It is pretty amazing. Every time there is a high profile trial you post to the boards about lack of evidence without knowing anything about the case. Good thing the courts don’t just take a poll of random people with no information to come to a verdict.
-
111
-
The Gallant Pig Man wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
I have not seen one shred of evidence. You have she said / he said and NOTHING else - at least that is all I have seen so far. DNA - NO. Eyewitnesses - NO. Corroborative statements from others? NO. Nothing - Absolutely nothing. The guy is a scumbag and likely did it but we can't convict him and send him away for 30 years on this crap.
Nothing... except five different women accusing him of rape at different times over the last two decades. Again, you don't understand the difference between evidence and definitive proof.
No DNA, No witnesses, No corroborative statements, No rape kit was done, No nothing. 2 of the cases (women) were found to have no substance. Again, all we have is a couple of women accusing him of something that happened 20 years AGO. Again it is she said / he said. I think he probably raped them but I have not seen any evidence to support their accusations. He seems like a real scumbag, but we can't put someone away for 30 years on unsubstantiated accusations.
411 -
This again wrote:
It is pretty amazing. Every time there is a high profile trial you post to the boards about lack of evidence without knowing anything about the case. Good thing the courts don’t just take a poll of random people with no information to come to a verdict.
If there was any hard evidence some of the media would have reported it.
No reason, after a trial is over, for them not to report it.
Guilt without evidence is scary.
By the way, here is a bit from the trial:
Defense Atty to Jane Doe: So your recollection of Sept 2002 is very detailed. Correct?
Jane Doe: Correct.
Atty: And it is your contention today that Masterson raped you in 2002.
Doe: No, that's not the word I would use.
Atty: Is it your position he did not rape you?
Doe: No.
Atty: Is it your position there is some word between there?
Doe: Mine?
Atty: You're the only one I am talking to today. Do you remember the name Officer Schlegel? You talked to a male officer at Hollywood PD. Did you tell that officer that you had consensual sex with Masterson in 2002?
Doe: Yes.
Atty: You were truthful about that?
Doe: To my understanding?
Atty: Again, I am only interested in your point of view.
Doe: Then to my understanding, yes.
Atty: So in 2004 it was your opinion that the sex in 2002 was consensual, correct?
Objection -- asked and answered.
Atty: Has your opinion changed?
Doe: Yes.
Atty: When?
Doe: 2018.
Atty: So in 2018 you came to the opinion that in fact Masterson had raped you in 2002?
Doe: No.
59 -
Sally Vix wrote:
The Gallant Pig Man wrote:
Nothing... except five different women accusing him of rape at different times over the last two decades. Again, you don't understand the difference between evidence and definitive proof.
No DNA, No witnesses, No corroborative statements, No rape kit was done, No nothing. 2 of the cases (women) were found to have no substance. Again, all we have is a couple of women accusing him of something that happened 20 years AGO. Again it is she said / he said. I think he probably raped them but I have not seen any evidence to support their accusations. He seems like a real scumbag, but we can't put someone away for 30 years on unsubstantiated accusations.
The foreman of the jury in the first trial said for Jane Doe #1 who reported a consensual encounter and got $400K, the jurors voted *not guilty* by 10-2. The foreperson said the "victims" lacked credibility and the evidence "didn't pass the smell test.
Listen to the jury foreman from the first trial on Jane Doe #2. He says jurors concluded she was "manipulating that situation because she did not get the romance she wanted"
This is the same woman on the basis of whose credibility Masterson is now going to prison for 30 year.610 -
Newname wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
No DNA, No witnesses, No corroborative statements, No rape kit was done, No nothing. 2 of the cases (women) were found to have no substance. Again, all we have is a couple of women accusing him of something that happened 20 years AGO. Again it is she said / he said. I think he probably raped them but I have not seen any evidence to support their accusations. He seems like a real scumbag, but we can't put someone away for 30 years on unsubstantiated accusations.
