Danny Masterson sentenced to 30 years to life

Mike Hawk wrote:

Not one post about Scientology in this whole thread? It played a pretty big part in this case.

pipppi p wrote:

Hani Saleem wrote:

Do you wake up every day and ask yourself - "Which loser am I going to defend today?"

btw - testimony is evidence.

He said he dot not rape the women. That is evidence as well.

pipppi p wrote:

Where the fuk is the evidence? You can't send a man for 30 years on accusations from 30 years ago.

The Gallant Pig Man wrote:

People seem to not understand the diffence between evidence and definitive proof. There are, in fact, FIVE different women who have accused Masterson of rape.

Link:www.vulture.com/2017/12/fifth-woman-ac...

That IS evidence. A lot of evidence. And a jury found their testimony compelling.

They didn't all just suddenly claim he raped them. One women filed a police report in 2004 and signed an NDA/settlement in exchange for $400,000. Another reported him in 2016. There was a witness from a party who saw Masterson make one woman a drink and then saw her incapacitated and escorted away by him shortly after. The "church" of scientology has a long, well-documented history of enabling/covering up abuse by powerful/famous people who are members of their cult, and the women say the church attempted to intimidate them into silence.

ridiculous sentence wrote:

seems crazy excessive to sentence him to 30+ years when it's based on flimsy testimony from 2 women, from 20 years ago.. neither of whom claimed they were raped until a decade+ after the alleged incident.

Throwthebook wrote:

Mike Hawk wrote:

Not one post about Scientology in this whole thread? It played a pretty big part in this case.

What part did it play? Are you saying this is actually motivated by some sort of revenge on Scientology

TMOX1968 wrote:

pipppi p wrote:

He said he dot not rape the women. That is evidence as well.

Oswald said he was just a patsy, too. Charles Manson said he didn't kill anybody. Pol Pot didn't actually kill anyone himself. Getaway car drivers were only transporting the bank robbers.

Masterson chose not to testify in his own defense. I wonder why. Sometimes that works out (O.J. Simpson) and sometimes it doesn't (as the star of 'That Prison Show' just found out).

samcallan wrote:

ridiculous sentence wrote:

seems crazy excessive to sentence him to 30+ years when it's based on flimsy testimony from 2 women, from 20 years ago.. neither of whom claimed they were raped until a decade+ after the alleged incident.

Did you hear the testimony? I doubt it. So saying it is flimsy seems...flimsy.

Also, I read one account that makes it sound like the women told others at the time which is something that is considered in sexual assault cases quite often.

samcallan wrote:

ridiculous sentence wrote:

seems crazy excessive to sentence him to 30+ years when it's based on flimsy testimony from 2 women, from 20 years ago.. neither of whom claimed they were raped until a decade+ after the alleged incident.

Did you hear the testimony? I doubt it. So saying it is flimsy seems...flimsy.

Also, I read one account that makes it sound like the women told others at the time which is something that is considered in sexual assault cases quite often.

Testimony enjoyer wrote:

samcallan wrote:

Did you hear the testimony? I doubt it. So saying it is flimsy seems...flimsy.

Also, I read one account that makes it sound like the women told others at the time which is something that is considered in sexual assault cases quite often.

So many people here acting like they would do a better job than an elite criminal defense law firm.
It’s a good thing when rapists are locked up.

bah. wrote:

He has a long predatory history wrote:

Do you feel as if Masterson was wronged?

I’m curious too if there was any incriminating evidence or just the victims’ accusations. I didn’t see anything in the media even confirming that Scientology even confirmed that the women reported the rape back then to them, in which case it would at least be a more compelling accusation, even if not evidence like a rape kit, eye witness, DNA evidence, circumstantial camera evidence showing collocation at the claimed times etc.

It is a potentially dangerous societal power structure in the making if both men and women “know” that accusations can do a man in for decades. It’s a legitimate concern and dismissing anyone voicing it as an incel doesn’t lessen the concern.

samcallan wrote:

TMOX1968 wrote:

Oswald said he was just a patsy, too. Charles Manson said he didn't kill anybody. Pol Pot didn't actually kill anyone himself. Getaway car drivers were only transporting the bank robbers.

Masterson chose not to testify in his own defense. I wonder why. Sometimes that works out (O.J. Simpson) and sometimes it doesn't (as the star of 'That Prison Show' just found out).

It is his constitutional right not to do so.

Badcompany wrote:

bah. wrote:

I’m curious too if there was any incriminating evidence or just the victims’ accusations. I didn’t see anything in the media even confirming that Scientology even confirmed that the women reported the rape back then to them, in which case it would at least be a more compelling accusation, even if not evidence like a rape kit, eye witness, DNA evidence, circumstantial camera evidence showing collocation at the claimed times etc.

It is a potentially dangerous societal power structure in the making if both men and women “know” that accusations can do a man in for decades. It’s a legitimate concern and dismissing anyone voicing it as an incel doesn’t lessen the concern.

From what I’ve read it’s a he said / she said case. What evidence could there be?

you don\'t know wrote:

Badcompany wrote:

From what I’ve read it’s a he said / she said case. What evidence could there be?

No one here was in the courtroom. Why do you keep asking us to clarify what evidence exists?

It doesn't matter what you've read. It matters what was presented in court. And you do not know what was presented in court.

He has a long predatory history wrote:

Newname wrote:

Don't see that in findlaw.

The statute of limitations exists for a reason.

These claims are 20 years old and I see no evidence that was presented at trial in the article. Seems the only evidence are the claims of the women.

So you do feel as if he was wronged?

That isn't hard to believe knowing your posting history.

you don\'t know wrote:

Badcompany wrote:

From what I’ve read it’s a he said / she said case. What evidence could there be?

No one here was in the courtroom. Why do you keep asking us to clarify what evidence exists?

It doesn't matter what you've read. It matters what was presented in court. And you do not know what was presented in court.