It's amazing of Chris to share this extraordinary scoop with Tony. It demonstrates an unselfish desire to do the story real justice by sharing the platform with someone who knows the case inside out. What teamwork.
It's also incredibly generous of the jury foreman to sit for so long and speak in such depth about the trial. Such insight he's able to give us. I'm only a little way in so far but had to stop to make these observations.
UGH! Seems the prosecution dropped the ball, HARDCORE!
Also, that the jury was speculating on more than one occasion. How do you know what a person goes through during or after a rape, BY SOMEONE YOU KNOW! From my own experience the things the jury didn’t like about the 4 Jane Doe’s testimonies is text book reactions to a rape of someone you know or partner. I’m sad and disgusted
One comment I read or heard, the jury cannot possibly get the vocal impact of a victims testimony from written transcripts. Prosecution should argue more foribly that the jury receive both written and vocal testimony or, perhaps, request that whenever the jury asks for clarification of any testimony.
First of all, to Earl's daughter, thanks for suggesting to your dad that he do this interview. Chris, awesome that you were able to get this done; also, thank you for being so gracious to bring Tony into this conversation because he brings a journalistic background to the subject that is unparalleled. He has no peer on this topic. Fantastic interview and very illuminating. Thank you, Mr. Earl. A couple of thoughts stand out in my mind from this fascinating hour: 1) JDs talking to each other before the trial was overall seen as a negative factor to jurors. 2) That Det. Vargas appeared to jury not to have done his due diligence, even after the first day of his testimony, having not been urged by DA to review reports or video. 3) That the jury did feel "something had happened" because there were four women saying so and they wouldn't make this up. 4) That the prosecution's expert witness testimony was not meaningful to the jury because she had not interviewed the JDs and because the jury viewed the research itself as not carrying much weight since the subjects were college students who were paid. (As an aside, valid/reliable double blind research studies often offer some kind of compensation to the participants, as in medical research for example, even if it means some free medical tests during the course of the study -- so in hindsight DA could have made this clearer to the jury so that it wasn't seen as anything out of the ordinary.) 5) How "the" rape charge of 2021 caused some confusion and how defense attorney did a good job with "smoke and mirrors" to quote another juror -- and how jury didn't truly realize why one event was inadmissible. 6) JD asking the rape hotline "is it rape when you're unconscious" and again, Cohen working to confuse the jury about the two dates and the juror in marketing seeing his marketing tactics and "spinning" things. 7) Chris' comment about how prosecution could have presented a better case because "unreasonable/irrational behavior is around predatory people" and also talking about "coercive control" 8) Cohen's focus on inconsistencies won the day vs previous defense all about Scientology. (I wonder who decided to change the strategy and who picked Cohen -- just find that interesting.) 9) The gun not being mentioned in the first report. But Earl saying that the jury was aware that the first reports were done under duress with Scientology's edits -- but saying they had to take into account not to take that into account. Gah.
Phew ... I was glued to this interview and feel it would behoove people learning about law to go over Tony's transcripts and listen to this foreman. In my view it shows that this trial had a very capable, thoughtful, articulate foreman, who may have had questions or lingering issues with some of the testimony (or lack thereof) but who followed the judge's instructions to a T and really went by the book - regardless of the coulda/woulda/shoulda at the time. Trying to keep emotions out of it has to be hard. It's been a challenge to me, thinking, Jesus, people, he's guilty of something, since the jury itself said four people can't be making all this up. But that's not how the system works and it makes me feel better that the jury stuck with working with what they had in front of them, although DA obviously has some holes to fill. I'm so curious how Mueller will proceed. Also, unrelated question: Is Judge Olmedo still married to a Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputy?
Prosecution must present again, with much more emphasis on expert testimony from psychologist / psychiastrist about PTSD and victim's memory. The jury must understand documented evidence of how memory is affected in victims of emotional and sexual assault and the manner in which victims are 'interrogated by law enforcement.
