Discover more from The Underground Bunker
REYES PROBED ON JANE DOES' COMPLAINTS: Danny Masterson Trial, Day 17, end of day 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.]
Late afternoon session
Cohen: I wanted to flesh out the information that Mr. Mueller saw in the press. And then there were three video clips that the govt wanted to play. I wanted to address one of them.
Olmedo: Why don't you continue with your cross, and we'll deal with the clips. (She says they will mostly finish with Det Reyes today, but she will need to come back in the morning.)
Cross of Det Reyes (Myape) continues.
Cohen: I wanted to be very clear on interview with JD3 about hit vs punch vs slap.
Do you recall asking where he hit you?
And she said, in the face.
And you said with what, and she said her hand.
You said open or closed. And he said I don't think he punched me.
What was your response?
Did he slap you?
And she said I think it was? (Objection, Olmedo calls for sidebar.) Detective, do you recall asking, was it just slap?
And she indicated?
Do you recall asking JD3 if it was on her head or cheek?
And she said she could not remember?
You indicated earlier that you ask open-ended questions
Did JD3 ever indicate to you that at any time during sex with Masterson or attempted sex that he ever held or pinned her arms down?
I don't recall.
If she had made that comment it would be in your report of the transcript, correct?
Do you remember her indicating to you that the only response he gave to the hair-pull was the slap?
You spoke to JD3 about a call she made to a rape hotline?
I don't recall.
Do you remember her saying she called a rape hotline?
I don't recall. (Has her look at transcript)
Did she call a rape hotline?
And did she indicate that when she called it, the only thing she spoke about was if someone has sex with you while you're unconscious, that's rape?
She did not say she had made any mention of any other type of sexual assault.
Do you recall JD3 and you speaking about a comment that Masterson had made to or in the presence of a Jennifer Esposito?
Do you recall what comment she attributed to him? (Obj, sustained on relevance) Your honor it's my last question, can we approach briefly? (Sidebar.)
Mueller: You were asked if you talked to Det Vargas in the hall.
You said you had.
Was that anything to do with testimony or anything substantive about this case?
I want to ask a few questions with regard to Jane Doe 1. In particular with regard to Masterson pointed this gun at her. Did you ever ask her to describe the gun?
I don't think so.
Because if you had it would be in your report.
Did you ever ask her to demonstrate how he had held the gun?
Did you ever try to determine if he even had any registered firearms?
I can't recall.
If you had, I would assume that was in your report?
Or in the case book.
You were asked this term cross-contamination. You don't know whether there was any that would have cause influence of the named victims, correct?
You were also asked about with regard to JD1 mentioning bruises on her body, did you ask her when she had them all over, to describe where they were specifically.
I believe so.
Do you recall what she told you?
Both sides of her neck and on her arms.
Did that include shoulders as well?
Going now to JD3. Did you ask you where Mr. Masterson had struck her with his hand during that November incident? (Obj, overruled)
What did she tell you.
I think she said on her cheek.
Did she say in her face.
Did you ask her what he did after she pulled his hair to get him off her?
What was her response?
She said, I believe she said she pushed him.
Is that what you recall or would the transcript refresh your recollection?
Yes, it would. (Shows her.)
What did she tell you?
She couldn't remember if it was her head or her cheek.
How did he respond to pulling his hair?
He hit her.
Did you ask JD3 how many times she told him no and he got aggressive with her? In general.
I remember she said it was "all the time."
You testified about the victims speaking to each other. That was in a report you prepared in March 2017.
Was there a report you prepared subsequent to that?
I believe that was my last report.
So being your last report, you just kind of went through and kind of put together a little bit of a chron of different events in your investigation?
I want to show you an email from JD3 to see if you recognize it. (Shows her a copy.) That's an email you received from her?
That you received on March 14, 2017?
One week before you prepared this report on March 21.
Were you upset at all with JD3 about certain actions she had taken?
I was disappointed.
And you received this email from her in which she apologizes... (Obj, sustained) You were disappointed with JD3, was that with regard to certain things she had done?
She went to the press with the investigation.
