JANE DOE 1 called to the stand: Danny Masterson trial day 5 afternoon break
[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.]
Billy Baldwin has joined the Masterson family box. (He's married to Chynna Phillips, who is the sister of Bijou Phillips, the wife of Danny Masterson. Baldwin was also in the entourage that accompanied Masterson on his first court appearance in Sept 2020.)
Front row is Jurdaon, woman (La Poubelle owner?), Bijou, Carol, another older woman
Second row is Alanna, Christopher, young man in a mask, Billy Baldwin, Lois Heaney the jury consultant
We are on the record.
Cohen is continuing his opening statement.
He apologizes for speaking quickly earlier, but he wanted to say some things before the lunch break.
Mr. Mueller told you we're going to hear about Scientology. In fact I think one person said this case is about Scientology. We're going to hear about Scientology policy. We're going to hear about what a bad guy Mr. Masterson is.
None of those things is charged in this case.
This case is about three women who are going to tell you about three nights, about 17, 18, 20 years ago.
This case is about what has been proven about those three nights, period. This other stuff? It truly is the giant elephant in the room.
Given what this case is really about, what I want to talk about is not what takes place before someone reports, you can report whenever you want, it's what they say when they do report.
And you're going to hear that when they do report, there's no other word to use, it is wholly inconsistent with what they are going to tell you in court. That's the issue.
You're going to hear this term, used by LAPD, in this case an LAPD sex detective of 20 years, who has handled hundreds of investigations.
And she's going to tell you about contamination...
You're going to hear what this detective told these women would happen to the case if they spoke to each other.
Speaking to other victims or witness will contaminate...
Objection, asking for an opinion. Olmedo asks for a sidebar.
(Before the trial, Judge Olmedo had said she doesn't like to call for sidebars. She's called for a few already today.)
So, Det Reyes is going to testify that she told all three of the women not to speak to each other and not to speak with witnesses, and she told them it will contaminate the case.
She is going to testify what she meant about contaminating a case.
Det Reyes is going to tell us that she told the women, speaking to each other and witnesses is fatal to the case. I'm going to ask her what did you mean when you said it was fatal to the case.
She's going to testify that she told them if they continued to talk to each other, your credibility will be shot.
And we're going to hear this term cross-pollination.
I know it's going to be a lot to take in, three women spread over several years.
JD1 2003, reports in 2004. You then have a long time before they hear from JD2 and JD3.
JD3 is talking to JD1 is talking to JD2 is talking to JD3. They are all speaking to each other.
Remember, JD1 is 2004, she reports in 2004 and the case never gets filed. Done.
They're all talking to each other before they go and talk to LAPD. In fact, you're going to hear, Det Reyes talks to JD1, I'll call these other two women you're talking about.
Before Reyes can even call JD2 & 3. The very next day JD3 called Reyes. This indicated to her that they're all talking to each other.
And they admit to the detective that they had been flooding each other with their stories.
So after Reyes learns that they are speaking to each other, she says something about it. She tells JD1, do not talk to any other victims. It's going to contaminate the case. The DA says it's fatal to the case if you guys continue to communicate with each other.
Reyes tells JD2 that it's vital that you stop talking to each other. It can look to a jury as cross-pollination, contamination.
Reyes tells JD3, if you guys continue to talk to each other, your credibility would just be shot.
What do you think happens? After these conversations with Det Reyes, JD1 speaks to a "fresh complaint witness" with Rachel D before LAPD contacts Rachel D. (January 2017)
Det Reyes is going to tell you this is exactly what she told you not to do.
She speaks to the press. (March 2017).
She speaks with her mom. (March 2017).
Then JD1 has continued to speak with people.
Jane Doe 2
She speaks with Jordan L., March 2017, before contacted with police.
She speaks with press (March 2017).
All three women ask for copies of the police reports, gives them a first page and they release that to the press.
We're going to ask Det Reyes, does that constitute the contamination she warned them about.
Reyes confronted JD2 in a call and say, what are you doing? You've released this police report to the press, you're talking with the press.
Det Reyes will tell you that JD2 was hostile with her.
JD2 tells her, I have the right to talk to whoever I want.
