Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

That awkward moment at sentencing when you plead to the judge, 

"Your honor, can I at least be placed in a facility or wing where other famous actors serve their time so I'm not unfairly target for violence because of my fame?"

-Wait, you're an actor?  What the hell have you been in in the last 20 years?

 

Some dude on the inside for attempted murder gets to tell his sister on telephone call day, "You'll never guess whose ass I kicked this morning?  That guy from that show in the 70's we watched together before I left home.  What?  No, not the brown exchange guy.  Huh?  No, you would know if Ashton Kutcher was in lockup.  Say what?  I wouldn't beat up the skinny red-head dude, I have a sense of honor.  Yeah, that curly haired guy.  Fucked him up big time.  Okay cool, talk to you next week."  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Don Johnson said:

 

I just read this entire AP article. It says the rape happened in 2003 and was brought to persecution in 2016.

How do you prove or have evidence of something that happened 13 years prior, or am I missing how he was incriminated outside of word against word?

I mean, I’m sure he probably did it more than he didn’t, but still curious how someone can win a case 13 years after the fact without any hard evidence.

Im obviously not a lawyer.

Edited by animaltobacco11
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 12
Posted
6 hours ago, animaltobacco11 said:

I just read this entire AP article. It says the rape happened in 2003 and was brought to persecution in 2016.

How do you prove or have evidence of something that happened 13 years prior, or am I missing how he was incriminated outside of word against word?

I mean, I’m sure he probably did it more than he didn’t, but still curious how someone can win a case 13 years after the fact without any hard evidence.

Im obviously not a lawyer.

If you're interested in learning more, start by googling the term cold case. You'll be amazed what can be done these days. But kudos to you at the thinly veiled attempt to white knight a rapist.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
1 hour ago, Frank The Tank said:

I don’t think he’s asking an unreasonable question or “white knighting” a rapist. I’ve been a criminal lawyer for 18 years, as both a prosecutor in the child sex crimes division and a defense attorney. Likely, there was no hard evidence or corroborating proof. A jury can convict someone based on the testimony of one witness with no other evidence required. The jury simply has to believe that witness is credible and believe their testimony proves the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. I’ve seen it happen many times.  It can feel powerfully redemptive for a victim/witness and equally frustrating and disheartening for a defendant (and his lawyers) who adamantly maintains his innocence. 

Thanks for the serious response. I imagine a lot of people who aren’t lawyers don’t understand half the legal going-ons that go on.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

I don't think it was a lack of evidence but the COS stymied the investigation and shut down the witnesses for years. 

And this is a great point. I’m sure there was evidence of this intimidation and harassment of the victims that was introduced which you could tie a more direct line to guilt.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 3
Posted
1 hour ago, Frank The Tank said:

I don’t think he’s asking an unreasonable question or “white knighting” a rapist. I’ve been a criminal lawyer for 18 years, as both a prosecutor in the child sex crimes division and a defense attorney. Likely, there was no hard evidence or corroborating proof. A jury can convict someone based on the testimony of one witness with no other evidence required. The jury simply has to believe that witness is credible and believe their testimony proves the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. I’ve seen it happen many times.  It can feel powerfully redemptive for a victim/witness and equally frustrating and disheartening for a defendant (and his lawyers) who adamantly maintains his innocence. 

Perhaps "white knighting" was a bit of a stretch. But questioning the viability of charges 3 months after conviction by a jury does not lend itself to view the questioner as one engaging in good faith. Particularly when they admit they know no facts of the matter.  Or Occam, I suspect the likely underlying motivation for the post based upon the multibannedhandle poster's history of spewing fetid discharge under the disingenuous guise of just asking questions. The "word against word" phrase is the tell.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted

I can see where the questions might come into play. Word against word is always a slippery slope - but more often than not that is the case with rape cases. Had it been just one accuser, he might have gotten off. The COS shit didn't help him in any way either (well almost helped, since they are mostly intentionally responsible for the delay in everything) since everyone hates the COS. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, Herpa Derpa said:

Perhaps "white knighting" was a bit of a stretch. But questioning the viability of charges 3 months after conviction by a jury does not lend itself to view the questioner as one engaging in good faith. Particularly when they admit they know no facts of the matter.  Or Occam, I suspect the likely underlying motivation for the post based upon the multibannedhandle poster's history of spewing fetid discharge under the disingenuous guise of just asking questions. The "word against word" phrase is the tell.

Ignore this weirdo. Thanks for the legal/real responses.

  • Fuck You 11
Posted

It's crazy how these people can hide in plain site.  

I was peripherally friends with him around the time of the rapes (friend of a friend), and he never struck me as the type person who could do something like that.  He always seemed like such a nice guy.  Turns out he had a darkness to him that I never saw.  

Watching all this play out has been really surreal.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)

i served on a jury where we convicted a guy for super aggravated sexual assault on a child on a decade old accusation based pretty much on the testimony of the victim

i also watched a lot of that 70s show and I'm still amazed at how mila kunis is hotter today than then 

ask me anything

Edited by hayden_horn
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
2 hours ago, DixonHur said:

It's crazy how these people can hide in plain site.  