Suggest the prosecution watch the 2019 Netflix true story mini-series, "Unbelievable" about a teenage rape victim in Snohomish, WA. There are excellent prosecution examples that could help in this case.
Chris and Tony, well done. What an amazing scoop! Earl seemed like a very good man, committed to doing the right thing and following the process as instructed. There is very little chance to get away from people having personal biases, and they exist in every trial. Both prosecution and defence lawyers are aware of that and try to find jurors whose bias might lean in their direction. Let’s not forget the horrific days of 12 white men on a jury automatically finding black defendants guilty, no matter what. Let us truly hope those days are gone forever. Yes, some guilty people do go free, but far better than innocent people being wrongly convicted and having their own lives stolen by juror bias and prejudice.
Now, back to this case. My own bias believes Danny is guilty. About half the jurors thought so too. The other half (roughly) didn’t think so. I thought if I was a juror, and was possibly deciding to put someone in jail for up to 45 years, I better be darn certain about the decision. This stuff is never simple. It must have been very difficult for jurors to confront the huge responsibility of a guilty verdict compared against the anguish and trauma these fine women endured, and the believability of their testimony. Let’s be honest, I think every case will have inconsistencies between comments you made 20 years ago, and your memories of the events, and your comments made today in hindsight. To assume the victims would remember every single detail exactly the same is in my view unreasonable. They needed to be given a bit of room for how time modifies our memories. So long as the major factors were clear, the little moments of inconsistencies needed to be ignored unless those little moments were of startling importance. I am glad I was not on the jury. I respect their work and their outcome. They ended their work in confusion and disagreement, and that would seem to be where most of us are in looking at a much smaller set of facts upon which we based our opinions.
I send strength to the victims. I believe they will win their civil case and will have to content themselves with Masterson possibly never seeing a day inside a prison, but they can know that while he was not proven guilty, he certainly was not proven innocent either. It’s incredibly sad in this complicated world of love and romance, fantasy and playfulness, and fun, that unexpected genuine rape and abuse enters the moment. With all the little cues and signals that men and women are supposed to anticipate, communicate, and respond to, that things can go so badly when a predator is tossed into the mix. It forever ruins everything for the victims. I hope they have found the genuine love in their lives that they deserve, and that predators everywhere wake up to just how horrible, cruel, and stupid they really are.
This whole mistrial is just another instance of rape survivors having their every word dissected while the rapist is completely protected from having their every action in their whole life dissected. It’s no wonder survivors don’t report. Brittany Higgins was raped in Parliament House in Australia a couple years ago. The police worked against the prosecution, bullied her, and after a mistrial she ended up in hospital and the case against her rapist has been dropped. This article articulates the problem very well https://t.co/sMiZmK56g9
Thank you Earl, and Earl's daughter. Earl and his fellow jurors seem to have done the job properly. I have to lay any 'blame' on the prosecution. Given the circumstances of the rapes and other considerations, I expect the prosecution to drop the case. That really sucks. I have no doubt that Dan Masterson committed many rapes over his life. But unless better evidence comes out, I don't see any more criminal charges.
Thank you Earl and thank you jurors. You did your job.
I demand that someone make an emoji specifically representing Critical Thinking that is entirely based on Chris's face throughout this. Perfectly realized physical expression of a concept. Also I am typing this a few hours post-op and on several different pain meds, so probably don't listen to me.
You are right, post-of pain meds or not, critical think is based intently to include facial expression and voice inflection. Transcripts are inadequate to present either.
I've never been much of a YouTuber myself, but this was one of the absolute best videos I think I've ever seen on that platform. Not only was it a juror who was willing to speak out (thanks to his daughter's insistence, which we all greatly appreciate), but it was actually the foreman who had a great deal of insight into how the deliberations went.
Thank you Earl for providing all of us with your insights. Trying to read the minds of jurors is an impossible task that leads to way too much speculation on our part, yet you allowed us a glimpse into what the potential issues were with the prosecution's case and what you think the prosecution could have done better. If there is a retrial (and I sincerely hope there is one), your insights could prove to be invaluable in providing a sense of justice for these women.
