Danny Masterson Charged with Three Counts of Rape "By Force or Fear"

masterson.jpg



Danny Masterson Charged with Three Counts of Rape "By Force or Fear"
If convicted on all counts, the That '70s Show actor could face 45 years to life in prison.
By Anthony Breznican
June 17, 2020


Actor Danny Masterson has long been accused of acts of sexual violence, and on Wednesday the That ’70s Show actor was finally arrested after being charged with the rapes of three women in separate incidents dating back to 2001 and 2003.

Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey's office charged the 44-year-old with three counts of "rape by force or fear." "If convicted as charged, the defendant faces a possible maximum sentence of 45 years to life in state prison," the district attorney's office said in a statement.

The complaint accuses him of raping a 23-year-old woman in 2001. He is also charged with committing two other assaults in 2003, one against a 28-year-old woman in April, and another against a 23-year-old woman between October and December of that year.



The case will be prosecuted by Deputy District Attorney Reinhold Mueller of the Sex Crimes Division, who stated that all of the alleged rapes occurred at the actor's Hollywood Hills home.

Prosecutors noted that they declined to file sexual assault charges against Masterson in two other cases, "one for insufficient evidence and the other based upon the statute of limitations for the crime alleged."


Masterson has been held on $3.3 million bail. He is represented by defense attorney Thomas Mesereau, who previously represented Bill Cosby, Michael Jackson and Mike Tyson against sex crime charges. In a statement to the Associated Press, Mesereau insisted that Masterson is innocent.

“We’re confident that he will be exonerated when all the evidence finally comes to light and witnesses have the opportunity to testify," the attorney said. “Obviously, Mr. Masterson and his wife are in complete shock considering that these nearly 20-year old allegations are suddenly resulting in charges being filed, but they and their family are comforted knowing that ultimately the truth will come out,” Mesereau said. “The people who know Mr. Masterson know his character and know the allegations to be false.”

The criminal complaint doesn't name the victims, but the timeline of the accusations matches those of four women who accused Masterson of sexual assault in 2016 and 2017 as part of the #MeToo movement. Last year, they sued Masterson, along with the Church of Scientology, to which he belongs, alleging that the powerful and secretive organization stalked and intimidated them for coming forward with their police reports. Masterson and Scientology officials all denied wrongdoing.

Masterson responded to the suit with a statement: “This is beyond ridiculous. I’m not going to fight my ex-girlfriend in the media like she’s been baiting me to do for more than two years. I will beat her in court—and look forward to it because the public will finally be able [to] learn the truth and see how I’ve been railroaded by this woman. And once her lawsuit is thrown out, I intend to sue her and the others who jumped on the bandwagon for the damage they caused me and my family.”

In the lawsuit, the women each claim Masterson forced himself on them or took advantage of them when they were intoxicated and unable to consent.

Masterson is set to be arraigned on Sept. 18.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Howell

Active member
That is because you have blinders apparently and see it from one perspective and a very slanted one because almost all women can identify with this... I do not have proof it is true but I find it very easy to believe and not at all unusual unfortunately...
Well, I simply do not agree that most women can identify with such a scenario. I don't believe most women would be foolish enough to accompany a man they find creepy(boss or not) alone to a private area. I don't believe most women would not resist or at least object in some way if he started to pull their clothes off. If you think my perspective is biased and one-sided, you're welcome to explain it from another perspective, so long as you stick to the known facts.
 

GrandmaBear

‘We Have Nothing to Fear Except Fear Itself'
Yes, that is what I would teach my daughters. 'You are responsible for your own behavior. Do not drink to excess as that will lower your inhibitions and impair your judgment. Don't place yourself into situations where a man could take advantage of you. Do not go alone to a man's hotel room/bedroom, take off your clothes and get in bed with him if you do not intend to have sex. Do not rely on him to prevent you from getting pregnant; that's your responsibility.' These aren't profound nuggets of wisdom, they're just basic common sense ideas that all girls should be taught.
And what would you teach your sons about their responsibility, how to treat women and what is okay and not? Just curious. I am not talking about your one way type of talk like you would tell them to beware of bad women. I mean what would you teach them about their own responsibilities and treatment of others, not just women? I am not sure you can answer that because if you were never taught it nor learned it, how could you teach such a thing either right?
 

