After lunch session, Day 14 (Day 10 of testimony) Danny Masterson retrial
When we broke, we were on redirect with Jane Doe 2. We anticipate a relatively brief redirect and recross and then the prosecution will bring on a new witness.
Continuing with redirect of Jane Doe 2.
Deputy DA Ariel Anson: Did you speak to Rachel S before she spoke to Det Vargas?
Jane Doe 2: I don't remember.
Did you tell her what to tell him?
No.
Did Reyes ask you if you knew [uncalled witness]?
I remember what happened, she had said something like, she said the name [name]. I knew there was a victim named [name]. She said [uncalled witness], and I said, is that one of the victims?
You knew there was another victim named [name]?
Yes.
Did you know her last name?
No.
So when you said you never spoke to the other [name], you meant the victim [name]?
Yes.
Would looking at the transcript refresh your memory?
I don't know. (Shows her the transcript)
What did you tell Reyes about speaking to the other victim [name].
That I hadn't met her or spoken to her.
In discussion with Mueller, did you say that Masterson, out of the shower, said go to my bed, go to my bed.
Yes.
And that's what he said?
Yes.
In interview with Mueller and Vargas did you say that when you dialed Danny after drinking that you told him, that you wanted to be set up, and you said, after what you put me through, I think you owe me this.
Yes, that is what I said.
Regardless of amount of alcohol before 2003, had you ever had the symptoms you had that night?
No.
No further questions.
RECROSS
Cohen: You were asked just before lunch about statements you said to Reyes about being roofied. Before speaking to Reyes, you had already spoken to JD3.
Yes.
And you had been "flooding each other with information."
That's not exactly what I said.
With respect to whether Danny not wearing a condom, did you remember saying in the November procedding that you thought he had put one on?
I don't remember. If I said that it's fine.
No further questions.
Judge Olmedo excuses Jane Doe 2.
PEOPLE CALL RACHEL S.
Anson and Cohen ask for a sidebar with Judge Olmedo.
Anson goes to get her next witness.
Anson: How are you feeling today?
Rachel S: I feel like this is re-traumatizing. So I feel raw and vulnerable and not safe. And scared. And it brings up a lot of sad memories. And I still don't understand how we're even here. It's escalated.
Do you want to be here testifying?
I do not. I'm very afraid of retaliation by Scietnology and Scientologists. I knew Fair Game is real. I know people who have been Fair Gamed.
Are you currently a member?
No.
Were you?
I was born and raised in it.
When did you leave?
The last time I set foot in an org, that's what they call it, not a church but an org, is the end of 2006, and it probably took a few years to admit to myself that I was completely out. But I knew at that point I was never going back.
Were you a member of a particular org?
I went to a few different ones, but at the end it was AOLA, the Big Blue.
Also the Celebrity Centre?
Yes, we all used to hang out there.
You and your friends?
Yes.
Through Scientology did you know a person named Daniel Masterson?
Yes.
Do you see him in court today?
(Points him out.)
When did you first meet him?
Probably about 1991, when I reconnected with my friends I grew up with.
Around 2003, could you describe your relationship to him.
At that time he was a celebrity, an opinion leader, an upstat. And we really, the word that comes to mind is we revered all the celebrities and opinion leaders. I'd known him since he was a teenager. There was history there, but when someone gets famous, it's like they're representing Scientology and kind of making us look good. So, that's all.
You mention opinion leader.
That's for people who lead public opinion, and so it was celebrities or big donors. I think it also translated to people who were influences of public opinion.
You also mentioned upstat.
Everything in Scientology is based on statistics So an upstat is someone who is in a position of power. It's sort of above the law. And then I was just a downstat. I was referred to as what's called a "degraded being" after leaving staff. I was very subservient to these kinds of people.
To who?
Upstats, opinion leaders.
And downstat?
Someone who, well for me I didn't have enough money to constantly be doing services in Scientology, so that would be one marker of a ds. I had also left staff in 1991...(Obj, rephrase question.)
In 2003-2004, Did you still consider yourself a Scientologist at that point?
Yes, but I had a lot of questions and concerns that I couldn't share with anyone but Julian Swartz, the ethics officer at AOLA. The ethics section are people who tell you how to live your life in order to be a good Scientologist. And at that point I was having my doubts about Sci, and I couldn't tell my friends or family about those concerns because it would, you know, poison their thinking. So I could only talk about it to Julian Swarz, and he was telling me what to do to improve my status as a Scientologist under threat of declare. So he and I had a lot of discussions about that, but only he was supposed to know that.
Around this time, through Scientology, do you also know Jane Doe 2?
Yes.
(Photo of Jane Doe 2)
Could you describe when your relationship with her started?
