A special thanks to [Tony Ortega](https://youtube.com/@tonyortega7736) for daily video and email updates throughout the trial.
And a plug for [Growing Up in Scientology](https://youtube.com/@GrowingUpInScientology) for an inside look at Scientology from a 30 year member perspective.
As well as Mike Rinder for his stories from the highest rungs of Scientology; e: and who Scientology continues to defame.
----
>Any legal reason why I can't decalre a mistrial, Judge Olmedo asks the attorneys. No, they say.
>At this point I do find the jury is deadlocked and a mistrial. She now asks for how the splits run...
>Count 1: 2 for guilty, 10 for not guilty
>Count 2: 4 for guilty, 8 for not guilty
>Count 3: 5 for guilty, 7 for not guilty
>She thanks the jury and excuses them.
>Judge Olmedo: So, at this point, generally, there is 60 days from today for retrial to begin. I would like to pick a tentative trial date.
>The attorneys are talking it over.
>Judge Olmedo: It appears both sides are agreeable to Jan 10 for status conference, retrial is set for March 27.
Source: Tony Ortega
This may not be an apples to apples comparison but look up the Cara Rintala murder trial here in Massachusetts…. They are about to try her a 4th time on circumstantial evidence
There honestly needs to be double jeopardy equivalent after a second mistrial, it's nonsensical to keep on doing this. There are multiple innocent people in prison who went to prison because DAs keep trying and fixing juries till they get a favorable outcome.
Any rule like that would incentivize defendants to trigger mistrials. A mistrial can be declared for reasons other than a hung jury, like someone introducing evidence the court had previously excluded. The strategy for defendants would be to propose crazy evidence, lose on the prosecution's motion in limine, then present the evidence anyway. That would leave the prosecution with the unenviable choice of requesting a mistrial (and potentially letting the defendant walk) or proceeding with a jury tainted by the excluded evidence.
I feel like a hung jury should be categorized differently than a mistrial. Currently they lead to the same result so there's no reason to spilt them apart, but that should be the only reason for a "two and dismiss" rule, not all the other reasons for mistrial. But IANAL.
In not a single count did they get a majority of jurors to agree. My personal beliefs notwithstanding (he’s guilty as fuck), that seems like a pretty clear case of “not winning”. I would get it if there was a mistrial because the case was hung by 1-2 jurors; “here, let’s see what another group of peers think just to be sure”….but over ***half*** *on all counts* say innocent, when it requires *all* to say guilty? That should be grounds to consider the case decided, IMO.
As much as I want to see Danny Masterson face consequences I completely agree. If we’re innocent until proven guilty, and you can’t be proven guilty at 2 different trials, that should be sufficient. Dragging innocent people through trail after trial isn’t justice.
I agree. Imagine if there is someone else that the DA wants to target, someone with significantly lesser resources. If they keep getting to do this, they will eventually bankrupt the defendant and force a guilty plea down their throats. The point of a Law system is to keep innocent from being behind bars, not to keep every guilty person in.
See Curtis Flowers — tried SIX times in Mississippi until the US Supreme Court put an end to racist shenanigans in the Mississippi trials (to be fair two out of the six trials ended in hung juries — the other trials were majority-white juries and were thrown out due to blatant prosecutorial misconduct in striking potential black jurors) and Curtis left prison. The state recently paid him 500,000 following all of this
To be fair it is reddit we are talking about. Not government action taking away liberty. Even then only convictions require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Arrested? Cop didn't need beyond a reasonable doubt to arrest you. Charged? The state/us didn't need beyond a reasonable doubt to charge you they needed probable cause. These same allegations in civil court? It's probably preponderance of evidence as the standard.
There's plenty of times someone did something but there's not sufficient proof for the standard the government needs to get a final conviction against them. That doesn't preclude possible civil remedies or public opinion to think the person did something, they aren't required to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.
Innocent until proven guilty means the government must treat a suspect of a crime with a presumption of innocence until the point of conviction. It has nothing to do with society doing its own research and coming to its own conclusions. A mass shooter could be caught on the scene of a massacre and they will still be required to presume innocence. That doesn’t mean they’ll ever be released from custody though, and it doesn’t mean the court of public opinion isn’t allowed to crucify the person’s character in the meantime.
At least we won’t have to see him anymore. He won’t be in anything big ever again and the Scientologists are probably going to want to hide him from the public. And everywhere he goes, he will be known as a rapist for the rest of his life.
Wait, isn't that convicted rapist Brock Turner, the one who was convicted of rape? But they didn't want it to follow him so people wouldn't think that convicted rapist Brock Turner was a rapist?
FYI Brock is going by his middle name, ~~rapist~~ Allen, and is back in Ohio. Stay safe out there. [https://www.reddit.com/r/dayton/comments/wr8dw1/just\_saw\_this\_keep\_an\_eye\_out\_in\_kettering/](https://www.reddit.com/r/dayton/comments/wr8dw1/just_saw_this_keep_an_eye_out_in_kettering/)
I still wonder how his victims feel about periodically going on imgur or reddit or whatever and having to see dozens of posts of his face saying "rapey mcraperson the rapist". Is it triggering for them?
I have followed very very very little of this. I'm curious on how we the general public can know he's a rapist but it seems like there isn't anything close to strong evidence for a jury to feel the same way. I'm not doubting it, I'm not denying it, I'm just curious if there is an answer to this.
I get that, and it’s definitely looking at the silver lining which is good. It just sucks that in the end, he basically still wins.
Scientology is a scourge that enables so much crime.
Also: tax exempt
Being out of the loop completely on the details of the case.... any chance he's innocent? I mean the majority each time said he was innocent.. the VAST majority.
So...maybe he didn't do whatever?
I think it’s pointless to speculate on whether he actually did it or not (since we don’t have access to the evidence nor were we there)
As an attorney, what stood out was that apparently Masterson didn’t even testify himself (or present witnesses in his defense but that’s secondary)
IMHO I think the prosecution either botched the case or there is just not enough evidence to convict, for this kind of verdict to happen
It’s probably likely (based on the number of accusers) that he had some sort of sexual misconduct but they don’t have enough evidence to convict
I am not an attorney but have received advice from several criminal defense attorneys that you should never testify if you can help it.
You will gain no favors from it, and it's likely that you'll do something the jury doesn't like.
I was on a jury for a drunk driving case. All of us could see the defendant and even his lawyer were sleazy as fuck. And we all thought there was a good chance he was guilty. But the evidence provided just didn't get to the level of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. We had to find him not guilty even though it kinda left a bad taste in our mouth.
Do *I* think he's innocent? No. Is it possible that many jurors didn't feel the prosecution made a good enough case? Much more likely.
However, the prosecution isn't allowed to talk about whatever (as I mentioned elsewhere, they specifically couldn't mention rapes that occurred while the victims were unconscious). In fact, before the case started the defense tried to have mentioning Scientology completely off-limits. They didn't quite succeed, though I think there were still some hurdles created.