Howell

Active member
Try looking at things from the woman's perspective dude. The law is the law and morals are morals!
I prefer to look at things from an objective perspective. What you seem to want is to excuse the moral failings of women and hold men legally accountable for them! If a woman doesn't want to have sex with a man, then she shouldn't be in bed with him, period. Somehow you have found a way in your mind to twist the entire narrative around that makes him out to be a "rapist" and her a victim!
 

GrandmaBear

‘We Have Nothing to Fear Except Fear Itself'
Does our government work in the interest of men, tho? Do divorce laws, rape laws, employment laws, etc. favor men? How many laws have been created specifically to protect the interests of only men? Is there a "Violence Against Men Act"?
Are you serious?? The government and the interest of men through the years...? Hmm. Where to start... Well golly gee, only men had enough of a brain to vote for goodness sakes. Ya know us women all feeble minded... Let them vote? Oh the horror of it... Up until not too many years ago, it was well known far more funding went into men's diseases than ones affecting women... Hence the Susan G. Kommen Foundation... But a little blue pill? You betcha. Didn't there used to be something like only men could own property....?

I don't consider myself sexist and nor what one back in the day would be called a women's libber but if I meet a sexist or chauvinistic man, who has blinders on well then... ;)
 

GrandmaBear

‘We Have Nothing to Fear Except Fear Itself'
Well, I simply do not agree that most women can identify with such a scenario. I don't believe most women would be foolish enough to accompany a man they find creepy(boss or not) alone to a private area. I don't believe most women would not resist or at least object in some way if he started to pull their clothes off. If you think my perspective is biased and one-sided, you're welcome to explain it from another perspective, so long as you stick to the known facts.
I said I found the situation believable and not unusual. Back in the day you would call it flipping up the skirt, pushing 'em in a corner and probably having your hard weinie already out on the way into the room, corner, shadows, etc. with your KNOWN thoughts of what you planned... And in those instants she has to process what is going on, what to do and you are already going away into what you planned and fantasized, does she scream, will anyone believe even then she was not willing, who will it affect, etc. Before she even can process, I would not doubt he was done.

But then I would have to reread it.

It is well known and a fact that most women cannot overpower a man even the ones that think they can (prior to finding out) who are of larger size than the male. It is also known to most of us, not sure about you, women cannot go INSIDE you with one of their parts easily because, doll, the parts are different. To rape in the same way, they would need an object, the strength or a weapon to control you. To straddle you is not going to do them much good either if you wilt out of fear of the RAPE. In the same way though a woman can wilt in fear, but it does not stop her as a hole for the performance of the man... The man is not just horny or having an urge, he gets off on his POWER and the fear in many cases. Is that blunt enough and crude enough for you?

Sometimes you bring up some good points and it is a discussion but this childish pretense of oh, a "violence against men act", duh... If the same went on and in the same numbers and in the same way there would for sure be one long before now, in fact decades before women I am sure...

Talking about comparing apples and oranges, get real... By the way, I called you doll, as I doubt you ever have been called that or honey, etc. at work nor anywhere else... Depending on who does it and where, whether they are a superior, it is at a job or even online, it is a form of condescension... Unless of course from a trusted loved one, then it can be an endearment...
 

GrandmaBear

‘We Have Nothing to Fear Except Fear Itself'
Yes, that's exactly what it means. "Murder" is a legal determination. Legally, both Simpson and Anthony are innocent of murder.
Yah it is a crying shame no one could have did a civil suit of wrongful death against Casey in the death of that poor baby. Just hard to do when mom killed her own daughter, who is there to do it, mama ain't gonna sue herself... I guess the baby's dad would have a chance if he came forward to do so but sure the statute has run by now...