We became close in 2002, I had probably known her a couple of years before that. At some point she moved in right next door. So we had a few months of that. We were close for a couple of years.
In 2003, did you have a conversation with her regarding something with Masterson?
Yes.
In person?
Yes.
Where?
My apartment.
Can you describe how it started?
She said that Danny was very demanding about coming over, that he repeated come over come over, and it was intriguing and also kind of strange, but she went, and things started happening and she begged him not to have sex. Please Danny, let's not have sex, over and over. And he did it anyway, like a jackhammer.
Is this word for word what she told you?
I don't know if it's word for word. It's a long time ago, but it stuck with me.
Can you describe her demeanor?
Kind of dazed. Maybe a little out of it.
In terms of how she was speaking to you, did she ever say that the def. raped her?
She did not.
In Scientology, if someone told you I was raped, what would that mean to you? (Obj, overruled)
It would mean a couple of things. One, victim mentality and that's unacceptable. So I didn't even have a frame of reference for things like rape or abuse or bullying. All of that would be considered victim mentality, and I would need to report that tot he ethics section for handling.
How?
I would write a Knowledge Report. That's where we write down transgressions. If she had said it was rape, I would have had to write it up.
When JD2 was disclosing what happened, in your mind, did you say rape?
I wasn't allowed to.
When JD2 was disclosing what happened, what was going through your mind? (Obj, overruled)
A few things. The big one was, I wasn't allowed to have negative thoughts about someone like Danny because he was an upstat. And if I was to report something I myself would be punished and investigated. He was above the law. So I was definitely not trying to criticize him in any way. So it was almost like (making noise to close out sound, while pointing fingers in ears).
How long was this conversatio.
We talked a lot over the years. So I really don't have a reference on that. I just remember it stuck out to me that she begged him not to have sex and he was like this jackhammer.
Did your relationship with JD2 change?
Yes, and I have a lot of shame about this.
When did it change?
It was at the end of 2003. I remember that because it was Christmas season. It was then it really fell apart and Julian ordered me no longer to be friends with her.
How would you describe your relationship now.
We're friend-ly. I haven't haven't actually talked to her, had a conversation, in a couple of years. I live far away and we don't have that much in common. But we're certainly friendly.
After Christmas 2003, when did you talk again.
In late 2017, I learned she was part of this trial, and I called her and told her I remembered what she told me, about asking Danny to have sex and he had treated her roughly.
What did she tell you about that?
She fairly quickly connected me to Mr. Mueller and Det Vargas and asked me to talk to them.
That initial conversation when you spoke to her about what you remembered, did she want to talk to you about exactly what you remembered?
No.
Did she want to talk about the specific of those conversations you had had?
No.
Have you talked to her about what she would testify to in this trial?
No.
Have you talked to her about what you would testify to in this trial?
No.
No further questions.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
Cohen: Your relationship with JD2 in 2003 was that of best friends.
We were close. I don’t now that I'd call her my best friends. But we were close. Maybe she was ONE of my best friends.
In a prior proceeding, when you testified, you did so truthfully.
Yes.
In Nov 2022, did you say during 2002 and 2003 you and JD2 were "inseparable."
Yes.
So to characterize her as best friend would be accurate?
One of my best friends.
And given that relationship, you guys would talk a lot.
Yes.
Do you come in here as a neutral witness?
I'm a witness for the prosecution.
When you and she spoke (in 2003), you've done the best to think about what was said.
Yes.
And to be as accurate as you can.
Yes.
And the conversation took place in early 2003?
I'm not sure about that.
Do you recall testifying at a prior proceeding and indicating that your conversation with her was in early 2003?
That's what I thought it was. It's 20 years ago though, and it doesn't actually work with our relationship imploded at the end of 2003, so that could be incorrect.
When you say it doesn't work...
I'm staying this is Los Angeles and there wasn't any weather to mark the occasion, but the end of our relationship was Christmas time, but I'm not sure when this conversation happened.
Can we agree that when you testified in Nov 2022 you said your conversation with her took place in early 2003? (Asked and answered) You said you're not giving a verbatim recitation.
Well, a verbatim recitation would be, "Pleasd Danny, please, I don't want to have sex."
That's what you remember verbatim?
That sticks out to me. And that' really the only reason I’m here. She begged him and he did it anyway, violently.
Are there parts that you remember verbatim and some you don't.
There may be some things from other converations over the years that might have bled in with the things I really remember like Please, please I don't want to have sex.
When you spoke to Vargas about your conversation -- in March 2018 -- did you tell him everything you remembered about it?
As much as I could recall.
Do you have a better memory of it today?
I don't think so.
When JD2 spoke to you, did she say that she had been OK with Danny fingering her?
I don't remember anything about that.