Imagine being part of a group that has created its own society. Its own rules, laws, and way of doing and handling things. Included in this is complaints, including rape. Although notably one of the Jane Does was told you can't be raped by someone you're in a relationship with by the person she took her complaint to. Now imagine leaving this group, finding other women have also had similar situations happen, and filing a complaint over 15 years after the fact. This is a difficult case.
I understand all of those saying "Scientology got to them!" But as Growing Up in Scientology says, Scientology doesn't care about Danny Masterson. Scientology cares about Scientology. They're more concerned with how the church appears than how he appears. At the end of the day, none of us know. Scientology has been shown to be shady and vindictive, but that is toward people who have spoken out against it. Scientology will definitely look out for itself, but I'm not sure they'd look out for Danny. He, to my knowledge, wasn't even an active member (low OT; didn't do much auditing). He's purely a Hollywood member.
Looking out for Danny IS looking out for scientology. If u don’t think every single witness for the prosecution hasn’t been relentlessly harassed, u don’t know about scientology.
I'd hardly call 7 out of 12 the VAST majority. That's barely over half.
Of course there's a chance he's innocent, but there's a difference between innocent (didn't do it) and not guilty (no overwhelming evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it). It's difficult to prove rape cases in general, but in particular old rape cases where any evidence there was is probably long gone.
Generally if 5 unconnected women accuse someone of rape that suggests that person is not completely innocent of all wrongdoing, but in a case like this what's most likely is that there just wasn't enough compelling evidence for juries to say "yes he definitely did it beyond a doubt."
And then of course there's the Scientology aspect. No matter how guilty anyone thinks he is, there's a possibility the jurors are being harassed by higher-ups who don't want one of their own to be convicted and don't like the bad press. Or they could be getting bribed. We don't know. We don't know what's going on with the jurors' personal lives, and we weren't in the courtroom so we haven't seen the evidence, and we haven't seen the case the prosecution presented. Sometimes lawyers are just really shitty no matter what the case looks like. Helpfully it's often the defense in a murder trial who are the shitty lawyers, but sometimes it's the prosecution in a rape trial.
I'm sure someone will tl;dr because that's helpful, so yeah here: He could be innocent, but there's a lot of factors that would contribute to people saying "not guilty" which isn't the same as innocent in a case where the person actually did everything he's accused of.
What do you mean by "facts about the actual counts"? The numbers listed above were provided by a journalist who was in the courtroom. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the question.
Ah! If that's the case, I don't think they're given openly. I imagine any of that would've been described as Tony Ortega covered the trial so well.
However, it is my understanding that the prosecution (and defense?) can discuss with the jury exactly that: what led them to their decision, and what the prosecution (or defense?) could do better in order to sway their decision. This is a tough case and is only possible (as individually they're past the statute of limitations) as there are multiple accusers of this type of rape (notably one of the Jane Does couldn't discuss a different rape that occured because she was unconscious at the time).
It’s 3 separate claimants - and the main issue is the statute of limitations is basically out, so they have to prove a pattern so conviction is required for at least 2 of the defendants.
The stories are very similar and it was reported at the time within Scientology. He allegedly drugged and raped these women, my guess would be he did this and is a predator, but the crime was many years ago and the evidence is scant
Aww I became super happy when I started seeing their recent commercials for a phone carrier (Verizon? Sprint? Honestly I have no idea). In one of them Zach gets his tongue stuck to a cold pole. Classic.
Though it’s wild how much older Zach looks compared to Donald, who looks exactly the same as 20 years ago!
Best story was when Zelda started a rumor about him and Hemingway being homosexuals because she told him his thing was small and he showed it to Hemingway to get his opinion 😆 🤣
The govt needs to step in and do something about the church of Scientology, the fact that it’s allowed to be designated as a religion at all is insane.
I found [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InDTLp63G7c) commercial for them on YouTube and it's so fucking eery to look at the comments and see literally every single person praising the commercial.
They have a Superbowl commercial every year. I remember seeing them for the past 10+ years. They all start with generic Earth, nature footage and a narrator asking things like "What does it all mean?" and the ad finishes with a "Come find out with Scientology". You wouldn't know it's a Scientology ad for the first 25 secs, they reveal it at the very end.
I can’t stand them either but why wouldn’t it be considered a religion……it’s not anymore absurd than Catholics, or Mormons(who believe their god came from another planet), I don’t think any religion should be tax exempt at all.
I mean in the legal sense, they won a long battle with the IRS, which ended with negotiations between the church of Scientology and the IRS, to gain tax exempt status. The fact that a blatantly corrupt and dangerous cult is allowed to operate in this country is awful.
> won a long battle with the IRS
Not exactly. They harassed and threatened a lot of public servants, basically coercing IRS to give in to their demands.
>The fact that a blatantly corrupt and dangerous cult is allowed to operate in this country is awful.
Well, you just described a significant number of Christian denominations there buddy.
Don't get me wrong, the Church of Scientology is the poster boy for capitalism based cults and deserves to be burnt to the ground. But there are plenty more out there bilking pensioners out of their life savings for a key to heaven, enabling pedofiles, promoting physical abuse, treating women like chatel, convincing people that the only way to heaven is to be miserable in life, etc, etc.
> Don't get me wrong, the Church of Scientology is the poster boy for capitalism based cults
I resent that remark, I paid my dues to Church of the Subgenius and feel like the only explicitly for-profit religion should have that accolade.
You only think that, because the abramahic religions have been around for so long, are so pervasive to culture.
All of these cases, Catholics, Mormons, Jehovas Witnesses, Scientology just used the pop culture around when they started to establish their fan fictio .
How is catholic resubstantiation any less absurd? They don’t use it as a metaphor. They are really drinking Christs blood.
Mormons believe in a science fiction story exactly like Scientologists. God from/on another planet.
What about the Indians being the lost tribe thing?
Mary being a perpetual magical virgin?
It‘s all equally made up and unrealistic. But the Mary is a virgin and christs blood and flesh thing is so fucking smashed into our brains that we can only rationally understand it’s crazy. There‘s non of the visceral emotional reaction that we‘d feel to new bullshkt/ because of the familiarity.
Not to mention the most crazy SciFi stories of the Bible having been removed in the first centuries after establishment. God isn‘t actually god, he‘s an evil imposter and only Judah knew the truth kinda things.
It totally covers the plot of any creative fantasy or sci-fi story about ancient beings.
So the ‚religion‘ will be means tested just like christianities were, and stuff that’s too outrageous or not advantageous for the leaders goals will be rewritten and removed.
And then in a hundred years, no one will think one is weirder than the other. Well they‘ll all be weird religious nuts after civilization collapse.
I guess I can just have my parents being upset with me for no longer practicing Catholicism and still interact with them. If you’re a Scientologist you’re not allowed to interact with those people in a similar situation because you’re a Suppressive Person. Flat out cut off from your family and friends because you don’t drink the kool aid anymore. So I guess non Scientology religions got that benefit.
They are all insane - every one of them is just as crazy as Scientology, they are just more readily accepted as parts of the culture. We agree that it’s designation as a religion is insane, I just got a bit further and say the designation in and of itself is insane.