This email doesn't mention anything about the press (Obj hearsay, the contents are hearsay but the email is not hearsay) So there's nothing in here about going to the press.
So what was it about this email that made you disappointed.
She sent a letter to my chief and my captain.
And you were upset about that?
I was just more disappointed.
And as a result of a letter going to Chief Beck, was there follow-up you had to undergo as a result?
What was your understanding to why Chief Beck got involved (Irrelevant) No further questions.
Re-cross into these matters only. Cohen: Can we take that up tomorrow morning?
Judge Olmedo agrees. She tells the jury that they need to do some things out of their presence and she excuses them.
Judge Olmedo: I just want to give each side an admonition. I think sometimes, this is an adversarial process, and both sides are making objections. But what I found today different than other days was both sides are making objections to things that they have done themselves. (Goes through the process of going through the reports.)
She admonishes Mueller about using the reports, and then she admonishes Cohen for objecting to things Mueller is doing that Cohen does himself about what's in the reports. She tells them that what they've been doing is time-consuming and tedious to the juries.
Cohen: Maybe hearsay wasn't the right objection. Here's my problem, the inference from the direct of Det Vargas that Det Myape had done something wrong to be taken off the case. And that was the inference just brought up with her. The problem is, I sought to ask Vargas if there had been any finding of any bad conduct by Det Myape that caused the switch, and that was objected to and sustained. What I have a big problem with is, the government then gets into that same area without the payoff of any finding of misconduct. I agree that we should do unto them as we are doing, but when I brought this up it was sustained.
Olmedo is explaining that she would not allow questioning into possible misconduct, I think because she's saying that would be a separate investigation and that there had not been a suggestion that she had been taken off because she had done something wrong. Unduly time consuming and confusing to the jury. But I assume that segues into some other concerns you have. Questioning her about, I think there was a question about going to the press. Is that what you still want to be heard on?
Cohen: I initially wanted to be heard before we got that answer from Myape. I think it's admissible. The government has elicited testimony that Myape believes information was leaked to the press. I think I should be able to inquire about that.
Mueller: The people were not trying to eliciting that response. There's nothing in the email about that. That's a statement Det Myape made.
Olmedo: Can you read back that, Diana?
Court reporter reads it back. Myape saying "She went to the press with the investigation."
Olmedo: What answer were you expecting?
Mueller: It was about the letter JD3 had written to Chief Beck at the time.
Olmedo: And why would you want to go into that?
Mueller: Because cross last time she was here, the questions were asked and responses she gave suggested there was a motive for her to say certain things, make certain comments...
Olmedo: What motive? Bigger pay? Promotion? What I got was that the People wished to indicate that Vargas did a better investigation, and teh defense wants to say Myape did. But I didn't get from either one that there was a motive to advance a certain agenda from either.
Mueller: This report, seven days after this letter, suggests there was an attempt to cover hr actions...
Olmedo: We're not going into any inner-squabble in LAPD and how they handled this case. They can testify to prior consistent statements, prior inconsistent, and to investigative steps, and that's all I'm going to allow them to testify to. You shake your head Mr. Mueller but that's what you were trying to do by bringing up that email and she gave an answer I'm not going to allow the defense go into at this point. It's irrelevant, it's time-consuming. I'm not going to allow police drama for want of a better word between two detectives and whether the JDs were unhappy with how the investigation was handled. I understand that you may think it's relevant, but we're not going there. You both can argue their competence based on what's in their reports, you can certainly comment on that in your closing arguments. Mr. Cohen, do you want me to strike that?
Cohen: It can sit where we are. What I would request is some type of admonition from the court, that there was nothing untoward about Det Reyes. I think that inference started with Det Vargas, and it sounds like the court agrees that it's continued the last ten minutes. I think there should be no takeaway with this jury...
Olmedo: Well, I do want both sides to be able to argue the competence of these detectives in closing arguments. (But she says she'll come up with an admonition about any police misconduct.) All that's come out to the jury is that JD3 wrote a letter to Chief Beck that she was unhappy with Det Reyes. People complain all the tiem. There's a reason "Karen" has become a term in the popular culture. (And then she apologized to Karen Goldstein and everyone laughs. Fun moment.)
