MARTY SINGER WILL TESTIFY MONDAY: Danny Masterson trial day 8 end of day

[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

No jury or witness yet.

Olmedo: I have reviewed the document, and I do believe it falls under prior consistent statement and I will allow it. However the title is "Knowledge Report: Danny Masterson" and I think it should be redacted.

Cohen: Prior consistent statements are allowable when they ahve been challenged. Mueller is saying it's a prior consistent statement with regards to the keys, and I'm not sure what other parts of testimony. I agree that it's a prior consistent statement in regard to the keys. But there was a question about where she told an officer about going to a party. So I agree that's a prior consistent statement. But I would like a proffer from Mueller about what parts of testimony that the prior statement addresses. Police reports don't come in, but the prior consistent statement doesn't come in as a document but you ask a question, did you say this, and use the statement. I went through the statement three times, line by line, looked at what was said on direct, questioned on cross.

Olmedo: The court does not need a proffer by Mr. Mueller. (Cites state law regarding a videotape admitted in a case.) She cites the Manson case from 1976 among several others.

Cohen: With respect to the rape itself, it really wasn't asked about. The gun is not in the prior statement. The dragging is not in the prior statement. I'm not arguing that she didn't tell Schlegel about the rape. We have a separate issue regarding an interview she gave Vargas in 2020, JD1 takes the position that this document is not accurate. And one of the requirements of prior consistent statement be accurate to what declarant said. We now have her telling Vargas that this document is not accurate.

Olmedo. Thank you, my ruling stands. It's not unusual, I've had cases where a witness gave five different statments, it's up to the jury to decide. But to reduce the amount of Scientology jargon, the People will remove the title and the words "Knowledge Report." And I reviewd her testimony about telling her father about the 2003 incident. The question was, what was his reaction. I didn't allow that to come in as fresh complaint witness. He will not come in as he is deceased.

Goldstein asks about another witness and a 402, but Olmedo says she wants to get through Jane Doe 1 first.

Jury in.

Continuing redirect.

Mueller: I'd like to show you a three page document and take a moment and see if you recognize it.

So far yes. Do I need to look at it all?

Just look at each page.

I recognize it.

The signature.

That's my signature.

It's a typed document?

Correct.

Did you type up this document?

Yes?

When?

2003.

Is this a true copy of what you typed?

It appears to be.

[Shows

"Dropoff" in handwriting

That's my handwriting. That's when I dropped it off at the location.

You gave it to Officer Schlegel?

Yes.

(I'm going to object. The copy I have has no signature. You can take that up later.)

There is a statement about what occured on April 25, 2003, correct?

Correct.

Why did you give this to Off Schlegel? (Obj, overruled)

It was anything I had of evidence of anything I showed or told, he asked for anything.

So in June of 2003 when you prepared this document, was this a reflection of what you remember happening April 25, 2003?

It's what I remember happening a certain instruction.

Instruction from who?

Julian. (Obj, overruled)

So you're saing there's somehting not in here according to him?

More than one thing.

LIke what?

No "Human reaction or emoition." No emotion or opinions. Nothing that can be emotion or complaining. I wasn't supposed to say the "r" word and nothing I couldn't...there's a rule in that report, if I can't prove it, I can be subject to disciplinary actions if it's contested by another person. I had to be ready to defend that, subject to internal justice rules. He was very clear it had to be very carefully written or it would escalate to the Celebrity Centre presiden't office.

Did Julian see this?

Yes. I wrote this at his office.

Were there things you wrote that he told you take out?

The R word. Sorry, why do I keep saying that. Rape. The gun. Julian said he didn't own guns, and so it would be a false report report, and so I'd be subject to disciplinary action. And nothing about previous interactions with Julian. And not a copy to my parents.

Mueller says no more questions.

RE-CROSS

Cohen: Other than the things you just mentioneed is the document accurate?

To my recollection, but I haven't seen that document in years.

You just mentioned some things that you were prohibited from including.

Other than things you were prohibited from including, did you including everything else?

To the best of my ability at that time.

Was the best of your ability worse than your ability the last two days?

Yes.

It was worse then.

Oh yeah.

When you went to LAPD in June 2004 you told Off Schlegel about the gun.

Correct.

You said Schlegel did a background check on the gun.

I didn't say that. He leaned over and checked a computer.

Officer Schlegel looked at some screen and said he had a gun?

No, I told him what they said, that he didn't own guns, and he said they lied.

Did Officer Schlegel say he wasnj't going to include the gun in his report?

He said, what do you want me to do?

So Schlegel asked you whether to include the use of the gun in a crime report?

No.