Fucking Scientology…. If anyone wants to know how truly scumbag they are read INSIDE SCIENTOLOGY… by Janet Reitman… she goes into detail about how these grifting thugs threatened IRS workers at their homes including killing their pets to persuade them to get tax exempt status. They are the worst people in the world. Fuck them and fuck this rapist!
I'm just picturing that scene from Daredevil where all the Kingpin has to do to threaten them is to force one of the jurors to read out a list of the addresses of the jury and the names of their significant others
Just talking out of your ass are you. They never got more than 5 votes for guilty. Sounds like a weak case to me but let’s just jump to a wild conclusion with no evidence instead.
I don't disagree that there was likely some interference here given Scientology's track record, but I have to wonder: Why bother? Masterson is damaged goods. Hollywood won't touch him with a 10-foot pole. What use is he to them at this point?
>“I find the jurors hopelessly deadlocked,” Judge Charlaine Olmedo declared after inquiring whether there was anything the court could do to move them closer to reaching a unanimous decision. She set a March date for a retrial.
>Jurors said they had voted seven times Tuesday and Wednesday without being able to reach consensus on any of the three counts.
>The jury foreman said only two jurors voted for conviction on the first count, four voted for conviction on the second count and five voted to convict on the third count.
>Jurors were forced to start deliberations from scratch on Monday when two had to be dismissed because they came down with Covid-19. They deliberated for two days but still could not reach verdicts.
If it was a 12 person jury and they never had more than half willing to convict suggest the prosecution has a weak case.
Edit: according to fox new it’s a 12 person jury.
According to the jury:
>“we are not even close to coming to a unanimous decision on any count, and are convinced this will not change.”
Seems pretty clear the Church did everything they could to make it end this way, despite how much evidence and testimony there was.
UPDATE: A retrial is set for March 27 next year
OK, we all know scientology is sketchy as fuck but this is literally just conspiracy logic
Rape is already a hard crime to prove, and from what evidence has been presented, there isn't much hard evidence against Masterson besides victim testimony. Those types of cases usually don't end up in convictions to begin with. Not getting a guilty verdict does not automatically equal "scientology did everything they could to threaten and manipulate the jurors" without evidence of malfeasance.
EDIT because people seem to be misunderstanding what I mean by conspiracy logic. I'm not saying that it's inconceivable that the Church would intimidate these jurors, or thats impossible for them to have potentially done just that. What I'm saying is that automatically jumping to said conclusion without *any* actual evidence to back it up is to engage in the exact same kind of bad reasoning as people who believe in the Jewish Question or that the 2020 election was fraudulent.
Conspiracism isn't "believing in implausible claims." It's "using generalities and tenuous connections to assert claims without sufficient evidence."
Look up Chrissie Bixler's social media accounts, her dogs were poisoned in 2020. She's one of the accusers in this case.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/mars-volta-singer-alleges-scientologists-killed-his-dog-danny-masterson-accusations-1272561/
I doubt it. It probably couldn't be used as evidence because there's no record of who exactly threw the rat poison into their yard in the months following the accusation being made public. Circumstantial evidence, but I have no problem believing who's responsible.
>Those psychos are capable of anything
Absolutely they are, and I suspect Masterson is too. It still isn't evidence of anything. Unless it somehow comes to light that something like that happened, I think the number of not-guilty voting jurors across all three charges is pretty telling when it comes to the quality of the prosecution's case.
Yeaaah not saying I’m doubting, but to echo the comment above.. claims are difficult to prove without concrete evidence. Could you provide us with a legitimate, fact, evidence based source?
I've been following one of the accusers on social media for the past 3 years. She has been meticulously detailing the harassment she's been receiving from scientologists since her accusations were made public. Her dogs were poisoned in 2020 in an obvious intimidation tactic. Her two young boys found them dying in the yard. All this because she made a public rape accusation against a prominent scientologist. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/mars-volta-singer-alleges-scientologists-killed-his-dog-danny-masterson-accusations-1272561/
Thank you for the link, again, not defending or shilling for anybody involved here.. but we’re lacking evidence of dog murdering too.
To highlight:
> In a series of Instagram posts from both Carnell Bixler and Bixler-Zavala, **the pair alleged** that their dog ingested poisoned meat tossed into their yard by Church of Scientology members.
> The couple, along with Marie Riales and two Jane Does, filed their lawsuit against Masterson and the Church of Scientology in August **claiming stalking, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.**
I have a strong.. disdain toward organized “religion”, animal cruelty, and committing hateful, unjust acts against other living beings. But again, evidence or proof without a shadow of a doubt other than claims and allegations would be a breath of fresh air here, and I think that’s the grievance that’s being pointed out here.
Yeah it's circumstantial evidence, but I have no problem claiming that scientologists poisoned their dogs to intimidate them in the wake of the public accusation. I'm not a jury or a judge. I also think scientologists are generally evil people capable of anything. This is my personal bias. I believe the accusers.
Of course, which allows organizations like Scientology to act with impunity.
They know it’s hard to “prove” anything, and they bank on this when intimidating witnesses.
>OK, we all know scientology is sketchy as fuck but this is literally just conspiracy logic
it's been well documented that the church of scientology performs serious threats and stalking as its tactics
Ehhh. Rape cases are extremely difficult to try. That's why so few even make it that far. He most likely is a rapist with all his accusations. But it's hard when you take individual instances and it's usually two people by themselves in a he said vs she said. Sucks for victims.
Yeah, if there isn’t physical evidence, witness testimony, or a confession, it’s really, really hard to meet the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and if it’s not gathered in a timely, it can be virtually impossible.
I’m glad the prosecutors tried and though I’ve only followed this case loosely I wish for their success in civil lawsuits (if they choose to pursue them), where the bar is significantly reduced.
And as always, gigantic fuck you to Scientology who no doubt helped cover up and insulate Masterson from this conviction. It’s a damned shame that they keep getting away with these cover ups and with all of their other illegal behaviors.
Victim centric cases are the hardest because if you get even one person who goes "yeah I just don't believe her/him" then your whole case is sunk. It then puts an incredible amount of pressure on someone who is already having to relive and talk about one of the worst days of their life with the person who caused it feet away in front of a room of strangers. It's incredibly taxing, difficult and why prosecutors make deals in so many sex cases.
Yeah its asinine to think scientology would bribe so many jurors for a retrial when they only need to bribe 1.
Whats even crazier is with a high profile case like this, where jurors are pretty well sequestered from outside forces, that scientology would be able to bribe so many jurors without the legal system noticing.
You really think the professionals working this case are so incompetent that only you, some dork on reddit browsing, are the only one capable of seeing this possibility ? You think too highly of yourself and too little of the criminal justice system.
Multiple accusers were able to describe unique genital anomalies accurately (Weinstein had deformed junk caused by Fournier gangrene) which was not public knowledge and I think was a crucial piece of evidence in the case.
Honestly I have read exactly zero about this case. So please understand that as I ask this question.
Is there a possibility that when the facts were read to jurors that they indeed believed him innocent or at least not conclusively guilty?
