JANE DOE 3 FINISHES TESTIMONY: Danny Masterson Trial, Day 11, afternoon break report

[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.]

After lunch session.

Marc Headley has joined Jeffrey Augustine in the public section.

Jane Doe 3 returns to the witness stand.

Judge Olmedo asks defense attorney Philip Cohen how much more time he needs for cross-examination. He estimates less than half an hour.

The jury comes in.

Cross-examination of Jane Doe 3 continues.

Cohen: We left off in New York and you had gone out to dinner with friends and you asked Mr. Masterson if he wanted to join you.

I believe so.

And he joined you.

I believe so.

It sounds like it went well.

It did.

And at the end of the night you went to his hotel?

Yes.

And that was voluntary?

Yes.

He didn't force you?

No.

He didn't threaten you?

No.

And at some point at his room you used the word intimate, that yuo got intimate?

I may have used that word.

But you had sex?

Yes.

And you did not say it was forced?

I did not say that.

And you believed he had taken a picture of you.

He did.

And you decided you were really done with him now.

Yes.

And that was true, you were done with him.

I felt like, he cannot change.

At that point did the contact with him stop?

Pretty much. I would see him out from time to time, and it was friendly.

Were you taking steps to reach out to him?

No sir. Except I remember I sent him an email.

When?

I believe in 2007.

Asking for him to help with a friend?

A friend who was his employee.

Let me show you Defense Exhibit E. (Printout of an email.) Do you recognize this email you sent August 24, 2007?

Yes sir.

Is that a true and correct copy?

Yes sir.

(Cohen asks for some time. He's going through some snapshots with Deputy DA Mueller. He shows them to JD3.) Is that you and Mr. Masterson?

Yes sir.

Is that taken in the house you shared with him? It appears to have been taken in Spring 2001.

Yes.

Do you recognize this photo, also has a date of Spring 2001, of you and Mr. Masterson?

(She seems to agree.)

Last one. Do you recognize this? A birthday party for you? Do you recognize the date of this in 2001?

(She seems to agree.)

In September of 2018, did you recall a conversation you had with Det Vargas about that email that I showed you?

Yes.

In response to the conversation in Sep 2018, did you make sure Det Vargas make sure you had the information he was asking about?

Any time he would contact me to ask questions, I would always be available and try to help and give him whatever information I had.

Did Det Vargas ask you beside the email, was there any other contact since the breakup?

I don't think so. I don't remember.

Did you make the statement to Det Vargas, "Yes, I promise on everything I love" that you had disclosed all post-break up contacts? Did you say that to him?

I'm confused.

You had a discussion with Det. Vargas Sep 2018, did you indicate to him, "Yes I promise on everything I love."

It's possible.

At that time you indicated that statement, had you told Det Reyes about your post-breakup interactions with Masterson?

No, because I'd forgotten and I hadn't the email.

Forget the email. Did you tell her about the post-breakup sex?

I don't know.

When you promised that to Det Vargas, had you told Deputy DA Mueller about your post-breakup sexual interactions with Masterson?

I don't know, but if he'd asked me I would have told him.

(I'm really confused by that last question from Cohen.)

Cohen now referring to a "palimony document." Do you remember telling Det Reyes about that?

If she had asked me I would have told her.

I'm asking if you told her about it.

I don't know.

Do you remember telling Det Reyes, that it was a document where you were waiving any claim to sue Masterson for palimony?

Maybe.

Would it help to refresh your recollection between you and Reyes.

I don't know.

Did you tell Det. Reyes that because you and Danny had lived together for over five years, there might be a palimony claim?

I don't know.

Would it help refresh your recollection about this document?

I don't know, because it didn't refresh my memory last time.

Did you tell Det Reyes you signed the docment because you didn't want any money from him?

I didn't.

I understand, but my question is during that conversation that you told Det Reyes that you didn't sign the document because you didn't want money from him?

I don't know, sir.

Would it refresh your recollection on that question to look at a transcript.

I don't know.

You are part of a lawsuit against Mr. Masterson.

Yes sir.