She again plays down the impact of a complaint letter, which is such a common thing.
But Cohen is saying that DA Mueller is raising its letter. So it's not just a complaint letter, it is now for a second or third time, the DA's office attacking an LAPD officer and their competency. And there's this unexplained switch to a different lead detective, so there's a reasonable inference the jury could make that there's something going on.
Olmedo: There's a difference between commenting on competency, but not any internal investigation. All we know is there was a complaint letter. There can be a variety of reasons why an investigation will change. I will fashion something, and it will probably not go as far as you would like it to. But what they know is far less insidious than what you know because they don't have facts that you have.
Cohen: Can I just make one comment? The court made a ruling yesterday on something a comment I made to open the door to a witness. Mueller today opens a door and the court closes it.
Olmedo: It's irrelevant. (She's saying that it's s different situation.) With all that said, I would note that the court has made a lot of rulings in this case and both sides at times have gone into areas or used phrases I've admonished them not to. And I'm not here to chastise anyone, I try to take care of it at the time. But this is fluid, it's based upon human behavior, witnesses can be unpredictable. And it's how this court is choosing to deal with it.
Did you want to hear on the other matters you said at sidebar?
Cohen: Yes, please. We spoke at sidebar that I wanted to ask Det Myape about the fact that information from police report had appeared on a blog somewhere. The court's aware Myape makes that specific observation in her report. That the information from the report is on that site and it could only have come from that report. The court said we were not going to get into whether the JDs distributed that information. The government is saying if I ask that first question, I'm opening another area of how this report got into the possession of that website. I'm not trying to go there. Det Myape was asked if there was contamination and if it had influenced any name victims -- she said no, but I think that allows some limited questioning about hte pitfalls of a police report appearing on a public website. I want to ask about that again, without going into another discussion about LAPD methods.
Mueller; We don't know that it could only have come from the name victims...
Olmedo; He's not saying that.
Mueller: but that opens the door about why they might have been released, and so you get into why they were unhappy about the investigation...
Olmedo: He said he's going to ask one question. Was it on a public website. I'm not sure that opens the door to anything.
Mueller: I thought it was broader than that, I have less of an objection to that.
Olmedo: Based on the testimony from witnesses and Jane Does, I do think the exposure a witness has had in the public, it could have been picked up from that. But as for how that information got there, how it was disseminated, the court is not going to allow any questions. You can ask Det Reyes, did she find information specific to a report on a public website. I will allow you to ask that. Is that acceptable?
Cohen: The only thing that I would ask is, and let me make it clear what Det Myape's report said, that a website wrote about almost every detail in the investigation so far. The first report had information that only JD3 would have known, and put the investigation in a negative light. A subsequent article details of JD2's facts were included. It's details about the allegations only the particular JDs would know about their cases. I will follow whatever the court allows me, my position is that the topic has been opened wider than that, but I would ask that it's one or two questions. It's not just the police report, it's details of the investigation.
Olmedo: With that, for time consumption concerns. You can ask, was there information from police reports that were on a public blog sight for public viewing. And then you can make whatever argument you want to make with regards to contamination.
Cohen goes over precise language
Olmedo: Yes, you can ask that. But we're not going to go into specifics about the investigation and why they would be unhappy that would make them want to complain. That a police report is on a website is not necessarily proof that a particular person supplied it.
Moving to the three video clips. Defense objects to one.
The three clips are from JD3 in Austin. First one about coming back from Paris. Second is the November incident. And third is the December incident, and the defense is objecting to that last one.
Cohen: If we're going to adhere to prior consistent statement, it has to be made and then challenged. I don't know of any challenge that was made to the December 2001 incident that this transcript would be a prior consistent statement.
Olmedo goes over some case law. She says there doesn't need to be a challenge to every sentence. They're again arguing over the December 2001 incident and whether Cohen has challenged it. She's keeping in all three clips, apparently.
We'll start at 9 am tomorrow and have a full day.
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…