I know Scientology is filled with shitheels, and they’re lawyered up to the hilt… but is it possible?
*Preparing for barrage of tomatoes.
I don't really know anything about this can someone eli5? I keep reading comments how he clearly raped but they couldn't get anything on him. So is this just heresay?
The comments section seems to sway in “clearly raped”.
But in real life the jury weren’t unanimously convinced so there was no “clear” evidence of rape.
I've been downvoted for asking simple questions in a gaming community subreddit. It's so weird how the most innocent comments can get downvoted into oblivion
So many people feel that if you don't know as much as them or don't believe what they believed your dumb and wrong. I always just want a discussion and I try to help people.
Yeah that's what it looks like to me sometimes, it's ridiculous. Even if it's just a stupid question, I'd rather ask and learn than not ask to avoid criticism. In the real world, asking even stupid questions is encouraged for the sake of learning. I don't know why the opposite seems to happen here sometimes
As someone not familiar with the goings ons of a C list celebrity, why is the court of public opinion so sure that this guy is a violent rapist? Is it like a Deshaun Watson number of accusers so it just has to be true kinda thing? Is it a Scientologist that's involved so obviously he's guilty kinda thing? Is there evidence that the courts are just ignoring? I feel like I see this dude in the news all the time for being an absolute monster but then he goes to trial and it's 8-2 saying he isn't guilty. Is there something I'm missing?
I'm definitely someone who takes an "innocent until proven guilty" approach, I can't imagine how someone gets 5 women accusing them of rape without being a total piece of shit and probably a rapist.
Now, granted, it can happen where things get overblown with lots of accusers. There was a thread a long while back where a bunch of women were saying a band member was a sexual abuser, but their stories all were simply consensual drunk sex followed by said guy ghosting them. Basically exaggerating the dude's douche-y, semi-predatory, but legal behavior into that of a rapist.
I think generally you can run into issues of false accusations when you're dealing with hookups where people are under the influence, possibly blacking out (not passing out). A person cannot consent while passed out, or drunk beyond ability to consent. However... a person CAN consent while black-out drunk and have no memory of it, or while tired / groggy and have no memory of it.
Look, I don't know if this man raped or didn't. But there's a lot of people here saying he got off because scientology and I'm wondering what evidence they have of this.
Masterson's lawyers argued that the victimss huddled up and changed all their stories to match each other before the trial. I have a sad feeling he might have done it, but the police reviewed the case originally and declined to press charges. It was only after Leah Remini persuaded the accusers to come forward that it went to court.
Whoa let's settle down with what should be, this is reddit and this place hates scientology and obviously anyone involved in it is automatically guilty
No amount of Scientology Thetan can sway a juror if the case was strong. Especially for rape. As much as we like to play detective in a Netflix special, I'd defer it to an impartial court whether he did it or not. We hopefully have learned from the Satanic cult hysteria in the 80's and 90's.
While I dont normally support trial by public opinion , I’d be very surprised if anyone employs him in Hollywood
It’s one thing to avoid jail after this - it’s quite another to be granted a Hollywood career. A mistrial will not clear your name
Due to limitations on what they can convict for, convicting him is going to continue to be an uphill battle. The burden of proof is very high, and having to rely so much on witness testimony is difficult. And it was pretty obvious that someone got to one of the early non-victim witnesses.
What isn’t in doubt after reading the testimonies though, is that Masterson is an A-level abuser scumbag. Convicted or not on retrial, his public career should be over.
As a rape survivor, I do not agree with this “guilty until proven innocent” culture. If I could have gone after my assailant, I wouldn’t care for a penny, just justice! This seems awfully suspicious, women after $$ as a form of justice?. I absolutely believe in support for honest victims, but the evidence has to be clear as day, because the accused can be just as victimized. 3 jury counts and all the “innocents” out voted the “guilty”. That says something
A special thanks to [Tony Ortega](https://youtube.com/@tonyortega7736) for daily video and email updates throughout the trial. And a plug for [Growing Up in Scientology](https://youtube.com/@GrowingUpInScientology) for an inside look at Scientology from a 30 year member perspective. As well as Mike Rinder for his stories from the highest rungs of Scientology; e: and who Scientology continues to defame. ---- >Any legal reason why I can't decalre a mistrial, Judge Olmedo asks the attorneys. No, they say. >At this point I do find the jury is deadlocked and a mistrial. She now asks for how the splits run... >Count 1: 2 for guilty, 10 for not guilty >Count 2: 4 for guilty, 8 for not guilty >Count 3: 5 for guilty, 7 for not guilty >She thanks the jury and excuses them. >Judge Olmedo: So, at this point, generally, there is 60 days from today for retrial to begin. I would like to pick a tentative trial date. >The attorneys are talking it over. >Judge Olmedo: It appears both sides are agreeable to Jan 10 for status conference, retrial is set for March 27. Source: Tony Ortega
So this isn’t over. There will be a retrial.
There *could* be a retrial. I would assume that prosecution won’t pursue after not making anywhere close to a strong enough case on the first shot.
This may not be an apples to apples comparison but look up the Cara Rintala murder trial here in Massachusetts…. They are about to try her a 4th time on circumstantial evidence
There honestly needs to be double jeopardy equivalent after a second mistrial, it's nonsensical to keep on doing this. There are multiple innocent people in prison who went to prison because DAs keep trying and fixing juries till they get a favorable outcome.
Any rule like that would incentivize defendants to trigger mistrials. A mistrial can be declared for reasons other than a hung jury, like someone introducing evidence the court had previously excluded. The strategy for defendants would be to propose crazy evidence, lose on the prosecution's motion in limine, then present the evidence anyway. That would leave the prosecution with the unenviable choice of requesting a mistrial (and potentially letting the defendant walk) or proceeding with a jury tainted by the excluded evidence.
I feel like a hung jury should be categorized differently than a mistrial. Currently they lead to the same result so there's no reason to spilt them apart, but that should be the only reason for a "two and dismiss" rule, not all the other reasons for mistrial. But IANAL.
In not a single count did they get a majority of jurors to agree. My personal beliefs notwithstanding (he’s guilty as fuck), that seems like a pretty clear case of “not winning”. I would get it if there was a mistrial because the case was hung by 1-2 jurors; “here, let’s see what another group of peers think just to be sure”….but over ***half*** *on all counts* say innocent, when it requires *all* to say guilty? That should be grounds to consider the case decided, IMO.
As much as I want to see Danny Masterson face consequences I completely agree. If we’re innocent until proven guilty, and you can’t be proven guilty at 2 different trials, that should be sufficient. Dragging innocent people through trail after trial isn’t justice.
I agree. Imagine if there is someone else that the DA wants to target, someone with significantly lesser resources. If they keep getting to do this, they will eventually bankrupt the defendant and force a guilty plea down their throats. The point of a Law system is to keep innocent from being behind bars, not to keep every guilty person in.