I was peripherally friends with him around the time of the rapes (friend of a friend), and he never struck me as the type person who could do something like that.  He always seemed like such a nice guy.  Turns out he had a darkness to him that I never saw.  

Watching all this play out has been really surreal.

Obviously you missed the most obvious clues of all.  The Masterson Drag Show & Super Fantastic Grooming Happy Hour should have been your first giveaway as to underage sexual assault.  

Posted

Maybe he'll get lucky and be shifted over to another series by the showrunning cardinals, like "That 1870's show" or "Look what she was Wearing" or "That 20's Show, Fuck Temperance."  There's a number of producers that can make this work and nobody has to be the wiser.  Shit, we'll get the parents to pay for the transfer because there's no central leadership organization, remember?  

Posted
1 hour ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

I Was eleven.
check.

But what is your age now, creeper?

11 minutes ago, animaltobacco11 said:

I forget we aren’t all in our 50’s here

You're only as old as the woman you feel. 

Posted
15 hours ago, Frank The Tank said:

I don’t think he’s asking an unreasonable question or “white knighting” a rapist. I’ve been a criminal lawyer for 18 years, as both a prosecutor in the child sex crimes division and a defense attorney. Likely, there was no hard evidence or corroborating proof. A jury can convict someone based on the testimony of one witness with no other evidence required. The jury simply has to believe that witness is credible and believe their testimony proves the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. I’ve seen it happen many times.  It can feel powerfully redemptive for a victim/witness and equally frustrating and disheartening for a defendant (and his lawyers) who adamantly maintains his innocence. 

Agree it wasn’t white knighting IMO. I’m a non-lawyer with similar questions. I always thought one person’s word against another with no additional evidence was difficult to meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold for a criminal case, but in a situation like this would likely lead to civil suit victory (or more likely a settlement). His first criminal trial resulted in a hung jury, with 10/12 jurors saying not guilty. The case got a lot of publicity, it doesn’t sound like there was much if any new evidence, but this time it flips 12/12 say guilty. Makes you scared in case it was ever you that got falsely accused of something how fast your life and liberty could be over with the wrong lawyer or jury. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted

The history of the case is very interesting as the three victims were CoS who were as much victimized by the cult as by Masterson. The Church really terrorized these women thru their Fair Play hit squads, and defense attorneys were censored for sliding the church info against judges orders for their use in the civil trials.

I hope the CoS gets eviscerated in the civil trials.

Guess Ol’ Xenu didn’t come thru for Danny.

Posted

Actually reading about these cases and holy shit it’s kind of wild he got convicted. No physical or corroborating evidence whatsoever and all 3 witnesses changed their story at least at some point, some multiple times. Damn.

Posted

Plus, nobody's even asking what he was wearing the night of the "supposed" rapes.  And I swear to god, if you say bell bottom corduroys and a jean jacket, I'm gonna smack a bitch! 

Posted
On 9/8/2023 at 7:17 AM, Frank The Tank said:

I don’t think he’s asking an unreasonable question or “white knighting” a rapist. I’ve been a criminal lawyer for 18 years, as both a prosecutor in the child sex crimes division and a defense attorney. Likely, there was no hard evidence or corroborating proof. A jury can convict someone based on the testimony of one witness with no other evidence required. The jury simply has to believe that witness is credible and believe their testimony proves the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. I’ve seen it happen many times.  It can feel powerfully redemptive for a victim/witness and equally frustrating and disheartening for a defendant (and his lawyers) who adamantly maintains his innocence. 

Yeah I was on a jury in a case where a step dad abused his 13-year old step-daughter back in 1987 (!) and then literally just left town. Long story short, the girl's younger brother (now a full grown man obviously) just happened to run across this guy in Wichita, KS and called back here to see if there was still an arrest warrant out for him... there was! 

They had collected a rape kit and everything back in '87 but through some kind of accident or something all of the physical evidence was lost.

I remember the D.A. or judge or both (don't recall) at the trial basically explaining that real life isn't like CSI or whatever and that we should consider witness testimony "evidence" just the same as physical evidence.

The wild thing was watching the video taped interview with the girl from back in '87 when she was 13 and then seeing her on the stand right in front of us when she was in her mid-30s. (This was several years ago)

Oh and yeah the guy was guilty AF. IIRC he got like 25 years or something. And I think he was like in his 60s at the time so my man is spending the rest of his life in jail.

Posted

If it's physical evidence and multi-disciplinary corroboration to get a jury to convict someone of a violent crime...many of you are going to be sorely disappointed when you look into the criminal justice system in the American South from about 1821 to 2021.  It uh....it gets weird.

Posted
On 9/9/2023 at 10:30 AM, Helobious said:

Actually reading about these cases and holy shit it’s kind of wild he got convicted. No physical or corroborating evidence whatsoever and all 3 witnesses changed their story at least at some point, some multiple times. Damn.

