'It starts with a drink': Deputy DA Ariel Anson begins powerful closing argument

Morning session, Day 18 (Day 14 since testimony started), Danny Masterson retrial.

We got the word that Judge Olmedo will be dealing with a seven-defendant case this morning before the Masterson matter. So at least a slight delay.

We're mainly concerned with whether Judge Olmedo can get through jury instructions and the full closing statements from the two sides by the end of the day, or whether it will spill over into tomorrow.

SARTORIAL SPLENDOR ALERT: It's Guys and Dolls day at the retrial! Defense attorney Philip Cohen is wearing his chocolate three-piece suit with white stripes, and a matching chocolate and polka dot tie. His caramel-and-white saddle oxfords complete the picture. We are missing the porkpie, though, which would really complete the picture.

Judge Olmedo deals with the other matter, and the communications office starts dealing with seating. We're expecting a full audience today.

Press row is mostly full this morning, which is a big increase over the last couple of weeks.

In the Masterson section: Wife Bijou Phillips, mother Carol Masterson, and sibs Christopher and Alanna and Jordan and Will Masterson. And, surprise surprise, attorney Karen Goldstein, making her first appearance. Also, family friends Chris Wadhams and Graham Bruwer are in the general public section.

Leah Remini has joined the public section, with Jane Doe 1.

9:20 and things haven't started yet.

Judge Olmedo comes in and says she contacted head administrators and others trying to get some technology working in the courtroom. Waiting for something to get done on that.

Judge, to the audience: "Never like you see in the movies, right? It's going to be a little while before we get our tech going."

Judge goes over audience rules on the record. She says as closing arguments take place and upset one side or the other, everyone needs to act appropriately. If you are emotional, step outside and collect yourself. She doesn't want to see any display of emotion in the court.

The tech person arrives and gets the displays going.

Judge Olmedo says she will handle jury instructions first and it will take about 30 minutes.

Jury coming in.

Judge Olmedo apologizes for the delay. We're on the record. Before we move into closing arguments I have to read you the instructions that apply to this case. Just sit back and listen, take notes if you want to but you'll have a packet back in the jury room.

You must decide what the facts are. It is up to you and you alone, based only on the evidence presented in this trial. You must not allow bias to affect your decision. You may not be biased in favor or against any party because of origin, race, sexual orientation, etc.

Do not use the Internet or dictionary or other means in this case. Do not investigate the facts or do research on your own or as a group. Do not do any experiments or visit the scene. Notebooks: Please keep in mind that your notes may be inaccurate or incomplete. The jury can ask for testimony to be read back.

It is alleged that count 1 occurred on or about April 25, 2003, count 2 occurred on or about October 1 to December 30, 2003, and count 3 occurred on or between November 1 and November 30, 2001.

Goes over the fact that some are going by "Jane Doe" and this should not be considered as evidence for or against them.

She goes over the People needing to prove things "beyond a reasonable doubt" and what this means. That it does not mean eliminating all possible doubt. But if the People have not met this burden, you must declare the defendant not guilty.

What the attorneys said, the questions they asked, is not evidence. Only what the witnesses said is evidence.

She goes over objections and what it means that some were sustained, and some responses were stricken. And what stipulations are, that they must be accepted as true.

Facts may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence. She goes over the difference, and that both carry weight, etc.

You alone must judge the credibility of the witnesses... You may believe all, part, or none of any testimony by a witness.

She goes over how a witness might be analyzed by the jury. How reasonable is their testimony given the other evidence in the case?

Act and wrongful intent are both required in these charges.

The testimony of only one witness can prove a fact.

If there is a conflict in the evidence, you must decide which is true.

She goes over statements made by the witnesses before they testified, and how they might consider it.

She goes over expert witnesses.

And now about a witness who is not an expert giving an opinion. (A reference to Reyes?) That they should consider it the way they do the others.

Do not consider, at all, that the defendant did not testify.

Referring now to Masterson making a written statement before the trial, and how to consider it.

Considering a motive. The jury can consider this. But it reminds us that not much was said about this in testimony.

The defendant is charged in count 1, 2, and 3 of forcible rape. To prove it, that he had sexual intercourse with a woman not his wife, that she did not consent, and that it involved force or fear in overcoming the will of the woman. Also, that a woman can change her mind. It is not required that she fight physically, but that she audibly did not consent and he disregarded it by force or fear. (More details about the nature of the act, and the nature of overcoming will.)