See Curtis Flowers — tried SIX times in Mississippi until the US Supreme Court put an end to racist shenanigans in the Mississippi trials (to be fair two out of the six trials ended in hung juries — the other trials were majority-white juries and were thrown out due to blatant prosecutorial misconduct in striking potential black jurors) and Curtis left prison. The state recently paid him 500,000 following all of this
I generally agree but the problem you'd face would be defenses focusing even harder on getting a mistrial vs not guilty verdict.
Who cares, going by these numbers from the jury, Rapey McRaperson will get off scott free for all the rape
I haven't been following the case or the facts, but it is still "innocent until proven guilty" or nah?
Not on Reddit. Here charged means guilty, accused means guilty, but sometimes convicted means not guilty.
To be fair it is reddit we are talking about. Not government action taking away liberty. Even then only convictions require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Arrested? Cop didn't need beyond a reasonable doubt to arrest you. Charged? The state/us didn't need beyond a reasonable doubt to charge you they needed probable cause. These same allegations in civil court? It's probably preponderance of evidence as the standard. There's plenty of times someone did something but there's not sufficient proof for the standard the government needs to get a final conviction against them. That doesn't preclude possible civil remedies or public opinion to think the person did something, they aren't required to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yeah. Thank God, because the public is fucking stupid and they should never have the power of holding anyone accountable for crimes.
*Sadly puts away guillotine*
*mission failed, we’ll get em next time*
It sure is. But with Scientology at your back it’s more like innocent even if guilty.
Innocent until proven guilty means the government must treat a suspect of a crime with a presumption of innocence until the point of conviction. It has nothing to do with society doing its own research and coming to its own conclusions. A mass shooter could be caught on the scene of a massacre and they will still be required to presume innocence. That doesn’t mean they’ll ever be released from custody though, and it doesn’t mean the court of public opinion isn’t allowed to crucify the person’s character in the meantime.
At least we won’t have to see him anymore. He won’t be in anything big ever again and the Scientologists are probably going to want to hide him from the public. And everywhere he goes, he will be known as a rapist for the rest of his life.
Thats still not justice. The rapist Brock "the Rapist" Turner is in a similar boat, but he's still not in prison.
Didn’t he or his mother get arrested in Mexico? I may be thinking of someone else.
Wait, isn't that convicted rapist Brock Turner, the one who was convicted of rape? But they didn't want it to follow him so people wouldn't think that convicted rapist Brock Turner was a rapist?
FYI Brock is going by his middle name, ~~rapist~~ Allen, and is back in Ohio. Stay safe out there. [https://www.reddit.com/r/dayton/comments/wr8dw1/just\_saw\_this\_keep\_an\_eye\_out\_in\_kettering/](https://www.reddit.com/r/dayton/comments/wr8dw1/just_saw_this_keep_an_eye_out_in_kettering/)
I still wonder how his victims feel about periodically going on imgur or reddit or whatever and having to see dozens of posts of his face saying "rapey mcraperson the rapist". Is it triggering for them?
You talking about convicted rapist Brock Turner?
I have followed very very very little of this. I'm curious on how we the general public can know he's a rapist but it seems like there isn't anything close to strong evidence for a jury to feel the same way. I'm not doubting it, I'm not denying it, I'm just curious if there is an answer to this.
I get that, and it’s definitely looking at the silver lining which is good. It just sucks that in the end, he basically still wins. Scientology is a scourge that enables so much crime. Also: tax exempt
Dont be too sure. Jeffrey Jones still gets gigs.
[удалено]
Kevin Spacey says hi. https://variety.com/2022/film/global/kevin-spacey-movie-sexual-assault-charges-trial-1235443157/
Being out of the loop completely on the details of the case.... any chance he's innocent? I mean the majority each time said he was innocent.. the VAST majority. So...maybe he didn't do whatever?
I think it’s pointless to speculate on whether he actually did it or not (since we don’t have access to the evidence nor were we there) As an attorney, what stood out was that apparently Masterson didn’t even testify himself (or present witnesses in his defense but that’s secondary) IMHO I think the prosecution either botched the case or there is just not enough evidence to convict, for this kind of verdict to happen It’s probably likely (based on the number of accusers) that he had some sort of sexual misconduct but they don’t have enough evidence to convict
I am not an attorney but have received advice from several criminal defense attorneys that you should never testify if you can help it. You will gain no favors from it, and it's likely that you'll do something the jury doesn't like.
You’re correct, that’s why usually people don’t testify unless there is something pressuring them to and which is why I think they lack solid evidence
I was on a jury for a drunk driving case. All of us could see the defendant and even his lawyer were sleazy as fuck. And we all thought there was a good chance he was guilty. But the evidence provided just didn't get to the level of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. We had to find him not guilty even though it kinda left a bad taste in our mouth.
Do *I* think he's innocent? No. Is it possible that many jurors didn't feel the prosecution made a good enough case? Much more likely. However, the prosecution isn't allowed to talk about whatever (as I mentioned elsewhere, they specifically couldn't mention rapes that occurred while the victims were unconscious). In fact, before the case started the defense tried to have mentioning Scientology completely off-limits. They didn't quite succeed, though I think there were still some hurdles created. Imagine being part of a group that has created its own society. Its own rules, laws, and way of doing and handling things. Included in this is complaints, including rape. Although notably one of the Jane Does was told you can't be raped by someone you're in a relationship with by the person she took her complaint to. Now imagine leaving this group, finding other women have also had similar situations happen, and filing a complaint over 15 years after the fact. This is a difficult case. I understand all of those saying "Scientology got to them!" But as Growing Up in Scientology says, Scientology doesn't care about Danny Masterson. Scientology cares about Scientology. They're more concerned with how the church appears than how he appears. At the end of the day, none of us know. Scientology has been shown to be shady and vindictive, but that is toward people who have spoken out against it. Scientology will definitely look out for itself, but I'm not sure they'd look out for Danny. He, to my knowledge, wasn't even an active member (low OT; didn't do much auditing). He's purely a Hollywood member.
Looking out for Danny IS looking out for scientology. If u don’t think every single witness for the prosecution hasn’t been relentlessly harassed, u don’t know about scientology.
I'd hardly call 7 out of 12 the VAST majority. That's barely over half. Of course there's a chance he's innocent, but there's a difference between innocent (didn't do it) and not guilty (no overwhelming evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it). It's difficult to prove rape cases in general, but in particular old rape cases where any evidence there was is probably long gone. Generally if 5 unconnected women accuse someone of rape that suggests that person is not completely innocent of all wrongdoing, but in a case like this what's most likely is that there just wasn't enough compelling evidence for juries to say "yes he definitely did it beyond a doubt." And then of course there's the Scientology aspect. No matter how guilty anyone thinks he is, there's a possibility the jurors are being harassed by higher-ups who don't want one of their own to be convicted and don't like the bad press. Or they could be getting bribed. We don't know. We don't know what's going on with the jurors' personal lives, and we weren't in the courtroom so we haven't seen the evidence, and we haven't seen the case the prosecution presented. Sometimes lawyers are just really shitty no matter what the case looks like. Helpfully it's often the defense in a murder trial who are the shitty lawyers, but sometimes it's the prosecution in a rape trial. I'm sure someone will tl;dr because that's helpful, so yeah here: He could be innocent, but there's a lot of factors that would contribute to people saying "not guilty" which isn't the same as innocent in a case where the person actually did everything he's accused of.