I can see the jury did try its best and how hard it must have been!
That being said, Patriarchy has its own coercive control and is alive and well Aaarrggh This would be a lot of pain - public pain - to volunteer to receive just because any so-and-so didn't want to be your boyfriend... and years later. I was not expecting to hear a JD called vindictive.
This case has triggered me all along and it is not done yet!
Well done gentlemen! It's TRULY clear that many people shouldn't be jurors. They don't believe the victims because their 20yo stories weren't pitch perfect. This Earl dude knows NOTHING about trauma...he didn't even believe the expert. This is exactly why women are never believed and they don't report anything. I'm so angry!! I think jurors should be required to take an IQ test...just saying!
There is an old saying, that you would not want your case to be judged by 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty. Having said that, thank goodness some people are willing to serve, but these types of cases filled with so much anguish are hard to take when the jury seems blind.
For fun just google this: “how many women did Danny Masterson rape?”
Even google knows the answer:
three women
The actor Danny Masterson, known for his roles in the sitcom “That '70s Show” and the Netflix comedy “The Ranch,” before he was fired in 2017 amid sexual assault allegations, had been on trial in Los Angeles on charges that he raped three women at his home in the Hollywood Hills in the early 2000s.Nov 30, 2022
Tony, I have a question for you, and it is particularly sensitive, so I want other readers to know how respectful I am of the victims in this matter. If there is a second trial, and it also results in a hung jury, at what point does the D.A. give up? More generically, if we all agree that every victim deserves their day in court, and recognizing that trials cost a community a lot of money, and there are many other cases deserving attention, how many kicks at the can should a district attorney responsibly take? (To be clear, I think he is clearly a rapist, whether or not it fits the California definition of forcible rape or the statute of limitations)
It's amazing of Chris to share this extraordinary scoop with Tony. It demonstrates an unselfish desire to do the story real justice by sharing the platform with someone who knows the case inside out. What teamwork.
It's also incredibly generous of the jury foreman to sit for so long and speak in such depth about the trial. Such insight he's able to give us. I'm only a little way in so far but had to stop to make these observations.
UGH! Seems the prosecution dropped the ball, HARDCORE!
Also, that the jury was speculating on more than one occasion. How do you know what a person goes through during or after a rape, BY SOMEONE YOU KNOW! From my own experience the things the jury didn’t like about the 4 Jane Doe’s testimonies is text book reactions to a rape of someone you know or partner. I’m sad and disgusted
One comment I read or heard, the jury cannot possibly get the vocal impact of a victims testimony from written transcripts. Prosecution should argue more foribly that the jury receive both written and vocal testimony or, perhaps, request that whenever the jury asks for clarification of any testimony.
First of all, to Earl's daughter, thanks for suggesting to your dad that he do this interview. Chris, awesome that you were able to get this done; also, thank you for being so gracious to bring Tony into this conversation because he brings a journalistic background to the subject that is unparalleled. He has no peer on this topic. Fantastic interview and very illuminating. Thank you, Mr. Earl. A couple of thoughts stand out in my mind from this fascinating hour: 1) JDs talking to each other before the trial was overall seen as a negative factor to jurors. 2) That Det. Vargas appeared to jury not to have done his due diligence, even after the first day of his testimony, having not been urged by DA to review reports or video. 3) That the jury did feel "something had happened" because there were four women saying so and they wouldn't make this up. 4) That the prosecution's expert witness testimony was not meaningful to the jury because she had not interviewed the JDs and because the jury viewed the research itself as not carrying much weight since the subjects were college students who were paid. (As an aside, valid/reliable double blind research studies often offer some kind of compensation to the participants, as in medical research for example, even if it means some free medical tests during the course of the study -- so in hindsight DA could have made this clearer to the jury so that it wasn't seen as anything out of the ordinary.) 5) How "the" rape charge of 2021 caused some confusion and how defense attorney did a good job with "smoke and mirrors" to quote another juror -- and how jury didn't truly realize why one event was inadmissible. 6) JD asking the rape hotline "is it rape when you're unconscious" and again, Cohen working to confuse the jury about the two dates and the juror in marketing seeing his marketing tactics and "spinning" things. 7) Chris' comment about how prosecution could have presented a better case because "unreasonable/irrational behavior is around predatory people" and also talking about "coercive control" 8) Cohen's focus on inconsistencies won the day vs previous defense all about Scientology. (I wonder who decided to change the strategy and who picked Cohen -- just find that interesting.) 9) The gun not being mentioned in the first report. But Earl saying that the jury was aware that the first reports were done under duress with Scientology's edits -- but saying they had to take into account not to take that into account. Gah.