At least Nicole's family and Goldman's were able to do that against OJ.
 

kdg411

Administrator
Staff member
I prefer to look at things from an objective perspective. What you seem to want is to excuse the moral failings of women and hold men legally accountable for them! If a woman doesn't want to have sex with a man, then she shouldn't be in bed with him, period. Somehow you have found a way in your mind to twist the entire narrative around that makes him out to be a "rapist" and her a victim!
I prefer objective as well because that allows for unbiased facts to be discussed without insults to anyones gender.
 

kdg411

Administrator
Staff member
Also, this topic is one that needs to be talked about so if we can please leave the derogatory & inflammatory comments out of this discussion we just might be able to learn something from each other.

In this case, I have yet to understand how 2 of these women were in a relationship with Danny Masterson & yet continued to stay after these purported rapes occurred. Why? Then, to wait 15+ years to come forward is appalling. If this was so traumatic, then why now?

I'd like to continue our discussion focused on Danny Masterson, if possible.
 

Howell

Active member
So the LAW about rape doesn't matter because some people don't like it. But the LAW that says Casey Anthony and OJ are not murderers is perfectly fine.
Women should learn to control their own behaviors to prevent men from getting the wrong idea, but men are not responsible at all for their own behavior.
Got it.

View attachment 5276
No, you don't get it, and that isn't what I said. If you wish to have a discussion of the "legal" issues of rape, we can certainly do that. Whether we like it or not, Simpson and Anthony are legally innocent.
Men should certainly be held accountable for their behavior, but women should too. It was you who brought up the question of what can "legally" be considered rape. Conveniently, you've not responded to my post regarding the statutes that you offered.
 

SleutherLou

#LivelikeLizzy
Also, this topic is one that needs to be talked about so if we can please leave the derogatory & inflammatory comments out of this discussion we just might be able to learn something from each other.

In this case, I have yet to understand how 2 of these women were in a relationship with Danny Masterson & yet continued to stay after these purported rapes occurred. Why? Then, to wait 15+ years to come forward is appalling. If this was so traumatic, then why now?

I'd like to continue our discussion focused on Danny Masterson, if possible.

I would hazard a guess that this is to do with scientology conditioning,the same reason that people stay with the "church" and become more obedient, and give up more money to them, and recruit more victims for them like good little soldiers after they have been punished and made to clean every last inch of a building with a toothbrush for some imagined indiscretion against the organisation,or the same reason that they let their kids be taken into the sea corps or abandon entire families and cut ties with friends who are deemed "suppressive people", fear of punishment,fear of reprisals, fear of being labelled suppressive themselves and being "audited" up the wazoo,especially if they speak out or try to get away from anyone with celebrity status,no matter how tenuous, that the organisation consider to be a cash cow,but that's just my opinion.
 

Howell

Active member
Also, this topic is one that needs to be talked about so if we can please leave the derogatory & inflammatory comments out of this discussion we just might be able to learn something from each other.

In this case, I have yet to understand how 2 of these women were in a relationship with Danny Masterson & yet continued to stay after these purported rapes occurred. Why? Then, to wait 15+ years to come forward is appalling. If this was so traumatic, then why now?

I'd like to continue our discussion focused on Danny Masterson, if possible.
We've gotten well off-topic in this thread, and I'm as guilty as anyone for that. I'll do better.

Regarding Masterson, your questions are fair and legitimate ones. And like you, I'd love to have an honest and objective discussion, but you're likely to be met with accusations of "victim-blaming" or "supporting the patriarchy" or some other such nonsense if you dare question the motives of the "victims" in this case.
 

kdg411

Administrator
Staff member
We've gotten well off-topic in this thread, and I'm as guilty as anyone for that. I'll do better.