The foreman of the jury in the first trial said for Jane Doe #1 who reported a consensual encounter and got $400K, the jurors voted *not guilty* by 10-2. The foreperson said the "victims" lacked credibility and the evidence "didn't pass the smell test.
Listen to the jury foreman from the first trial on Jane Doe #2. He says jurors concluded she was "manipulating that situation because she did not get the romance she wanted"
This is the same woman on the basis of whose credibility Masterson is now going to prison for 30 year.The more you find out about this trial, the more it stinks.
313 -
Newname wrote:
This again wrote:
It is pretty amazing. Every time there is a high profile trial you post to the boards about lack of evidence without knowing anything about the case. Good thing the courts don’t just take a poll of random people with no information to come to a verdict.
If there was any hard evidence some of the media would have reported it.
No reason, after a trial is over, for them not to report it.
Guilt without evidence is scary.
By the way, here is a bit from the trial:
Defense Atty to Jane Doe: So your recollection of Sept 2002 is very detailed. Correct?
Jane Doe: Correct.
Atty: And it is your contention today that Masterson raped you in 2002.
Doe: No, that's not the word I would use.
Atty: Is it your position he did not rape you?
Doe: No.
Atty: Is it your position there is some word between there?
Doe: Mine?
Atty: You're the only one I am talking to today. Do you remember the name Officer Schlegel? You talked to a male officer at Hollywood PD. Did you tell that officer that you had consensual sex with Masterson in 2002?
Doe: Yes.
Atty: You were truthful about that?
Doe: To my understanding?
Atty: Again, I am only interested in your point of view.
Doe: Then to my understanding, yes.
Atty: So in 2004 it was your opinion that the sex in 2002 was consensual, correct?
Objection -- asked and answered.
Atty: Has your opinion changed?
Doe: Yes.
Atty: When?
Doe: 2018.
Atty: So in 2018 you came to the opinion that in fact Masterson had raped you in 2002?
Doe: No.
Even with just this exchange between the woman and the defense attorney, the judge should have tossed out her case.
65 -
Sally Vix wrote:
Newname wrote:
If there was any hard evidence some of the media would have reported it.
No reason, after a trial is over, for them not to report it.
Guilt without evidence is scary.
By the way, here is a bit from the trial:
Defense Atty to Jane Doe: So your recollection of Sept 2002 is very detailed. Correct?
Jane Doe: Correct.
Atty: And it is your contention today that Masterson raped you in 2002.
Doe: No, that's not the word I would use.
Atty: Is it your position he did not rape you?
Doe: No.
Atty: Is it your position there is some word between there?
Doe: Mine?
Atty: You're the only one I am talking to today. Do you remember the name Officer Schlegel? You talked to a male officer at Hollywood PD. Did you tell that officer that you had consensual sex with Masterson in 2002?
Doe: Yes.
Atty: You were truthful about that?
Doe: To my understanding?
Atty: Again, I am only interested in your point of view.
Doe: Then to my understanding, yes.
Atty: So in 2004 it was your opinion that the sex in 2002 was consensual, correct?
Objection -- asked and answered.
Atty: Has your opinion changed?
Doe: Yes.
Atty: When?
Doe: 2018.
Atty: So in 2018 you came to the opinion that in fact Masterson had raped you in 2002?
Doe: No.
Even with just this exchange between the woman and the defense attorney, the judge should have tossed out her case.
Never should have come to trial as it violates the statue of limitations.
112 -
Newname wrote:
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.
That's every bit as strong as the evidence that got Alberta Salazar drummed out of the sport.
24 -
A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense and is not based purely on speculation. It may arise from a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or from lack of evidence.
06 -
He is a POS wrote:
Scumbag getting what he deserves. Not eligible for parole for 30 years.
That 70's Show' actor Masterson sentenced to 30 years to life in prison for raping two women.
Now he is just a D!<k in a Box
10 -
Here is the "evidence" that got Danny Masterson convicted of rape. Be forewarned ... there is no actual evidence besides the ladies' accusations. Danny was first charged with rape in 2017 which was the height of the MeToo movement.