Did she say that she and Danny had had sex on multiple occasions that night?
No.
Did she say that she had stayed there speaking with him to 6 am?
I really only remember her saying she begged him not to have sex.
Did she say that when she had left she had thought they were going to start dating?
No.
That he might fall in love with her?
No.
When you spoke to Vargas in 2018, Did you tell him that your takeaway was that Danny had not raped her?
I feel like you're taking that out of context. Because I also told him that he had stone-cold raped her.
Did you tell Vargas that he hadn't raped her?
That's taken out of context because I wasn't allowed to think Danny raped anyway. And I wasn't able to think that because of the way I was brought up and the belief system.
Did you tell Vargas that Danny and JD2 had had "kind of a fling."
That's also taken out of context.
When you testified in 2022, did you testify that she and Danny had had kind of a fling.
I feel like you twisted my words on that.
My specific question is this, were these your words. (Asked and answered) Did you testify in 2022 that you believe that Danny had "kind of used her."
Any euphemism for rape would do.
Did you say in 2022 that Danny was "kind of douchy."
Correct.
You and JD2 had some conversation where your 2003 interaction came up.
I called her to tell her I remembered what she had said.
Did you tell her you remembered when she and Danny "went out."
Those words are twisted. I feel like you were twisting my words in that last trial.
No further questions.
REDIRECT
What does putting your TRs mean.
Training routines. They are very basic practices. I started doing them in preschool, like ABCs. They teach confronting. And it involves sitting across from each other, one person hazing and harassing the other while they stay still, confronting. Repetitive commands. These drills we did. Over and over, sometimes for hours. The goal was not to react to anything. It enabled me to detach from my body, from my feelings. From any threat response. Putting my TRs in are lock it down, you have no feelings about this. And no response and no reaction.
Were you doin that when JD2 was disclosing what she was telling you about?
Yes, she was in distress and she was saying sonething that would make me have anything but glowing fondness about Danny. Because if I had to report that, I would be in trouble. And so I just locked it down, put my TRs in. No feelings, no empathy, no intuition, just detach from my body and listen.
When you were speaking with Det Vargas about a "fling," is that what you thought about that event.
So, in 2003, I had to reframe what she was saying. I had to normalize it. Any euphemism for rape would do. Fling, douchy, anything. In Scientology, we're responsible for our own condition. We pulled it in. So there's no thinking rape, and I'm not allowed to think he did anything wrong, or I'm in trouble.
In 2018 when you spoke to Vargas, was that still your mentality?
No, I was long left.
So when you spoke in 2018 did you still think it was a fling?
No, and also told him that he stone-cold raped her.
That was not a thought you had in 2003?
I was not allowed to have that thought in 2003.
In 2018, speaking to Vargas, did you think they just "went out."
I did not.
What did you mean when you said that.
I meant the incident.
What incident?
When she went over to his house and he raped her.
You referred to that as "going out."
I think I was just referring to what she had told me.
Do you know wany other time they "went out."
No.
No further.
Judge Olmedo calls for a 15 minutes recess before Cohen begins his Re-cross.
Cohen: Renews his objection to Rachel's testmiony about Scientology. The scope seems so far afield with reference to Jane Doe 2. I would renew my objection under 352. Number 2 the witness stated on multiple occasions that I was twisting her prior testimony, which was trial testimony. Those were her words. And when I tried to follow up to say did you say this, the court sustained an objection as to asked and answered. The credibility of a defense attorney is critical, and the jury haring that I twisted someone's words that we all know appear in a trial transcripts is problematic. I think it would be appropriate to allow me to go back over three statements she made. By the way the word "fling" came up on redirect. So I think it would be appropriate for me to ask her about those words.
Judge Olmedo answers the question about the Scientology material first. That it was about how Rachel interpreted what JD2 was telling her. She felt that she was going to get into trouble if she said that, explaining why she wouldn't say JD2 was raped at the time, that she wasn't allowed to think of it as rape. So it is directly relevant to the credibility of the witness. So that objection is overruled.
As it relates to the testimony, the reason I sustained it, she didn't say she didn't say that, she's saying it's being taken out of context. That it wasn't a true and accurate reflection of what she was trying to say. She didn't say, no, I didn't say that. However, I do understand your concern. If you wanted to ask about those three statements, but if she needs to explain again why she said that the court will allow that and it will get right back into the Scientology material. She says he can decide if he wants to do that.
We’re taking a short 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 for today’s post at tonyorteg.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
Will he or won’t he?
“If you wanted to ask about those three statements, but if she needs to explain again why she said that the court will allow that and it will get right back into the Scientology material. She says he can decide if he wants to do that.”
I love the way the judge puts proper order on Cohen. I am glad to see him suffer.