Are you asking for money as a part of that lawsuit?

No sir.

In December of 2016, did Det Reyes indicate to you that she did not want you speaking with any other of the potential named victims?

Named victims or the other victims?

Did she tell you she didn't want you talking to any potential victims.

Yes.

To witnesses?

She said I could speak to witnesses but not victims and I thought that was really unusual.

So in Dec 2016 she told you you cuold talk to other potential witnesses?

Or it could have been in January 2017.

In January 2017, did Det Reyes tell you that you speaking with potential witnesses in this case could be fatal to credibility? (Obj, overrueld)

No sir. I recall her telling me I could speak with witnesses. I was to record certain potential witnesses in pretext phone calls. Other witnesses, I thought it was strange she said that.

So Det Reyes never said to you that it would be fatal to the case and credibility would be shot if you spoke to other people (asked and answered.) Now when Det Reyes had the Dec 2016 conversation, you and Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 had been speaking about the cases.

That's not correct, as you state it.

Have you given a statement previously that the end of Oct 2016 that you had spoken with JD2 about each of your respective cases? Yes or no.

I spoke with her, but there were no cases.

Did you tell her your story and she told you hers? (Obj, overruled)

When I found out about her, I wanted to reach out to her to tell her that I believed her.

Did you tell her your story?

I didn't tell her details, I just said...

Have you given a statement that at the end of Oct 2016, with respect to JD1 and JD2, you had spoken with each of them and that you had told them your story and they had told you your story? Did you make that statement?

I don't know if it's true the way you're saying.

Would it refresh your recollection to see a transcript of what you said?

I don't know.

Would it help you if you saw your statement.

My statement with whom?

A prior statement with (unclear).

Well, I did speak with them.

My question is did you tell them your story and they told you about their stories? (Obj, overruled)

My story, that he raped me? (Asking Olmedo, who asks him to rephrase it.)

In Oct of 2016, you spoke with JD1 and JD2 and told them about your story and they told you about their stories?

That's not entirely correct.

My question is, did you make that statement, not whether it's correct or not.

Probably.

When you say probably, would it help refresh your collection?

Show me, please.

(Shows her document.) Let us know if that refreshes your memory that you spoke to JD1 and JD2 before you spoke with Austin PD.

(Olmedo asks if she's all right: I'm confused, she says. You can ask your next question, Olmedo says.)

Did you say, in 2021 (prelim?), that for years you have, JD1 and JD2 have been talking about this case?

I recognize this was a question for me, and the first time I spoke with JD1 was in 2016.

And also JD2.

Yes, but I didn't say we were talking about cases.

Did you have messaging with JD2 regarding your case prior before talking to Austin PD?

A quick question, and she replied.

That's the only contact you had with her bfore going to Austin PD?

Yes.

Did you and JD2 ever begin to flood each other information (Vague.) Did you and JD2 before you went to Austin PD, share a lot of information about your cases?

No sir.

When you lived with Mr. Masterson did he own a registered firearm?

Yes sir.

In Feb 2017, did you ask for a copy of your police report from Det Reyes?

I can't be certain if it was February, but I did. I asked her multiple times for a copy to make sure it was accurate.

Did you ask for more than seeing, that you wanted a physical copy.

I was in Austin and she was in LA, so I asked for a copy multiple times, and she said she wasn't allowed.

You asked her for an actual copy.

I think I just asked to see it. Maybe it was for a copy.

Well, it was more than just asking her to read it over the phone, it was a tangible copy?

No sir.

Did you ever get a copy?

I got the front page, I don't know what it's called. The front part.

Did you then provide that to a media outlet?

No.

In March 2018 did you receive a text from Det Vargas that your case was out of statute? (Obj, sustained) In March 2018 did Det Vargas indicate to you that you should speak to Deputy DA Mueller. (Obje, sustained) Did you speak with Mueller in March 2018.

I thought you told me it was another date.

You interviewed with him June 1, 2017.

That's the date.

You indicate that there were other times you talked to him, yesterday.