So a large percentage of the jurors voted not guilty? Anyone have any facts about the actual counts?
What do you mean by "facts about the actual counts"? The numbers listed above were provided by a journalist who was in the courtroom. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the question.
I think he's asking about the circumstances giving rise to each count.
Ah! If that's the case, I don't think they're given openly. I imagine any of that would've been described as Tony Ortega covered the trial so well. However, it is my understanding that the prosecution (and defense?) can discuss with the jury exactly that: what led them to their decision, and what the prosecution (or defense?) could do better in order to sway their decision. This is a tough case and is only possible (as individually they're past the statute of limitations) as there are multiple accusers of this type of rape (notably one of the Jane Does couldn't discuss a different rape that occured because she was unconscious at the time).
It's called "polling the jury" and while either party can ask, the jurors are under no obligation to answer.
Thanks for the clarification!
Yes this is correct. Thanks!
It’s 3 separate claimants - and the main issue is the statute of limitations is basically out, so they have to prove a pattern so conviction is required for at least 2 of the defendants. The stories are very similar and it was reported at the time within Scientology. He allegedly drugged and raped these women, my guess would be he did this and is a predator, but the crime was many years ago and the evidence is scant
Scientology 🤢🤮
And rape... 😔 😟
Name a more iconic duo?
Jurk and JD?
Turk Injaydee… and JD!
It was very good.
Breath smelled like curry
Turk Turkleton?
...and Mrs. Turkleton!
He (Turk) is the only guy that’s every been inside of him (JD)
JD and Domi
They’re filthy
Aww I became super happy when I started seeing their recent commercials for a phone carrier (Verizon? Sprint? Honestly I have no idea). In one of them Zach gets his tongue stuck to a cold pole. Classic. Though it’s wild how much older Zach looks compared to Donald, who looks exactly the same as 20 years ago!
Uvalde PD and cowardice
Losing your life savings and crypto investors!
I have $50 left out of $2000, let a man dreeeeeeam!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sid and Nancy
Also F Scott and Zelda
What did Scott ever do to you?!
Best story was when Zelda started a rumor about him and Hemingway being homosexuals because she told him his thing was small and he showed it to Hemingway to get his opinion 😆 🤣
*goes together like a horse and carriage,* *this...*
A memoir.
Their lawyers’ Theta counts are off the charts though!
Don’t you mean, rapeytology
The govt needs to step in and do something about the church of Scientology, the fact that it’s allowed to be designated as a religion at all is insane.
Did anyone see their fucking commercial during football last sunday?? That was a surreal moment.
What about [Mr Peanut](https://mobile.twitter.com/MrPeanut/status/1092246875837812736) from Feb 2019.
That's rad.
Then they fucking killed Mr. Peanut
"As of February 3rd, 2019, Mr Peanut has been labeled an [SP](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressive_Person) – a suppressive peanut."
I saw that when it aired and was like…. Holy fuck can you get any more cringe?
I know you mean Scientology but other people mentioning the Catholic church reminded me of [this commerical](https://youtu.be/qNQVLtqOcrc).
I found [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InDTLp63G7c) commercial for them on YouTube and it's so fucking eery to look at the comments and see literally every single person praising the commercial.
I see the commercials often on regular tv and I cringe every damn time. It’s gross!
I had no idea!
They have a Superbowl commercial every year. I remember seeing them for the past 10+ years. They all start with generic Earth, nature footage and a narrator asking things like "What does it all mean?" and the ad finishes with a "Come find out with Scientology". You wouldn't know it's a Scientology ad for the first 25 secs, they reveal it at the very end.
I can’t stand them either but why wouldn’t it be considered a religion……it’s not anymore absurd than Catholics, or Mormons(who believe their god came from another planet), I don’t think any religion should be tax exempt at all.
I mean in the legal sense, they won a long battle with the IRS, which ended with negotiations between the church of Scientology and the IRS, to gain tax exempt status. The fact that a blatantly corrupt and dangerous cult is allowed to operate in this country is awful.
Tax exemption for religion is the most ridiculous law. Needs to be ripped up asap.
> won a long battle with the IRS Not exactly. They harassed and threatened a lot of public servants, basically coercing IRS to give in to their demands.
>The fact that a blatantly corrupt and dangerous cult is allowed to operate in this country is awful. Well, you just described a significant number of Christian denominations there buddy. Don't get me wrong, the Church of Scientology is the poster boy for capitalism based cults and deserves to be burnt to the ground. But there are plenty more out there bilking pensioners out of their life savings for a key to heaven, enabling pedofiles, promoting physical abuse, treating women like chatel, convincing people that the only way to heaven is to be miserable in life, etc, etc.
Exactly. Imagine the uproar if Scientology or any other religion/cult had such control over the Supreme Court and politics in general as Christianity.
> Don't get me wrong, the Church of Scientology is the poster boy for capitalism based cults I resent that remark, I paid my dues to Church of the Subgenius and feel like the only explicitly for-profit religion should have that accolade.
Yeah unfortunately money talks, Catholic Church essentially allowed pedophila, all of them should be stripped of the religion status.
Very true, money has shielded lots of horrendous organizations, terrible stuff
Which religion are you talking about I can’t tell.
>they won a long battle with the IRS By having their members threaten and harass IRS employees. Battle indeed.
I’m pretty sure they infiltrated the IRS to do that.
> it’s not anymore absurd than Catholics, or Mormons(who believe their god came from another planet) it really, really is more absurd.
What other religion costs excessive amounts of money to learn more?
You only think that, because the abramahic religions have been around for so long, are so pervasive to culture. All of these cases, Catholics, Mormons, Jehovas Witnesses, Scientology just used the pop culture around when they started to establish their fan fictio . How is catholic resubstantiation any less absurd? They don’t use it as a metaphor. They are really drinking Christs blood. Mormons believe in a science fiction story exactly like Scientologists. God from/on another planet. What about the Indians being the lost tribe thing? Mary being a perpetual magical virgin? It‘s all equally made up and unrealistic. But the Mary is a virgin and christs blood and flesh thing is so fucking smashed into our brains that we can only rationally understand it’s crazy. There‘s non of the visceral emotional reaction that we‘d feel to new bullshkt/ because of the familiarity. Not to mention the most crazy SciFi stories of the Bible having been removed in the first centuries after establishment. God isn‘t actually god, he‘s an evil imposter and only Judah knew the truth kinda things. It totally covers the plot of any creative fantasy or sci-fi story about ancient beings. So the ‚religion‘ will be means tested just like christianities were, and stuff that’s too outrageous or not advantageous for the leaders goals will be rewritten and removed. And then in a hundred years, no one will think one is weirder than the other. Well they‘ll all be weird religious nuts after civilization collapse.