November 2018, JD2 talks to Rachel S, another one of her "fresh complaint witnesses.'
January 2020, LAPD tells JD2 that they want to talk to your mom, and don't tell her first. LAPD calls JD2's mother and says...
Judge Olmedo interrupts, asking for a sidebar.
You're going to hear that LAPD comes to find out that JD2 had spoken to her mom the day before they could.
I expect the mom is going to testify because she was on the prosecution witness list. I think she will indicate she has heard a lot of information about this case from JD2, and it has made it difficult for her to remember what actually happened.
She's going to say there's been so much talk recently, it's hard for me to separate what I've heard.
Jane Doe 3
Speaks to the press, March 2017
Releases police report.
What that leads to, what I think is the heart of this case, consistency.
Mr. Mueller spoke about each. I'm going to talk much shorter about each. But focusing on inconsistencies.
Jane Doe 1
She and Masterson had known each other for a number of years. She had been to his house 30 to 40 times on previous occasions, parties, etc.
JD1 is going to tell you about the rape allegation. What we're then going to hear what JD1 told LAPD when she reported that rape in 2004.
Not in 2017 or 2022. But in 2004 when she spoke to LAPD.
JD1 told LAPD a couple of things. She had not drank for a period of time, she drank alcohol it made her a little dizzy. She goes into a jacuzzi it made her nauseous.
Mr. Mueller is going to tell you all kinds of things she says happened, but that's not what she says in 2004.
In 2004 she told LAPD she had consensual sex with Masterson in 2002. Now she says it was not consensual.
About the same time that JD1 goes to the LAPD, she has an attorney hired by her, who puts together a draft complaint and sends it to Masterson's attorney, asking for money.
Mueller says she's going to tell you she was forced to sign an NDA. But she's also going to tell you that NDA was a result of her sending this draft complaint and if we don't settle this thing there's going to be a lawsuit.
So how does JD1's testimony evolve over time
Number 1, JD1 is going to tell us the 2002 sex (which she said in 2004 was consensual) is not consensual. Mr. Mueller says that the 2002 incident JD1 was "out of it." But here's what JD1 said to Mueller when he interviewed her in 2017..."I wasn't out of it. I understood what was going on." Apparently she's going to come in and say she was out of it.
The gun. When JD1 reports to LAPD a year after the allegation, things are fresh in her mind, LAPD asked her what happened. The police officer is going to tell you that he gave her paper and time to write. And in 2004 JD1 made no mention of the gun. JD1 then repeats the statement a number of times from 2004 to 2017, nary a mention of a gun.
JD1 when she interviews with Det Reyes in 2017 (remember she had gone to Florida), I was covered from head to toe in bruises in Florida. They were all over my body. They were specifically on my neck. She says that because she says she was choked to unconsciousness. She told Reyes that she took pictures that her parents found shocking because of graphic nature of what they showed.
We're going to talk to the LAPD officer who took that report, and he's going to tell us that there were no pictures presented to us at all.
What you are going to see are two pictures -- not clear whwere they came from to me -- and you'll see her in a bathing suit at a beach. You can see much of her body, and you'll see what she looked like.
These pictures that JD1 described as shocking are not here.
JD1 also tells Det Reyes that as I was being dragged up the stairs by Masterson for this rape, she told the LAPD she was helped down the stairs, but she told Reyes she was dragged. She says that she called her father asking for help, and dad has that voice mail. YOu're not going to hear that voice mail. Evidence does not have that voice mail.
Then you're going to hear about this 2004 draft civil complaint. JD1 is now going to say she was forced to sign the NDA.
Jane Doe 2
She will tell you that she's always been a little bit of an anxious person, scared in social situations.
One thing she will tell you that she had liked Masterson and had wanted to date him. He texted her late at night. Come over, come over.
JD2 will say she was reluctant, I thought this was just flirting. She decided to go over, which happens to be walking distance.
Before JD2 goes over to Masterson's house, JD2 has some drinks. She will tell you she gets to Masterson's house and that this flirting, talking continues.
Masterson says let's get in the jacuzzi. No, she says, she gets in. He says let's go upstairs. No, she says, then she goes upstairs.