We weren't here yesterday, but that's the date (June 2017) I first talked to him.

I'm talking about after that. March 2018.

Oh, I'm sorry.

In response to some communication you had with Det Vargas, did you then speak to Deputy DA Mueller.

I don't know the date, but I spoke to him.

Forget the date. Did you speak to Det Vargas about your case being out of statute? (Obj, sustatined.) Do you remember having a conversation after speaking to Det Vargas a conversation with Det Mueller?

I feel dizzy.

I have no further questions.

[Judge Olmedo asks for a brief sidebar.]

REDIRECT

While we're waiting for Mueller to start, Judge Olmedo asks the jury to leave. And Jane Doe 3.

Olmedo: This is directed to people in the audience. (She singles out one person in particular.) I expect people in the audience to have a poker face and not to gesture. Seeing you talk to the young man next to you and gesturing at the witness, I do not want to see that. Anyone nodding or shaking your head at the witness, that will not be tolerated. (She directed this at a guy we have seen who is part of the Masterson group but who is not seated in their section.)

Jury comes back in.

OK, so now Redirect can begin.

Mueller: As to the November 2001 incident, you previously testified at a preliminary hearing. You testified that while you were trying to push him off, he pushed you back and had his elbow on top of you. Remember that?

I do.

Were you nervous when you gave your statement to Det Reyes?

Yes sir.

Were you nervous when you gave your statment to me?

I was terrified.

Did you tell Det Reyes that you might be having a panic attack?

Yes sir.

Did Det Reyes try to put you at ease?

No sir. Because I wasn't feeling at ease.

With regard to Mr. Masterson had ever threatened to hit you, you said there were times he was going to hit you?

Yes sir.

What would he do to make you feel that?

I can thinking of times when after he was saying all those really disrespectgul and disgusting things to Jennifer Esposito and he was in a rage, I thought he was going to hit me. He did not. But just his incredibly domineering -- would be a kindly way (to say it).

I want to get away from the terminology, the legal definition, aside from that term, did you think it was rape, just in your words in regards to this November 2001 incident, what did you feel it was? (Asked and answered, numerous times.) Were there times you felt it wasn't a rape? (Obj, sustained, calls for sidebar.)

Mueller: You mentioned you withheld some things about your relationship with Masterson.

The general cruelty. I just kind of gave them, when I would talk about incidents I left details out becasuse I didn't want him to go and murder somebody.

With regards to statements to Det Reyes, do you recall talking with her at that time, how much alchool you could have and not go unconcscious.

I don't drink anymore, but I could probably drinka a bottle and a half. I don't recall what I told her. I would be hungover the next day.

But it wouldn't be a situation where you couldn't remember most of the night?

No sir.

You said Mr. Masterson never really asked you for sex.

Correct.

How did he signal that he wanted to have sex?

He would see me and just like jump starting a car, and just go in. There would be no asking, there would be no loving. And a lot of time I would go to sleep and I would wake up to him having sex with me.

So that was more than one time that happened?

That was normal.

What do you mean?

It was just the only thing I knew. We were together for so long and I was really young. That was just how it was.

You mentioned the civil suit you were not asking for money.

Correct.

The civil suit, is that related to the harassment and stalking you've been experiencing?

(Voice trembling) It's related to the terror campaign that this criminal organization has put upon me and my family. It didn't matter how many police reports and FBI reports I filed, no one would stop them. To this day.

(Judge Olmedo reads the admonition about it not being for the truth of the matter.)

The email you sent, you didn't get a chance to review it. Was there any time you were interviewed, that you denied that you loved Mr. Masterson?

I never denied that. I think that's why I protected him, but I knew there were other women he was doing this to. (Olmedo: Latter part stricken.)

The fact that you loved him, that is despite what happened in Nov and Dec 2001? (Obj, overruled)

Yes.

Why is that? (Obj, overruled)

I was 18 years old when I moved in with him and lived together for six years. And I believed he saved my life by getting me into Scientology, and I repeated it so many times I believed it. It makes it less painful if you believe something like that.

No further questions.