19 -
TheRealTaro wrote:
Newname wrote:
That's every bit as strong as the evidence that got Alberta Salazar drummed out of the sport.
Precisely
15 -
Marion Motley wrote:
He is a POS wrote:
Knew this thread would bring out at least 1 incel.
I disagree with newname, but those of you that start using "incel" to describe everyone that disagrees with you, come across as stupid people who can't win an argument on the basis of facts, so attempt to shut down an argument by name calling.
What the heck is an "incel"???
30 -
Newname wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
No DNA, No witnesses, No corroborative statements, No rape kit was done, No nothing. 2 of the cases (women) were found to have no substance. Again, all we have is a couple of women accusing him of something that happened 20 years AGO. Again it is she said / he said. I think he probably raped them but I have not seen any evidence to support their accusations. He seems like a real scumbag, but we can't put someone away for 30 years on unsubstantiated accusations.
The foreman of the jury in the first trial said for Jane Doe #1 who reported a consensual encounter and got $400K, the jurors voted *not guilty* by 10-2. The foreperson said the "victims" lacked credibility and the evidence "didn't pass the smell test.
Listen to the jury foreman from the first trial on Jane Doe #2. He says jurors concluded she was "manipulating that situation because she did not get the romance she wanted"
This is the same woman on the basis of whose credibility Masterson is now going to prison for 30 year.This jury was also hung over the ex-girlfriend account. There were 3 accusations of rape in this trial and he was convicted for the other two. Not sure how much research you're doing.
Testimony counts as evidence, and there were witnesses in terms of verifying the victims' account. At a party of Scientologists, one victim came downstairs after going upstairs to take a nap and said he’d raped her. So people didn't see the rape but they saw the person right after. There is paperwork of one of the victims reporting it to the church and them advising her not to report it to the police. She did anyway. There are 5 women who have accused him of rape and he was convicted for 2 rapes, 15 years each. They're not just taking someone at their word—there's lots of other testimony and supporting evidence. You think in a jury that doesn't believe his ex-gf, there's not going to be one dude or woman who's like, WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE.80 -
Haha had to drug people for sex despite being rich and famous. What a f$cking loser.
91 -
TheRealTaro wrote:
Newname wrote:
That's every bit as strong as the evidence that got Alberta Salazar drummed out of the sport.
T&F uses Preponderance of the Evidence or 501.% threshold
U.S. criminal courts use Beyond Reasonable Doubt or 99% threshold.
23 -
Newname wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Even with just this exchange between the woman and the defense attorney, the judge should have tossed out her case.
Never should have come to trial as it violates the statue of limitations.
Apparently it doesn't violate the statute of limitations, or it wouldn't have gone to trial.....TWICE.
60 -
letitgo wrote:
Newname wrote:
The foreman of the jury in the first trial said for Jane Doe #1 who reported a consensual encounter and got $400K, the jurors voted *not guilty* by 10-2. The foreperson said the "victims" lacked credibility and the evidence "didn't pass the smell test.
Listen to the jury foreman from the first trial on Jane Doe #2. He says jurors concluded she was "manipulating that situation because she did not get the romance she wanted"
This is the same woman on the basis of whose credibility Masterson is now going to prison for 30 year.Testimony counts as evidence, and there were witnesses in terms of verifying the victims' account. At a party of Scientologists, one victim came downstairs after going upstairs to take a nap and said he’d raped her. So people didn't see the rape but they saw the person right after. There is paperwork of one of the victims reporting it to the church and them advising her not to report it to the police. She did anyway. There are 5 women who have accused him of rape and he was convicted for 2 rapes, 15 years each. They're not just taking someone at their word—there's lots of other testimony and supporting evidence. You think in a jury that doesn't believe his ex-gf, there's not going to be one dude or woman who's like, WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE.
Can you source these claims you make? I find none of this in the media.
Did you read Jane Doe's testimony from the trial pasted earlier?
02
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.