Phew ... I was glued to this interview and feel it would behoove people learning about law to go over Tony's transcripts and listen to this foreman. In my view it shows that this trial had a very capable, thoughtful, articulate foreman, who may have had questions or lingering issues with some of the testimony (or lack thereof) but who followed the judge's instructions to a T and really went by the book - regardless of the coulda/woulda/shoulda at the time. Trying to keep emotions out of it has to be hard. It's been a challenge to me, thinking, Jesus, people, he's guilty of something, since the jury itself said four people can't be making all this up. But that's not how the system works and it makes me feel better that the jury stuck with working with what they had in front of them, although DA obviously has some holes to fill. I'm so curious how Mueller will proceed. Also, unrelated question: Is Judge Olmedo still married to a Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputy?
Prosecution must present again, with much more emphasis on expert testimony from psychologist / psychiastrist about PTSD and victim's memory. The jury must understand documented evidence of how memory is affected in victims of emotional and sexual assault and the manner in which victims are 'interrogated by law enforcement.
Suggest the prosecution watch the 2019 Netflix true story mini-series, "Unbelievable" about a teenage rape victim in Snohomish, WA. There are excellent prosecution examples that could help in this case.
Chris and Tony, well done. What an amazing scoop! Earl seemed like a very good man, committed to doing the right thing and following the process as instructed. There is very little chance to get away from people having personal biases, and they exist in every trial. Both prosecution and defence lawyers are aware of that and try to find jurors whose bias might lean in their direction. Let’s not forget the horrific days of 12 white men on a jury automatically finding black defendants guilty, no matter what. Let us truly hope those days are gone forever. Yes, some guilty people do go free, but far better than innocent people being wrongly convicted and having their own lives stolen by juror bias and prejudice.
Now, back to this case. My own bias believes Danny is guilty. About half the jurors thought so too. The other half (roughly) didn’t think so. I thought if I was a juror, and was possibly deciding to put someone in jail for up to 45 years, I better be darn certain about the decision. This stuff is never simple. It must have been very difficult for jurors to confront the huge responsibility of a guilty verdict compared against the anguish and trauma these fine women endured, and the believability of their testimony. Let’s be honest, I think every case will have inconsistencies between comments you made 20 years ago, and your memories of the events, and your comments made today in hindsight. To assume the victims would remember every single detail exactly the same is in my view unreasonable. They needed to be given a bit of room for how time modifies our memories. So long as the major factors were clear, the little moments of inconsistencies needed to be ignored unless those little moments were of startling importance. I am glad I was not on the jury. I respect their work and their outcome. They ended their work in confusion and disagreement, and that would seem to be where most of us are in looking at a much smaller set of facts upon which we based our opinions.
I send strength to the victims. I believe they will win their civil case and will have to content themselves with Masterson possibly never seeing a day inside a prison, but they can know that while he was not proven guilty, he certainly was not proven innocent either. It’s incredibly sad in this complicated world of love and romance, fantasy and playfulness, and fun, that unexpected genuine rape and abuse enters the moment. With all the little cues and signals that men and women are supposed to anticipate, communicate, and respond to, that things can go so badly when a predator is tossed into the mix. It forever ruins everything for the victims. I hope they have found the genuine love in their lives that they deserve, and that predators everywhere wake up to just how horrible, cruel, and stupid they really are.