The People have the burden of proving that the defendant did know that the women were not consenting. If they haven't, you must decide he is not guilty.

Again going into beyond reasonable doubt and what it means.

Dr. Barbara Ziv and her testimony about rape trauma. Her testimony about that research is not evidence of a rape in this case. (Just that she was testifying to something more general.)

You may consider evidence of Scientology for these limited purposes: The delay to report. To explain the witnesses' beliefs about reporting to outside law enforcement, and to being declared a suppresssive person. To explain how they acted before and after the incidents. To evaluate statements by all witnesses. To further evaluate any expert testimony. It is up to you determine if someone is in fact an expert.

If you find the def guilty of two or more, then you must also find whether this crime has been committed against more than one person. (This is the "One Strike" element.)

Time for opening statements.

For the People: Deputy DA Ariel Anson.

NOTE: ANSON SPOKE FAST and there are a lot of typos I can’t fix just in the time of this break. Please do your best to put up with them.

Anson: It all starts with a drink. How many times have you hear the defendant give a drink to an unsusepecting victim.

This is what he does.

Over the last few weeks you've learned a lot about the def, and how he assures he gets what he wants.

In this case, there are 4 victims who testified about similar symptoms. After getting that drink they start to lose consciuosness, then they’re raped When they wake up they’re confused, they’re dazed, they're in pain. Vaginal and sometimes anal pain, and sometimes bleeding.

The def drugs his victims to be in control. He does this to take away their ability to consent, This is not about consent. This is not about a defendant confusing their signals. When he drugs them he wants to be in control You don't want to have sex? You don’t have a choice. You don't want to have anal sex? You don’t have a choice.

He makes that choice, and he does it over and over and over.

This is also about this def getting away with this crime. Because when they wake up they have partial or full memory loss. So if they go report that, the def is able to discredit them.

That it was consensual which is what the defense attys in this case have argued over and over.

Now, like all predators he sought out his prey. Most were members of C of S, and that makes sense. In Sci, rape isn't rape. You caused this. And you are never allowed to go to law enforcement. What a better hunting ground.

In Sci, the def is a celeb and he's untouchable.

Now in order to understand these crimes, it's important to understand their belief in Sci. It affected the way they thought, the way they waited and did not report these crimes.

In Sci, they weren't important. He was. He was the upstat. That's what you heard from Claire H. That Scientology law, they guide everythin. they're the controlling factor. You must obey those rules.

The victims, they can't be victims, and they caused it on themselves.

Any compliant filed against the celeb would be "filed with a yawn." In other words, that Sci wouldn't investigate it.

This is how they processed it. You could be exomm, you could lose your world. This was in the minds of the victims during and after these brutal attacks.

Let's first go back to 1996 with JD3. She met the def, she was about 18, they started a relationship. For about the first year it was good, then turned abusive.

In 1997 after she gets back from Paris, she remembers first incident that turned physical. She came home, she was jet lagged, she felt sick. The def wanted to have sex with her and she didn't . It turned into a fight. She insulted him, he got infuriated, and he violently carried her from the room by her hair.

Now maybe, this incident would have been enough for some. Maybe this relationship is not good, I’m done. But she cared for him, she thought she could manage the situation. She did, and it was fine. Now, someitmes the def would want to have sex, and she didn't, but most of the time she would give in. This contined, in Oct 2001, the Esposito incident at the Standard hotel.

JD3 said this was a turning point. This was a marker for her. She said that when she left the hotel, holdling the def's hand, he began shouting, Show them your tits. She was humiliated. She did something she normally wouldn't do, she left. When he got home that night, he was angry. She abandoned him.

He spit on her, called her names and pulled her hair. Now pulling someone's hair is painful, but it's also a way to control someone.

The def did this over and over. But then in Nov 2001, that normal hair pulling and spitting escalated. That was the first time he struck her. She was sleeping, the def got on top of her, inside her, penetrating her vagina -- and that part wasn't abnormal. But this time she said no, she said get off of me. He didn't. JD3 was trying to push him off of her, but the weight on her is too much. She feels trapped, it's painful, he's not getting off of her. He pins her hands above her head. She does something she knows will get him off -- she pulls his hair, so forceful is his head jerks back. He then takes his hand and hits her across the face. It's more than a slap, not a punch. And afterwards she screams, get off me!