Regarding Masterson, your questions are fair and legitimate ones. And like you, I'd love to have an honest and objective discussion, but you're likely to be met with accusations of "victim-blaming" or "supporting the patriarchy" or some other such nonsense if you dare question the motives of the "victims" in this case.
As a matter of fact, I am questioning the "victims" as well as the DA because of the length of time that has transpired. Since there has not been a trial, Danny Masterson hasn't been convicted of any charges. While I would/will not blame any victim, who exactly is the victim in this case?

These women may have been assaulted however their motive for staying in the relationship afterwards is conflicting with the statements they have made. Two of these women have been able to lead productive financial & personal lives since so what if anything can be gained by these charges now?

There are 2 pending lawsuits. One civil case filed against Scientology & one criminal case filed by the LA DA againt Danny Masterson.

Danny Masterson doesn't appear to be extremely financially wealthy however is this a motive? Or is this case trying to expose cover-ups within Scientology. There are a lot more questions than answers at this point.
 

Cousin Dupree

I know nothing - Grandmabear about herself.
I prefer to look at things from an objective perspective. What you seem to want is to excuse the moral failings of women and hold men legally accountable for them! If a woman doesn't want to have sex with a man, then she shouldn't be in bed with him, period. Somehow you have found a way in your mind to twist the entire narrative around that makes him out to be a "rapist" and her a victim!

No, for some reason you seem to NEED to believe that women are asking for it, when every woman on here has told you they aren't. I agree with them too. You're "balanced" look is the view from your own eyes. That's not balanced, that's myopic.
 

GrandmaBear

‘We Have Nothing to Fear Except Fear Itself'
No, for some reason you seem to NEED to believe that women are asking for it, when every woman on here has told you they aren't. I agree with them too. You're "balanced" look is the view from your own eyes. That's not balanced, that's myopic.

Myopic and hardly objective. I guess Arbery asked to be chased, hunted and cornered like an animal, and women ask to be chased, cornered and raped like they are also second class (or less...) These are the views we have seen shown and I will be darned if we are expected to not give it back and just listen to it on this thread.

However, it is so bat blind and out of touch with reality that quite honestly it is hard not to just laugh at it sometimes.

As to Masterson, Cuz I think you began this thread didn't you? These allegations are hardly new nor unheard of nor is the scientology connection right? From what I know they aren't new. And while I am no legal expert, actual quite uninformed of such other than some generalities maybe, it seems to me there is something about if events continue, the statute does as well.... Meaning something is said, or a victim comes forward or threatens to, then the rapist or church or father or mother or whoever (depending on which case) tries to shut them up, isn't the statute then extended or shall I say started anew from that newest "abuse" whether threatened, stalked, violated again, etc.?

I honestly don't know and that is not the clearest example and of course as we know, all states differ in their laws...
 

SheWhoMustNotBeNamed

Administrator
Staff member
Alright. "Official" warning. Stop talking about each other. Discuss THIS case. KDG was 100% right that we've gotten WAY too far off topic.

If you have a problem with a particular post (because it breaks the rules, not because you don't like the content), then use the Report button so a moderator can take a look. If you can't discuss the case without discussing each other, then this thread will be closed and/or timeouts will be given.
 

Howell

Active member
As a matter of fact, I am questioning the "victims" as well as the DA because of the length of time that has transpired. Since there has not been a trial, Danny Masterson hasn't been convicted of any charges. While I would/will not blame any victim, who exactly is the victim in this case?

These women may have been assaulted however their motive for staying in the relationship afterwards is conflicting with the statements they have made. Two of these women have been able to lead productive financial & personal lives since so what if anything can be gained by these charges now?

There are 2 pending lawsuits. One civil case filed against Scientology & one criminal case filed by the LA DA againt Danny Masterson.

Danny Masterson doesn't appear to be extremely financially wealthy however is this a motive? Or is this case trying to expose cover-ups within Scientology. There are a lot more questions than answers at this point.
Yes, we should examine who exactly is the victim in the criminal case. Consider: no matter what happens henceforth, even if Masterson is cleared of all charges, his reputation has been irreparably harmed. He's already been terminated from his current project with Netflix. As a notable actor, how he is perceived among the public is crucial, so his ability to engage in his trade and make a living has been severely curtailed. Not a single piece of evidence has been presented in court against Masterson, yet he's already suffered these damages.