She's asked by LAPD, did you ever fear that he was going to hit your or hurt you? JD2 is then going to say they were in the shower, but that it might have been her idea to go into the shower with him. This comes from her own statement.
JD2 then says from the shower we went into the bedroom, we started to fool around. JD2 will tell you, that she wanted some kissing, some making out.
Then JD2 will tell you we end up having sex. JD2 will tell you that after this, she may have had sex with Masterson again.
After the sex that night, they have a discussion until five or six in the morning. When JD2 leaves, her thought is, we will probably start dating. That's the backstory.
Evolution: Flirting and flattered by the texts. Intrigued and had drinks before going over.
She as into kissing, making out, and being fingered. She said there was no fear, hurt, or hitting.
She just thought it was bad sex. But she figured that they would start dating. But then Masterson didn't call her afterwards.
You will hear that he was rude, but that's not one of the charges.
She later called him up, what's going on? He said he was busy. She didn't feel good about that. She will testify that she felt used by Masterson.
JD2 is then going to tell you, remember this was 2003, JD2 makes a statement, it took becoming a woman to realize that she was raped.
Jane Doe 3
She is going to describe for you, as Mr. Mueller laid out, a relationship that was abusive. A bad boyfriend and a bad guy. None of those are true.
Let's talk about what is charged. What is charged is rape occurring in November 2001.
Mr. Mueller spent a lot of time talking about this December 2001 incident of anal rape after the restaurant.
Number one, it's not charged.
Number two, JD3, she and Masterson move on, breaking up in 2002 or so. They continue to talk and be friends, and they even have sex together.
Then about ten years later, in 2011, JD3 is married and happy and having an intimate, candid, transparent discussion, and JD3 tells her husband that Danny had sex with her while she was asleep in December 2001. I woke up and my butt hurt and he told me he had anal sex with her while she was asleep.
I suspect that she will tell us she felt safe telling her husband. And when she tells him this in 2011, of the rape that's actually charged in this case, which happened in November 2001. She made no mention to him of the rape that's charged.
That is a pattern that JD3 will tell us has occurred. She's spoken to a number of different people over several times, and what she mentions is sleep/anal sex in Dec '01. But that is not charged.
Evolution of her accusations:
January 2011 tells her husband about Dec 01, no mention of Nov 01
December 2016 talks to Austin rape hotline and then Austin PD. Tells them about Dec 01 anal sex, no mention of Nov 01.
Talks to the press in March 2017. Only mentions Dec 01 anal sex.
Then meets with Mueller in June 2017. Toward end of conversation, was there any other time he was physical with you. She tells her the only time he ever touched her was when she pulled his hair and he slapped her, in the Nov 01 incident.
2017, told Reyes, when she didn't want to have sex, he would yell at her, not talk to her for two days.
You will hear there's no medical evidence, no rape kit evidence. No forensic evidence. No photo or video evidence.
No photos showing bruising on neck.
No voice mail evidence.
That's the evidence I want you to focus on. Three nights. Three women. Twenty years ago. Were there three forcible rapes committed by Mr. Masterson. That's what this case is about and nothing else.
Unfortunately, listening to prosecution opening statement, we heard Scientology, we heard bad guy, we heard bad boyfriend.
Let's focus on why we're here. Thank you, your honor.
First witness coming.
Jane Doe 1 is sworn in.
Do you know a person named Daniel Masterson?
Can you point to that person and describe what he's wearing?
He's wearing a light blue suit, cream colored shirt.
You've known Mr. Masterson?
Over 20 years.
Do you recall when you first became acquainted?
How did you first become acquainted?
On a softball field and outside an art show.
How old were you?
I just turned 24.
How old are you today?
When you say on a softball field. A league?
Yeah, my fiance was on a team with Mr. Masterson.
Would there be other contacts?
Next time we saw him together was outside of an art show. He was with his girlfriend Chrissie. I would see him at the Scientology Celebrity Centre. Birthday parties.
Let me stop you. Girlfriend Chrissie. Is that Jane Doe 3?
Did you know her at that time?
You both belonged to the church at that time, the late 1990s?
How long had you been a member?
