had spit on her many times. But I can't remember specifically a loogie.

Do you remember if you asked her if had spit on her face, she said "I think so."

Yes.

But you don't remember if she ever said it was a loogie.

I don't remember that.

She then mentioned to you another instance where Danny had "tried to have sex with her." (Obj, sustained) Did JD3 talk to you about a time when he tried to have sex with her.

Yes.

And part of that was on the audio we heard yesterday.

Yes.

(Another objection is sustained that the testimony speaks for itself, and then Judge Olmedo calls for the morning recess.)

Judge tells Cohen that she's giving him the same admonition that she gave Mueller to just ask the question and not cite previous testimony.

Cohen is saying that once the DA asked Myape's opinion on contamination opens the door to asking her about her opinion on credibility of the witnesses. Judge Olmedo disagrees.

The court also doesn't like him asking for a stipulation in front of the jury. And that he tried to enter an unredacted version of a tape transcript.

"You give the impression that the court is hiding information."

Now they're arguing over whether Cohen was trying to enter an unredacted transcript, which he denies. Judge Olmedo admits that it was her mistake and will allow him to enter the copy of the transcript he wanted to.

Cohen is now bringing up the JD1 settlement and NDA. He would like to show title. "It's not an NDA. It's a settlement agreement with an NDA."

---

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