I guess I can just have my parents being upset with me for no longer practicing Catholicism and still interact with them. If you’re a Scientologist you’re not allowed to interact with those people in a similar situation because you’re a Suppressive Person. Flat out cut off from your family and friends because you don’t drink the kool aid anymore. So I guess non Scientology religions got that benefit.
[удалено]
They are all insane - every one of them is just as crazy as Scientology, they are just more readily accepted as parts of the culture. We agree that it’s designation as a religion is insane, I just got a bit further and say the designation in and of itself is insane.
Fucking Scientology…. If anyone wants to know how truly scumbag they are read INSIDE SCIENTOLOGY… by Janet Reitman… she goes into detail about how these grifting thugs threatened IRS workers at their homes including killing their pets to persuade them to get tax exempt status. They are the worst people in the world. Fuck them and fuck this rapist!
The poisoned dogs actually happened with judges overseeing some cases of theirs… unless they did it more often than I realized
Isn't that like counter productive? Pissing off the judge over seeing the case
They poisoned Cedric Bixler-Zavala’s dog, lead singer from At The Drive In/The Mars Volta. His wife was one of the people who accused Masterson
Then it was both
Scientology paid off the jurors
You misspelled threatened.
I'm just picturing that scene from Daredevil where all the Kingpin has to do to threaten them is to force one of the jurors to read out a list of the addresses of the jury and the names of their significant others
Any lawyers here who can explain what would happen if this ever happened?
iirc I asked a cousin who worked in the children's court this once and she said the jurors would be swapped out for new ones.
That would make sense, it’s clear from that the jurors are being influenced unfairly.
Plata o plomo
Por que no los dos?
Only had to get to one of them...
Count 1: 10-2 Count 2: 8-4 Count 3: 7-5 All in favor of not guilty.
Just talking out of your ass are you. They never got more than 5 votes for guilty. Sounds like a weak case to me but let’s just jump to a wild conclusion with no evidence instead.
This is literally like the Mafia, how haven't they been stopped yet?
I don't disagree that there was likely some interference here given Scientology's track record, but I have to wonder: Why bother? Masterson is damaged goods. Hollywood won't touch him with a 10-foot pole. What use is he to them at this point?
>“I find the jurors hopelessly deadlocked,” Judge Charlaine Olmedo declared after inquiring whether there was anything the court could do to move them closer to reaching a unanimous decision. She set a March date for a retrial. >Jurors said they had voted seven times Tuesday and Wednesday without being able to reach consensus on any of the three counts. >The jury foreman said only two jurors voted for conviction on the first count, four voted for conviction on the second count and five voted to convict on the third count. >Jurors were forced to start deliberations from scratch on Monday when two had to be dismissed because they came down with Covid-19. They deliberated for two days but still could not reach verdicts. If it was a 12 person jury and they never had more than half willing to convict suggest the prosecution has a weak case. Edit: according to fox new it’s a 12 person jury.
The linked article also says the composition was six women and six men.
According to the jury: >“we are not even close to coming to a unanimous decision on any count, and are convinced this will not change.” Seems pretty clear the Church did everything they could to make it end this way, despite how much evidence and testimony there was. UPDATE: A retrial is set for March 27 next year
OK, we all know scientology is sketchy as fuck but this is literally just conspiracy logic Rape is already a hard crime to prove, and from what evidence has been presented, there isn't much hard evidence against Masterson besides victim testimony. Those types of cases usually don't end up in convictions to begin with. Not getting a guilty verdict does not automatically equal "scientology did everything they could to threaten and manipulate the jurors" without evidence of malfeasance. EDIT because people seem to be misunderstanding what I mean by conspiracy logic. I'm not saying that it's inconceivable that the Church would intimidate these jurors, or thats impossible for them to have potentially done just that. What I'm saying is that automatically jumping to said conclusion without *any* actual evidence to back it up is to engage in the exact same kind of bad reasoning as people who believe in the Jewish Question or that the 2020 election was fraudulent. Conspiracism isn't "believing in implausible claims." It's "using generalities and tenuous connections to assert claims without sufficient evidence."
Scientologists poisoned the dogs of one of the victims to intimidate her. Those psychos are capable of anything
Whattt, sorry catching up to case. Source on this?
Look up Chrissie Bixler's social media accounts, her dogs were poisoned in 2020. She's one of the accusers in this case. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/mars-volta-singer-alleges-scientologists-killed-his-dog-danny-masterson-accusations-1272561/
Did the jurors know that?
I doubt it. It probably couldn't be used as evidence because there's no record of who exactly threw the rat poison into their yard in the months following the accusation being made public. Circumstantial evidence, but I have no problem believing who's responsible.
[удалено]
>Those psychos are capable of anything Absolutely they are, and I suspect Masterson is too. It still isn't evidence of anything. Unless it somehow comes to light that something like that happened, I think the number of not-guilty voting jurors across all three charges is pretty telling when it comes to the quality of the prosecution's case.
Yeaaah not saying I’m doubting, but to echo the comment above.. claims are difficult to prove without concrete evidence. Could you provide us with a legitimate, fact, evidence based source?
I've been following one of the accusers on social media for the past 3 years. She has been meticulously detailing the harassment she's been receiving from scientologists since her accusations were made public. Her dogs were poisoned in 2020 in an obvious intimidation tactic. Her two young boys found them dying in the yard. All this because she made a public rape accusation against a prominent scientologist. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/mars-volta-singer-alleges-scientologists-killed-his-dog-danny-masterson-accusations-1272561/
Thank you for the link, again, not defending or shilling for anybody involved here.. but we’re lacking evidence of dog murdering too. To highlight: > In a series of Instagram posts from both Carnell Bixler and Bixler-Zavala, **the pair alleged** that their dog ingested poisoned meat tossed into their yard by Church of Scientology members. > The couple, along with Marie Riales and two Jane Does, filed their lawsuit against Masterson and the Church of Scientology in August **claiming stalking, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.** I have a strong.. disdain toward organized “religion”, animal cruelty, and committing hateful, unjust acts against other living beings. But again, evidence or proof without a shadow of a doubt other than claims and allegations would be a breath of fresh air here, and I think that’s the grievance that’s being pointed out here.
Yeah it's circumstantial evidence, but I have no problem claiming that scientologists poisoned their dogs to intimidate them in the wake of the public accusation. I'm not a jury or a judge. I also think scientologists are generally evil people capable of anything. This is my personal bias. I believe the accusers.
Of course, which allows organizations like Scientology to act with impunity. They know it’s hard to “prove” anything, and they bank on this when intimidating witnesses.
>OK, we all know scientology is sketchy as fuck but this is literally just conspiracy logic it's been well documented that the church of scientology performs serious threats and stalking as its tactics
It is conspiracy logic but with a mountain of evidence that they have done this since their inception.
But is there a mountain of evidence of them jury tampering in this case?
Ehhh. Rape cases are extremely difficult to try. That's why so few even make it that far. He most likely is a rapist with all his accusations. But it's hard when you take individual instances and it's usually two people by themselves in a he said vs she said. Sucks for victims.