Finally, after hitting her, he gets off, spits on her, and leaves.

Now again, for some that would have been the last straw. But you heard that it didn’t come until about a month after, in Dec 2001.

They went to La Poubelle, a restaurant near the Celebrity Centre, and JD3 has one or two glasses of wine. She wasn't drunk. The last thing she remembers is getting up from that table. She then remembers waking up the next morning in their bed. Her body is in pain. Her heard hurts. Her anus hurts. She walks to the bathroom, she wipes, ands she sees blood. She has no idea what happened. Goes downstairs and asks, What happened? Did I fall? Why am I in pain? I'm torn, I'm bleeding.

Does he console her? Does he ask if she's OK? No, he laughs at her, he admits he had sex with her while she was unconscious. That broke JD3. That broke her heart. That was the last straw.

There is no way that she had only alcohol that night and had those symptoms.

Four women, having a small amoutn of alcohol and getting completely wrecked. It doesn't make sense.

Now you heard there was no toxicology report in this case, and you don't need one. The amounts they had and the symptoms they felt are inconsistent. These symtptoms, of being dazed and out of control, are not consistent with what they drank..

They were all drugged.

Now the defense wants you to ignore the unconscious sodomy of JD3, it's uncharged. And they want you to ignore it becaise they don’t want you to see the pattern, that this is his playbook, this is what he does.

But you can use that evidence to say he had a pattern and was more likely to have done the charged incidents.

The other thing you'll see, is that sex cases, that you only need the testimony. You don't need DNA or a toxicology report. The testimony is enough.

Now, JD3 then goes to the church. She meets with Miranda Scoggins, and she's told it's not rape. You caused this to yourself. You can write a Things That Shouldn’t Be report, put it in a folder, but it's not rape. You can't rape a girlfriend.

JD3 believed this. She trusted them. She believed that no crime had been committed. She didn't report to police. And she learned that she needed to be "handled." The reason this was happening was that she kept saying she didn't want sex. The fault was hers.

After this ethics program, the def wasn't doing anything. All she wanted was for him to get help. When she realized he wasn't getting any, she left.

(Referring to the jury instructions, which say that being in a relationship does not mean a rape hasn't occurred.)

Now when JD3 leaves, she doesn't cut off all ties. And we know why. She started dating him when she was 18, she loved him, she had six years, and this was not a clean break. And we learned from Dr. Ziv this was not unusual.

In about 2009, JD3 meets her husband Cedric. When they start dating she kind of slowly brings him around Scientology, and she doesn't talk about what happened with the def.

Then about 2010/2011, she discloses what happened with Masterson. Not every detail, not ever time he pulled her hair or spit on her. She disclosed the drugging and sodomy. Her husband told her it was rape, and she intuitively had known it.

When JD3 and Cedric had that conversation, she didn't disclose the charged incident, she talked about the uncharged incident. The defense wants you to think because she didn't bring up the Nov 2001 incident, it didn't happen.

But when she was dragged out of the room after Paris, did she leave him? No. Did she leave after she was hit while he was penetrating her? No, that was normal. She stayed. But what was the final tipping point was that he sodomized her while she was unconscious.

There could have been this massive conspiracy to frame Masterson, and she told her husband about all the times that he hit her or spit on her. But she didn't. Because it wasn't scripted. There was no plan. She had an intimate moment with her husband and shared something that was shameful and emarrasing.

In 2016, JD3 realizes she's not the only victim. Now she's shocked. She still trusted Scientology, and she sends an email to Ellory Travers, the ethics officer in Scientology. (shows it on the display).

What's important is that the email was sent before she spoke to JD1 or JD2. And it's all in there, everything that the defendant did to her, disclosed in this email to Ellory before this 'massive conspiracy" got going.

(She reads from the email, that JD3 is talking about how she loves Scientologoy and knows that it works, but she was abused by Masterson, and that he anally raped her. The email recounts the incident in the same terms that she's testified to. That he laughed at her, "I had sex with you last night, that's why you're hurting." That she felt violated and humiliated. That she was heartbroken and still is. That she spoke with Miranda and Chris Scoggins, that she would be asked to do an ethics handling, and Danny would too. That she got an intense handling that ended up in her going Clear. That she ended the relationship. Then years later heard about JD1.)