My whole life. My parents were. I was born into it.
You were second generation?
Since you were both members, at church related functions you would see each other?
Yes. There was an annual event, the Gala. A fundraiser. Dinner. A Christmas. I would say for the Church of Scientology that's where we would interact.
You were born in it, do you remember when you first became active?
Seven years old. I had to buy my membership with money from chores. I bought the counseling.
Did you ever hold a position with the church?
I was 14 years old when I signed my first Sea Org contract.
As a member of the church, did you become familiar with procedures and policies?
Yes, I studied many courses for many long hours. I had policies shown to me when I violated a procedure.
Since you were both members, did you have a group of friends?
Familiar with Brie Shaffer?
She was my best friend.
When did you first get to know her?
Member of the church?
Is there something that happened that changed that relationship?
Yes, September 2002.
What happened then that caused that relationship to sour?
I was supposed to meet up with her and some others. She couldn't, she made arrangements. I ended up back at her boss's house where we were supposed to stay.
Who was her boss?
What did she do for him?
She was his personal assistant.
When you were friends, when you still had that relationship, was she his assistant then?
I believe so.
Are you aware when she would go to his house?
It was part of her job description. (Obj. Overruled)
Were there times when you would go along?
I would say often. There were times we would have to go there during the day. Or we would have to drop things and go pick him up.
Would there be times that you would have contact with him as well, going along with her?
Describe your relationship with him during that time.
Cordial. (Obj. Clarify, Judge says.)
Other than Brie, were there other friends close to you who were close to Masterson, late 1990s, early 2000s.
One of his best friends worked with one of my best friends.
Who was that?
You mentioned he was employed by someone you know.
He was at that time working for his ex-girlfriend, my friend.
Who was that?
Other than Brie Shaffer, Luke Watson, Lisa Presley, who else was part of that group?
Ben Shulman, Paige Dorian.
He's many things. He worked for my parents. They lived down the street from me. We were all Scientologists.
And you mentioned Paige Dorian?
She was another Scientologist, worked as Lisa's assistant, full time.
Any other friends that were also friendly with Mr. Masterson?
Was a Scientologist. We went to high school together. Delphi, a Scientology school. It's pre-K through high school.
The Ribisi family. Giovanni and Marisa Ribis, also went to Delphi.
So you have this core group of friends and it seems that most or all of them are or were Scientologists.
Correct. I would have to think of an exception who was an acquaintance but not a core friend.
Is there a reason why most or all of your friends were Scientologists? (Obj, overruled)
Growing up in Scientology, there are policies against seeing non-Scientologists.
At this point Judge Olmedo stops things to give an admonition: That the policies of Scientology are not being admitted for the truth of the matter but to help understand the state of mind of the witness.
There were certain policies, did they impact you with relationships with others?
It was frowned up on to fraternize with the enemy. And wogs...
Object. Once again, Judge Olmedo repeats the admonition.
So, those policies that you became aware of, that you were instructed to review, that made an impact on you?
You mentioned the word enemy. What did you mean by that?
Not one of us. Not someone who had been enlightened or engaged in Scientology.
What did you mean by that?
The goal of Scientology is to clear the planet...
Objection, sustained, struck.
You mentioned wogs, people who were not Scientologist.
You could get in trouble for spending time with non-Scientologists
Judge Olmedo, OK, we're going to take a break.
OK, Judge Olmedo is hot.
This trial is not going to be inundated by Scientology. I've admitted with the sole purpose to explain her state of mind about reporting. We're not going to have you explain every facet of her life in Scientology.
Bring it in only for that purpose. Please abide by the rulings.
And Mr. Cohen, you are not going to object to every thing said about Scientology.
She says that she does not want to read that admonition every time, and she does not want to admonish the attorneys in front of the jury. And she will pull the jury out every time she needs to and they will get tired of it very fast.
She gets both to agree. Wow, she was not happy. So Mueller was pulling in too much Scientolgoy too fast, and Cohen's objections were too numerous.
Short break and we'll have Jane Doe 1 back on the stand.
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
And whatever you do, subscribe to this Substack so you get our breaking stories and daily features right to your email inbox every morning…