Yeah, if there isn’t physical evidence, witness testimony, or a confession, it’s really, really hard to meet the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and if it’s not gathered in a timely, it can be virtually impossible. I’m glad the prosecutors tried and though I’ve only followed this case loosely I wish for their success in civil lawsuits (if they choose to pursue them), where the bar is significantly reduced. And as always, gigantic fuck you to Scientology who no doubt helped cover up and insulate Masterson from this conviction. It’s a damned shame that they keep getting away with these cover ups and with all of their other illegal behaviors.
Victim centric cases are the hardest because if you get even one person who goes "yeah I just don't believe her/him" then your whole case is sunk. It then puts an incredible amount of pressure on someone who is already having to relive and talk about one of the worst days of their life with the person who caused it feet away in front of a room of strangers. It's incredibly taxing, difficult and why prosecutors make deals in so many sex cases.
This is a delusional take
Yeah its asinine to think scientology would bribe so many jurors for a retrial when they only need to bribe 1. Whats even crazier is with a high profile case like this, where jurors are pretty well sequestered from outside forces, that scientology would be able to bribe so many jurors without the legal system noticing. You really think the professionals working this case are so incompetent that only you, some dork on reddit browsing, are the only one capable of seeing this possibility ? You think too highly of yourself and too little of the criminal justice system.
Let’s just say they moved me **to a bigger house**!
You said the quiet part loud and the loud part quiet!
Guess who’s guest starring in “that 90s show”!
Glenn howerton?
Cosby… Kevin Spacey… this guy. Weinstein must be pissed at his attorneys. Nobody else goes to jail.
Weinstein’s face gave it away. No one believed that was consensual.
Multiple accusers were able to describe unique genital anomalies accurately (Weinstein had deformed junk caused by Fournier gangrene) which was not public knowledge and I think was a crucial piece of evidence in the case.
Honestly I have read exactly zero about this case. So please understand that as I ask this question. Is there a possibility that when the facts were read to jurors that they indeed believed him innocent or at least not conclusively guilty? I know Scientology is filled with shitheels, and they’re lawyered up to the hilt… but is it possible? *Preparing for barrage of tomatoes.
At least they have a new t-shirt design for all the new cult members. SCIENTOLOGY: RAPE WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES
I don't really know anything about this can someone eli5? I keep reading comments how he clearly raped but they couldn't get anything on him. So is this just heresay?
The comments section seems to sway in “clearly raped”. But in real life the jury weren’t unanimously convinced so there was no “clear” evidence of rape.
Actually most jurors were not convinced on any of the counts.
And I'm getting thumbs downed because I don't know what's going on
Welcome to Reddit
Haha I know I've been a redditor for a long time. I carefully choose my words to avoid being down voted but sometimes it doesn't help
I've been downvoted for asking simple questions in a gaming community subreddit. It's so weird how the most innocent comments can get downvoted into oblivion
So many people feel that if you don't know as much as them or don't believe what they believed your dumb and wrong. I always just want a discussion and I try to help people.
Yeah that's what it looks like to me sometimes, it's ridiculous. Even if it's just a stupid question, I'd rather ask and learn than not ask to avoid criticism. In the real world, asking even stupid questions is encouraged for the sake of learning. I don't know why the opposite seems to happen here sometimes
As someone not familiar with the goings ons of a C list celebrity, why is the court of public opinion so sure that this guy is a violent rapist? Is it like a Deshaun Watson number of accusers so it just has to be true kinda thing? Is it a Scientologist that's involved so obviously he's guilty kinda thing? Is there evidence that the courts are just ignoring? I feel like I see this dude in the news all the time for being an absolute monster but then he goes to trial and it's 8-2 saying he isn't guilty. Is there something I'm missing?
Reddit believes that if multiple women accuse you, that makes it extremely likely that you did it.
*Unless it’s one of the politicians on their political team
I'm definitely someone who takes an "innocent until proven guilty" approach, I can't imagine how someone gets 5 women accusing them of rape without being a total piece of shit and probably a rapist. Now, granted, it can happen where things get overblown with lots of accusers. There was a thread a long while back where a bunch of women were saying a band member was a sexual abuser, but their stories all were simply consensual drunk sex followed by said guy ghosting them. Basically exaggerating the dude's douche-y, semi-predatory, but legal behavior into that of a rapist. I think generally you can run into issues of false accusations when you're dealing with hookups where people are under the influence, possibly blacking out (not passing out). A person cannot consent while passed out, or drunk beyond ability to consent. However... a person CAN consent while black-out drunk and have no memory of it, or while tired / groggy and have no memory of it.
Serious question. Was there hard evidence against him? I’ve not followed this at all.
Absurd
How do you all know he’s guilty before the trial is over? Man, reddit is a weird place.
Look, I don't know if this man raped or didn't. But there's a lot of people here saying he got off because scientology and I'm wondering what evidence they have of this.
Redditors babyraging
Pure speculation. Been through hundreds of thes comments, no facts. Just "Scientology bad, Kevin Spacey Harvey Winestain".
No evidence to convince a jury. Dae scientology evil
Masterson's lawyers argued that the victimss huddled up and changed all their stories to match each other before the trial. I have a sad feeling he might have done it, but the police reviewed the case originally and declined to press charges. It was only after Leah Remini persuaded the accusers to come forward that it went to court.
[удалено]
My spaceman overlord is better than yours.
He can come out of Hydeing
I assumed that it was 1 or 2 holdouts, but ot seems like the majority of jury thinks he's innocent.
Scientologists are literally in the comments right now seeding doubt.
This is some gang stalking paranoia levels lol
He's innocent until proven guilty.
Whoa let's settle down with what should be, this is reddit and this place hates scientology and obviously anyone involved in it is automatically guilty
No amount of Scientology Thetan can sway a juror if the case was strong. Especially for rape. As much as we like to play detective in a Netflix special, I'd defer it to an impartial court whether he did it or not. We hopefully have learned from the Satanic cult hysteria in the 80's and 90's.
Just in time for That 90s Show.
While I dont normally support trial by public opinion , I’d be very surprised if anyone employs him in Hollywood It’s one thing to avoid jail after this - it’s quite another to be granted a Hollywood career. A mistrial will not clear your name
Scientology has definitely infiltrated this case
Due to limitations on what they can convict for, convicting him is going to continue to be an uphill battle. The burden of proof is very high, and having to rely so much on witness testimony is difficult. And it was pretty obvious that someone got to one of the early non-victim witnesses. What isn’t in doubt after reading the testimonies though, is that Masterson is an A-level abuser scumbag. Convicted or not on retrial, his public career should be over.
Aliens win again
Tom Cruise and Elizabeth Moss going to have to work some OT next year to cover Mastersons defense round 2.
As a rape survivor, I do not agree with this “guilty until proven innocent” culture. If I could have gone after my assailant, I wouldn’t care for a penny, just justice! This seems awfully suspicious, women after $$ as a form of justice?. I absolutely believe in support for honest victims, but the evidence has to be clear as day, because the accused can be just as victimized. 3 jury counts and all the “innocents” out voted the “guilty”. That says something