RE-CROSS

Cohen asks for a sidebar.

Olmedo: OK, Mr. Cohen, re-cross into those areas only (referring to re-direct.)

Cohen: Mr. Mueller asked you some questions about testimony at the preliminary hearing, in May 2021, correct?

Yes sir.

Mr. Mueller had asked you if you made mention of things you said the other day, the arm etc.

Yes.

And you did mention those things.

Yes.

When you met with Det REeyes, you never mentioned any of those details regarding your hands, his hands.

She didn't ask me.

When you met with Mueller in June 2017, at that point you never mentioned these details.

I believe I did.

And when you spoke with Det Vargas you never mentioned these details.

Pretty certin I did.

OK, we'll ask Det Vargas. (Olmedo: That part will be stricken.) The things you say Masterson said in front of Miss Esposito were disguting. The phrase he said was, "Hey Jennifer, show them your breasts."

No.

No further questions.

Jane Doe 3 is excused.

Judge Olmedo says afternoon recess before next witness. And she tells the jury it will be longer because they have things to take care of out of the hearing of the jury. Jury goes out.

Cohen: My understanding from Ms. Anson is that she had re-admonished JD3 this morning about the court's 402 that there shall be no mention of any other victims regarding this case or Masterson. Obviously other than JD1 and JD2. We heard two pieces of testimony, on cross and redirect, that absoultely violated the court's 402. I don't know what else I can do to keep having the court have the various JDs admonished. I don't know how deal with that. There will be a motion for a mistrial.

Olmedo: I will have you clarify which ones. I do remember her testimony referring to other women but there are three women here and I don't remember her violating the ruling. I don't know that she referred to anh other women than the three charged here by name. j

Cohen: I agree she never used a name that differentiated from JD1 and JD2. But she made a distinction between other victims and named victims. To reference "other victims" would seem to indicate other than those naemd. I don't think that was an accidnt or a slipup of the English language. Once that distinction is made, I don't know ohw we can know that that thought is in the jury's head that there are named victims and other victims. That was compounded on redirecdt when JD3 testified that I knew he had found out he had done this to other women. Maybe she's talking about JD1 nd JD2, but when you combine that with the first part, and it's elicited on redirect, about doing this to other women, I do find it in violation of teh court's 402 that there should be no mention of other victims. I don't think it's a stretch to say it would be interpreted by the jury that there are other victims than the three.

Mueller: I do think it's a stretch that the jury would think that. As for named versus others, I don't see the jury making that leap. There's no mention of a "Lilly" or other possible victims. I don't think the jury would think of anything other than the three victims in this case. My recollection is that the terminology has been used before and it's not the issue that Mr. Cohen is making it out to be.

Cohen: I used it because that's the way Det Reyes used it for JDs not to speak together. That's why I stuck to her terminology...

Olmedo: Excuse me, sir, what's your name?

In audience: Scott Borthwick

Olmedo: Please spell it.

B-O-R-T-H-W-I-C-K

Olmedo: Court is in session, and I will ask you to stop talking during the proceedings. (This is the same guy she had admonished earlier. He's apparently a Laguna Beach attorney, and like we said he'd been seen in the Masterson camp.)

Olmedo: You may continue.

Cohen: I think it's troubling when I used the words a detective used, and I think the Detective will confine to the three, and now I think it's in the ether of charged versus other.

Olmedo: I understand your concern. But request for a mistrial is denied. The reason we made the distinction becasus the People wanted to bring in Jane Doe 4 and we didn't allow it. And also that there would be no mention of a "Lilly." I think tha tthis particular witness took a long time was that often she was trying to clarify the questions on a number of issues, not just that one. So i don't find her clarification to insinuate that there must be more than the three victims. I think she was just trying to clarify. I understand your concern, but for the jurors who are unwwarwe of what you know about the evidence in this case, they would not have the same reaction. So on that basis the court will deny the request for mistrial. As for the civil lawsuit that is calling for monetary damages, why don't both sides come up with a stipulation like we did for the 2004 agreement. OK? We're in recess.

---

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…