What a wonderful comment.
Amen
Thank you goes out to Earl, his daughter, Tony and Chris. What a gift to all of us.
This whole mistrial is just another instance of rape survivors having their every word dissected while the rapist is completely protected from having their every action in their whole life dissected. It’s no wonder survivors don’t report. Brittany Higgins was raped in Parliament House in Australia a couple years ago. The police worked against the prosecution, bullied her, and after a mistrial she ended up in hospital and the case against her rapist has been dropped. This article articulates the problem very well https://t.co/sMiZmK56g9
Thank you Earl, and Earl's daughter. Earl and his fellow jurors seem to have done the job properly. I have to lay any 'blame' on the prosecution. Given the circumstances of the rapes and other considerations, I expect the prosecution to drop the case. That really sucks. I have no doubt that Dan Masterson committed many rapes over his life. But unless better evidence comes out, I don't see any more criminal charges.
Thank you Earl and thank you jurors. You did your job.
I demand that someone make an emoji specifically representing Critical Thinking that is entirely based on Chris's face throughout this. Perfectly realized physical expression of a concept. Also I am typing this a few hours post-op and on several different pain meds, so probably don't listen to me.
You are right, post-of pain meds or not, critical think is based intently to include facial expression and voice inflection. Transcripts are inadequate to present either.
That was wonderful insight. Thank you Chris for sharing this opportunity with Tony. You both rock!
I've never been much of a YouTuber myself, but this was one of the absolute best videos I think I've ever seen on that platform. Not only was it a juror who was willing to speak out (thanks to his daughter's insistence, which we all greatly appreciate), but it was actually the foreman who had a great deal of insight into how the deliberations went.
Thank you Earl for providing all of us with your insights. Trying to read the minds of jurors is an impossible task that leads to way too much speculation on our part, yet you allowed us a glimpse into what the potential issues were with the prosecution's case and what you think the prosecution could have done better. If there is a retrial (and I sincerely hope there is one), your insights could prove to be invaluable in providing a sense of justice for these women.
I can see the jury did try its best and how hard it must have been!
That being said, Patriarchy has its own coercive control and is alive and well Aaarrggh This would be a lot of pain - public pain - to volunteer to receive just because any so-and-so didn't want to be your boyfriend... and years later. I was not expecting to hear a JD called vindictive.
This case has triggered me all along and it is not done yet!
Well done gentlemen! It's TRULY clear that many people shouldn't be jurors. They don't believe the victims because their 20yo stories weren't pitch perfect. This Earl dude knows NOTHING about trauma...he didn't even believe the expert. This is exactly why women are never believed and they don't report anything. I'm so angry!! I think jurors should be required to take an IQ test...just saying!
There is an old saying, that you would not want your case to be judged by 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty. Having said that, thank goodness some people are willing to serve, but these types of cases filled with so much anguish are hard to take when the jury seems blind.
I'm 10 mins in and this dumb dumb doesn't think that the $400k JD1 received was NOT RELEVANT?!?!!?!? My blood is already boiling!
The defense should have made it more relevant.
For fun just google this: “how many women did Danny Masterson rape?”
Even google knows the answer:
three women
The actor Danny Masterson, known for his roles in the sitcom “That '70s Show” and the Netflix comedy “The Ranch,” before he was fired in 2017 amid sexual assault allegations, had been on trial in Los Angeles on charges that he raped three women at his home in the Hollywood Hills in the early 2000s.Nov 30, 2022
And at least 1 more that we know about, so sad
Tony, I have a question for you, and it is particularly sensitive, so I want other readers to know how respectful I am of the victims in this matter. If there is a second trial, and it also results in a hung jury, at what point does the D.A. give up? More generically, if we all agree that every victim deserves their day in court, and recognizing that trials cost a community a lot of money, and there are many other cases deserving attention, how many kicks at the can should a district attorney responsibly take? (To be clear, I think he is clearly a rapist, whether or not it fits the California definition of forcible rape or the statute of limitations)