Did Off Schlegel ask for your approval to include a gun in the report?

Yes.

Off Schlegel asked if it was ok whether to include your mention of a gun in his crime report?

No.

Off Schlegel did not ask you if he could include it?

No. That's not what he said.

You're interacting with him, you told him about the gun.

Yes.

And it's your position he chose not to include the gun because you told him not to? (Obj, sustain.)

Cohen: In the document, did you make any mention of Mr. Masterson coming out to the front of the house, grabbing your wrist against your will, pulling you into the house, pulling you across the hall, into the back of the house?

I have no idea.

Will the document help refresh your recollection of the absolutely accurate account...

That's not what I said.

(She reviews the document.)

I got to the part where he's grabbed my wrist and he's dragging, do you want me to keep reading?

Read what you want.

(These two are being a bit snippy again.)

What you made mention of is that there was a prior occasion, the last time at the house, you did not want to go in the jacuzzi.

Correct.

And the last time, Masterson had carried you up the back stairs to the backyard.

I think I just read that, yeah.

And the last time, he gave you five seconds to drop your belongings before you go in the jacuzzi.

I think that's a typo, it's fifteen seconds.

Does the document make any mention about you calling your father for help?

No.

Does it make mention of Luke Watson taking the phone from you?

No.

The injury to your hand, left hand, does it make any reference to it?

No, we already addressed that with Julian...

(Olmedo asks Cohen to read the next question, doesn't want to go over prior testimony.)

You indicated that Mr. Masterson said if you needed help, he would stick his fingers down your throat? (Reads line from document about his fingers down his throat.)

Help me? No. That is what I wrote.

Asks her about grabbing the nightstand, and she asks to see the document.

Cohen: Is there any mention in the document of your left hand doing anything?

I don't know.

Is there any mention of your left hand being injured?

I don't know.

(Olmedo calls for a sidebar.)

Ariel Anson brings JD1 some reading glasses.

Cohen: Without looking at the report do you know if you referred to your left hand?

I don't recall.

When you woke up the next day, was Mr. Masterson in the bed next to you?

At one point he was next to me in the bed.

Let's talk about when you woke up about 3 in the afternoon was he next to you?

No.

Did you indicate in the document that you did?

I guess if that's in there but I don't know why it's in there.

Would you like to see the report to refresh your recollection?

Cohen: Let's forget about the report for a moment. When you woke up at 3, were you in the bed next to you?

I don't know if he was in the bed or next to it and we had a conversation.

Did you just remember that detail?

After reading the docuemnt, yes. That is part of the really fuzzy part.

When you woke up the next afternoon, he was in bed with you?

Can I see the report again?

No.

I think you just said two different things.

He reads the report, that he was next to her in the bed when she woke up.

That's in there.

Is that something you just remembered reading that now?

Yes. He wasn't in bed. He woke me up. He wasn't in bed with me.

My first question is, does your report indicate "I then woke up in the other side of his bed, with him, in 3 in the afternoon." Are the things you included in your report accurate?

Yes.

When you spoiked Reyes in 2017 that when you woke up Masterson was in the bed next to you?

No.

When you spoke to Mueller, did you tell him that when you woke up the next day he was next to you?

No.

Is there a reason why?

I told him it was blurry. I have no memory of getting clothes and going downstairs. But I do remember him waking me up. It's almost 20 years.

It's almost 20 years, and it's really hard to remember what happened.

No.

It's really hard to remember that he was in the room?

No. It's not rape, it's not violent, it's a detail.

Mueller, no re-redirect.

Jane Doe 1 steps down from the witness stand and leaves the courtroom.

Judge Olmedo dismisses the jury for the weekend.

Jury and witness out.

Goldstein: Marty Singer is next. Our position is that he has nothing admissable to say. I have been handed a copy of grand jury testimony, which has been unsealed. Nothing relevant. It was stated that in a negatiation that that whether Scientology had its fingers in this transaction, the civil agreement.

Olmedo: Let me stop you. When we're talking to grand jury testimnoy, that's unrelated to this case.

Mueller: THis was a grand jury hearing prior to the prelim in this case.

Goldstein: The govt told us that his testimony was corroboration of JD1 that she was forced into the agremment. But in his grand jury testimony he was not her attorney, she had her own attorney. He is unable to corroborate anything she thought or felt. And so the defense is struggling to see any relevancy. Extremely collateral. The only impression the defensse with is to insert another element of Scientology, but Mr. Singer had no correspondence with Scientology.

Olmedo: By your assertoin that Mr. Singer that he had no contact with Scientolog, how could it be an attempt to insert Scientology?