JD3 learns about JD1 and it breaks her. She stayed quiet and others were hurt.

This moment when she learned Scientology was doing nothing, and allowed more victims. Then she spoke to JD1, learned about JD2, and ultimately makes the decision that she is for the first time report to law enforcement.

She went to Austin PD in 2016. Because the crimes happened in LA, two LAPD detectives went to Austin. (Reyes and Viegas.) You saw portions of that interview. You heard her describe the Esposito incident, you heard her say he struck her -- she doesn't say November -- but you heard her say that, and then the unconscious sodomy in December 2001, what she calls the rape, because for her that's what really stood out.

She tells them all the big points, and she discloses that for the fist time. She's nervous.

The defense will have you believe this was all a big conspiracy. That she made up that Nov incident, that none of this happened.

Why? Why would she make it up before she told the other victims? She told her husband before she knew the others. She describes being drugged and raped. And Cedric told you himself that she referred to being hit.

Is it because she's a jilted lover? She loves her husband and they have children. It doesn’t make sense that she's a jilted lover who kept this inside for 15 years.

What does make sense is that in 2016 she realized that she kept quite and Scientology did not take care of the situation She felt guilt, she felt responsible. She had to take control and report to law enforcement because Scientology wasn't handling it. And it makes sense in 2016 she really has this first break with Scientology. She finally realized that what they were saying wasn't true. And that's why she went to law enforcement.

Now, going back to 2002, you learned that JD1 was a 2nd generation Scientologist. She ran in some friend groups that the defendant did. And in Sept 2002 she was supposed to go to a theater with Brie Shaffer, her best friend. Brie doesn't show up, so she goes to the Lucky Bar next door. She hadn't had alcohol in a long time. The def has a drink waiting for her. A vodka grapefruit. She has some of a second drink. Brie never shows up. The def says come to my house you can stay at the guest room.

There, she's giggling, intoxicated, and they're starting to kiss. She's saying this is stupid, what's going on. And they start having sex. Then she feels pressure on her anus, she pulls the sheets to get away. He doesn't penetrate her anus that night, but the incident caused an issue for their friends.

Then several months later, April 24, 2003, thy had a plan. JD1 was going to sleep over at Brie's and take her to the airport in the morning and then she would go to her parents house for her father's birthday, and then fly to Florida.

Didn't go as planned. JD1 does get together with Brie, they go to a birthday party, but Brie goes home to pack. JD1 stayed out to meet with Luke Watson, who lived with Brie. At the end of the night, they ended up at the def's house. JD1 is there because of the keys. Now we'll go over Schlegel’s report about the lack of keys. (Makes a comment about a witness not remembering every minute detail every time they tell something.)

More about the plan, that she went to get keys from Luke, but it didn’t happen. Then the defendant shows up asks what she's drinking. He brings her a 12 oz tumbler of vodka and fruit punch. She had drunk nothing early. Def: JD1, you're going in the jacuzzi. He doesn’t take no for an answer. He grabs her by the wrist and begins dragging her though the house.

At this point she's losing strength. The effects of the drugs is beginning to take place. The symptoms then really start to come on. She's feeling heavy she can't see, she has no strength, feeling like she's going to slip under the water.

This was not just alcohol.

Luke helped her out onto the tile. She feels like she's going to throw up everywhere. Def says he's going to take her upstairs, Luke says no let me do it. No man, we're homies, I got this.

Now there's a bathroom downstairs, but he carries her upstairs. Def takes her over to the toilet, sticks his fingers down her throat and helps her throw up.

Her hair is in the toilet, and there's vomit on her hair. Def: You're disgutsing, and you're getting in the shower.

She just wanted to lie on the cool tiles, but it's not an option. He pulls her into the shower. When she comes to, he's soaping up her breasts.

He carries her into the bedroom. When she's there she comes to and he's inside her, penetrating her. She's confused and reaches for something, it's a pillow. He shoves it back on her. She's suffocating and passes out. She comes to again tries to reach for his throat. He pins her arms, chokes her, and she passes out.