Now I'm 100% certain the dude is guilty.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Posted
On 9/8/2023 at 8:31 PM, Murfdogg21 said:

Makes you scared in case it was ever you that got falsely accused of something how fast your life and liberty could be over with the wrong lawyer or jury. 

I have shared this here before. I know two separate guys who were falsely accused of rape by jilted ex-lovers. Both were charged and being counseled to take plea deals that included jail time rather than risk longer sentences

Both the woman recanted their stories.  Utterly terrifying shit.

 

 

And to be completely clear fuck rapists.  Horrible stuff happens to women that should result in serious jail time.

Posted
20 hours ago, Incredulity said:

I have shared this here before. I know two separate guys who were falsely accused of rape by jilted ex-lovers. Both were charged and being counseled to take plea deals that included jail time rather than risk longer sentences

Both the woman recanted their stories.  Utterly terrifying shit.

 

 

And to be completely clear fuck rapists.  Horrible stuff happens to women that should result in serious jail time.

You didn't state otherwise, but I'm confident the number of people sexually assaulted without the perpetrator being punished is 10,000x the number of those falsely accused.  Like Mike Gundy, I'm a man, and I've never met a single person in my life that has shared with me they were falsely accused. Sadly, I know a lot of people that were sexually abused though.   

  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted
14 hours ago, Bodhi said:

You didn't state otherwise, but I'm confident the number of people sexually assaulted without the perpetrator being punished is 10,000x the number of those falsely accused.  Like Mike Gundy, I'm a man, and I've never met a single person in my life that has shared with me they were falsely accused. Sadly, I know a lot of people that were sexually abused though.   


condescension noted.

Two things can be true.  

I am also at Mike Gundy stage of life.  Father of a son and daughter.  I have absolutely stressed to my son the right way to treat people, and of course specifically women.  Point being you have to take serious the risk you’re in when you have sex.  
 

Posted
On 9/9/2023 at 10:30 AM, Helobious said:

Actually reading about these cases and holy shit it’s kind of wild he got convicted. No physical or corroborating evidence whatsoever and all 3 witnesses changed their story at least at some point, some multiple times. Damn.

The rapes were reported 20 years ago and the victims told multiple people at the time. Masterson even paid one of them off to the tune of 400k soon after the rape occurred. Perhaps he did that just to stop a false accusation but it doesn’t look good.

I assume some innocent people face a vindictive person that will lie and get others to lie. Is it more likely that someone did that for 20 years or maybe he’s just guilty?

and being a nice guy 99% of the time doesn’t always make up for the 1%.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 9/8/2023 at 10:31 PM, Murfdogg21 said:

Agree it wasn’t white knighting IMO. I’m a non-lawyer with similar questions. I always thought one person’s word against another with no additional evidence was difficult to meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold for a criminal case, but in a situation like this would likely lead to civil suit victory (or more likely a settlement). His first criminal trial resulted in a hung jury, with 10/12 jurors saying not guilty. The case got a lot of publicity, it doesn’t sound like there was much if any new evidence, but this time it flips 12/12 say guilty. Makes you scared in case it was ever you that got falsely accused of something how fast your life and liberty could be over with the wrong lawyer or jury. 

That particular poster was definitely white knighting. It was three convictions and two additional accusers that were only barred by limitations. So not one word against another’s. Also saw that these women mentioned it at the time and were silenced (there are multiple ways that happens). I don’t understand where the knights are getting that it was solely “he said she said “ and ignoring entirely the volumes of studies about why women often don’t report or wait years to do so, not to mention as said above that these women mentioned it at the time. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

These women were born into the Church and subjected to the severe indoctrination of it growing up, and then the terrifying tactics of the Fair Play hit squads the Xenuists deploy against any threat. I hope the civil suits are able to better expose these bastards for the shit they throw against anyone that chafes the church leadership.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 9/7/2023 at 6:09 PM, Herpa Derpa said:

So where does Scientology rank in the prison gang hierarchy? He'll probably need to get one of them dianetic face tats.

Somewhere between MS-13 and the Crips. 

  • Haha 1
Posted
On 9/11/2023 at 6:41 PM, Bodhi said:

You didn't state otherwise, but I'm confident the number of people sexually assaulted without the perpetrator being punished is 10,000x the number of those falsely accused.  Like Mike Gundy, I'm a man, and I've never met a single person in my life that has shared with me they were falsely accused. Sadly, I know a lot of people that were sexually abused though.   

That doesn't mean that you don't know any. No good reason for anyone to admit that they've been falsely accused to their peers - because they know that all it will do is plant that seed of doubt in that person's mind. 

I'm not disagreeing with you btw - I think the number of false accusations is a miniscule fraction of the amount of unreported or unpunished sexual assaults. Just saying don't think it doesn't happen just because you've never heard someone talk about it. 

  • Hook 'Em 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...