Goldstein:O I'm taking Mr. Mueller's point that the grand jury's poitn was to see if Scientology was involved in the transaction.

Mueller: There's no Scientology that were going to ask questions for Mr. Singer. What he testitified to were the mediation,the parties, how it was conducted, the lcoation, datea. That an agreement was reached. That there was a stetlement made, and that he also expressed an opiniong about JD1's wanting to have this proceeding done. And with regard to the civil case and the criminal trial. It's literally just goingo to be, oh and one other thing and that he had contact with a couple of witnesses in this case, not getting into the content of that discussion.

Olmedo: Who?

Mueller: Shaffer and Weinman.

Olmedo: Before the settlement he had had contact with them. And nothing more?

Mueller: Nothing more.

Olmedo: And the purpose?

Mueller: Because I think it goes to the potential bias and motive that these are primary witnesses in this case and that they were ahving discussions with Mr. Singer tends to show allegiance and it might be something these witneses might shape testimony, shows bias and motves.

Goldstein: Defense sees absolultely no relevance. Those two witnesses can be called rebuttal. And when Singer referred to those witnesse, he said there was privilege. But I see any nexus with the charges of Mr. Masteraon, or state of mind of JD1. If it's about those two witnesses, maybe could be used when they testify.

Olmedo: As to calling Mr. Singer, I will allow him to testify, but for limited purpose of meetings when JD1 was present, whether she was allowed to talk to the docuement, did he turn the pages for her. Was she a given a copy then, in his presence. Those are certainly not covered by atty-client privilege. As to Shaffer and Weinman, I've alrady ruled that they are not covered by privilege simply by the fact that they work for Mr. Masterson. They are percipient witnesses, fact witnesses and that's not covered by the privilege. But I do rule that this is collateeral, and I won't allow questioning of Mr. Singer outside this focus. But if something else comes up I will keep him on call and you can bring him back.

Mueller: Mr Singer, based on this interaction, that he formed the opiniong that JD1 was not wanting to have this go forward, that she wanted to nothing ot do with it.

Olmedo: It would be speculative, but he cannot speculate to her state of mind.

Goldstein: Since you ruled that he is testifying, he also received the draft civil complaint.

Olmedo: I'll allow you to ask if he recdeived it without going into the details of the draft.

Cohen: The copy of Exh 20 the copy we got, the signature block is blacked out. I did not know who signed it. I asked him to provide me with an undredacted copy. I know Mr. Mueller's busy. But I did not know it was signed and who signed it. And given the interview colloquy had with Det Vargas. I don't want to litiggagte the request now, but I am going to file a failure to disclose, having to deal with it on the fly.

Olmedo: I think it's pretty clear who wrote it, it's written in the first place. I'm not going to issue an order on failure to disclose. Be that as it may, this trial is spuposed to go, by counsel's estimate another four weeks, by my estimate maybe two....

Mueller: I don't know if that's accurate that he got a blacked out version, but the docuemnt is labeled "C-1" marked by Schlegel, so it's pretty clear who provided the document to him.

Olmedo: I've made my ruling. (She then talks about documents in general and unredacted.)

Goldstein: Fabos (following Singer). Yesterday Fabos was interviewed yesterday by the DA's office, was provided to us. About 95 percent of those materials deal iwth what has already been excluded by the court. For example, the recorded call starts out in 2016 with "You knwo why I was scared, right?" And her talking about trying to protecdt people from the church. And about Mr. Fabos being handled and called into the church. My argument is that none of that should come in. There has been so much already of an answer opening a door to unexpected material.

Olmedo: The court has already ruled that the fresh complaint witness can testify to what she said to him... As it comes to Scientology, the witnesses ties to Scientology is admissable. I guess People you are going to have to let me know what you're going to get into in relation to allegations of rape made to Shaun Fabos. We will have to vet that out. Any witness who's testifying who has a fear of a third party, it doesn't have to be tied to the defendant directly. Going into specifics, regarding specifics about Scientlogy procedure, you can tell I've been trying to limit it to state of mind. The people will have to make a proffer before going into any of those areas. I'm not sure that makes it clearer, but you probably ahve a good idea hwat your witnesses are going to say. I expect you (Mueller) to lead so that it doesn't open up a lot of material about Scientology.

Mueller: With regard to our interview late afternoon yesterday. (He explains that Fabos or his attorney said something that made them realize they needed to get a statment recorded.)

Goldstein: She complains that Fabos is more than a fress complaint witness, from DA interview he's a percipient witness.

Olmedo: I assume if he observed bruises the People will try to introduce that. The court would certainly not limit a witness's (visual) observations. We will be in recess until Monday.

---

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…