She comes to again, trying to reach for a lamp. He hears a voice outside. He reaches into a drawer and pulls out a gun -- don't say anything. She reaches for the gun and he slams the drawer on her, injuring her hand.

She never said that he threatened her with it.

The defense is going to make a big deal about the gun. it's not in her KR report. It's not in Officer Schlegel's report. It's not in Det Myers report.

We know this is a big conspiracy and JD1 made it all up.

Well, first of all she told Schlegel, it was a busy night, and that he checked his computer and said he did have a registered gun. And you have the stipulation that he did own a gun.

She doesn't remember the interview with Myers. But here's the important thing, Det Schlegel has no independent memory of that night, and doesn't remember if she told him about it.

Let's say she did forget to tell him. Why should she make up this gun and say it wasn't used to commit this rape. She could have said he used the gun threaten her. But she says she saw it briefly and he put it again. Where's the conspiracy in that? Because it did happen.

After he slams the drawer on her hand, she notices later that he’s gone. She crawls into a closet, passes out a gain.

The defense has made a big deal of her fragmented memory. But that’s because she was drugged.

When she gets up eventually he's there, she goes outside and sees Luke. Luke, what happened? The memory came back as the day went on.

Luke said she had to go to the CC president's office. She went to Brie's, got her keys, went to her parents, then flew to Florida with her family.

When she's there, she talks to her cousin Rachel. JD1 is in extreme pain, anally and vaginally. And in Florida her bruises come through

You saw these photos, and you'll get them in the jury room. (Shows photo) The bruises are extremely hard to see. Now, Rachel told you that when she was in person, those bruises they were bigger and more prominent in person. That these photos don't do the bruises justice.

Now the defense says this is a big conspiracy, that Rachel and JD1 are trying to frame the defendant. Their proof? That JD1 had bruises. But the photos doesn't really show a lot of bruising. If they wanted to frame the def, why would they provide the photos to law enforcement? Wouldn’t they had just said they lost the photos? But they reprinted the photos. They are honest. They show the photos that were taken.

When JD1 comes back from Florida, she goes to Scientology like JD3 did. She was also told, don't call it rape. Write a KR, don't use the word rape, don't mention the gun, and they have a restraint on her and what she can say.

This is the KR report, and you can read it back there. It's clear she's describing a rape, but it's through the lens and control of a Scientology ethics officer.

Now being a second generation Scientology, believing in Scientology, caused her to have a really big conflict with herself.

She knew what he did was wrong, but in Scientology you can't think that about a celebrity in good standing.

Ultimately she makes the decision after doing a year of courses, that Sci isn't handling the defendant. I have a fear that he will do this again. So in June 2004, she finally goes to law enforcement and reports. It's a big decision for her.

She talks to Off Schlegel, its late at night, and she brings this KR -- a summary, and what she tells him is not a minute by minute description. But not only did she give this interview, she brought the KR. We have proof that JD1 told law enforcement in 2004 what happened to her, before she knew about anyone else or what happened to them.

Now the defense has during cross said, "that's the first time you said that." They want to hold these witnesses to an extremely unrealistic standard. They want you to believe you have to say everything in that first interview, and if you add something later that you had forgotten, that brands you a liar.

That is unrealistic. That is unfair. "Oh, I forgot to tell you." They want to brand that lying. But if that were the case, people would keep things to themselves and that's a problem. What is important is that there is independent evidence that they told people before they knew about each other or before the media coverage.

Again, JD1 discloses to law enforcement in 2004. Now, Scientology is not happy with her. She was under the threat of being declared. So they worked out a deal. You weren't suppose to do that, but you sign this NDA, we won't declare you. She made the hard decision to sign it and take $400,000. Now this upset her to her core. The organization that she believed in, she now had a lot of distrust for. And that distrust for Scientology, seeped into other areas, like with law enforcement.

In 2016 JD1 hears from JD3 and realized she's not alone. JD3 reached out to JD2. And JD1 realizes there were other victims. They had thought that they were alone, that they were experiencing something no one else did. So they became each other's support and justice.

These victims believe they were the only ones who could get justice. They didn't trust law enforcement, they didn’t trust the church. So when law enforcement didn't take up leads fast enough, they pushed. And that's a lot of what you heard.

Let's talk about JD2.

Judge Olmedo calls for a 10-minute break.

---

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