His accusers however are given the benefit of anonymity, so they risk very little. Regardless of the outcome of this case, they can just disappear and be forgotten. Or, they can choose to pursue paid interviews, TV appearances, book contracts, movie deals, etc.
 

GrandmaBear

‘We Have Nothing to Fear Except Fear Itself'
Yes, we should examine who exactly is the victim in the criminal case. Consider: no matter what happens henceforth, even if Masterson is cleared of all charges, his reputation has been irreparably harmed. He's already been terminated from his current project with Netflix. As a notable actor, how he is perceived among the public is crucial, so his ability to engage in his trade and make a living has been severely curtailed. Not a single piece of evidence has been presented in court against Masterson, yet he's already suffered these damages.

His accusers however are given the benefit of anonymity, so they risk very little. Regardless of the outcome of this case, they can just disappear and be forgotten. Or, they can choose to pursue paid interviews, TV appearances, book contracts, movie deals, etc.

I still think your argument is disagreement with the laws and the system. It is a sad fact that people can file cases and cause talk, bad talk, about an individual before the individual is found guilty or can clear him or herself. That works both ways... Inmates not too many years ago were known to file allegedly frivolous lawsuits all of the time... And take up the court's time... I don't mean with their attorney, I mean on their own from jail... It is a sad fact that you or I could go file a false claim tomorrow... I could claim you let my horse out, I saw your car, and I saw you break my window and sue for a new window etc. in small claims even. Could I make it all up? Of course... Or not. It has to be dismissed or get partway through the process to get dismissed... Or be HEARD...

You could have your car parked safely in your driveway. Some stranger pulls in and hits your car when he is using your driveway to turn around. The insurance companies of each of you might settle with 20 percent your fault and 80 percent his (meaning you pay part of your own damage in a way and you never went anywhere nor left your property with your car) because it is cheaper than battling it or paying an employee to handle it for the insurance company. Do you deserve 20 percent of fault in that case, I don't think so but it happens...

Insurance companies also will settle claims and throw $5,000 or $20,000 out there for a quick settlement and you are their insured saying FIGHT THIS, I DID NOTHING WRONG... In various kinds of suits. It is not up to you and it is cheaper for them to just settle and not pay for defense attorneys.

Different things, apples and oranges, and not saying I know, but to me, with all DUE respect, your beef seems to be with the law and the system... And I would agree it is far from perfect...

To stick to Masterson, it is the same... The court shall have to decide if the case has merit.

Jmvho.
 

Howell

Active member
I still think your argument is disagreement with the laws and the system. It is a sad fact that people can file cases and cause talk, bad talk, about an individual before the individual is found guilty or can clear him or herself. That works both ways... Inmates not too many years ago were known to file allegedly frivolous lawsuits all of the time... And take up the court's time... I don't mean with their attorney, I mean on their own from jail... It is a sad fact that you or I could go file a false claim tomorrow... I could claim you let my horse out, I saw your car, and I saw you break my window and sue for a new window etc. in small claims even. Could I make it all up? Of course... Or not. It has to be dismissed or get partway through the process to get dismissed... Or be HEARD...

You could have your car parked safely in your driveway. Some stranger pulls in and hits your car when he is using your driveway to turn around. The insurance companies of each of you might settle with 20 percent your fault and 80 percent his (meaning you pay part of your own damage in a way and you never went anywhere nor left your property with your car) because it is cheaper than battling it or paying an employee to handle it for the insurance company. Do you deserve 20 percent of fault in that case, I don't think so but it happens...

Insurance companies also will settle claims and throw $5,000 or $20,000 out there for a quick settlement and you are their insured saying FIGHT THIS, I DID NOTHING WRONG... In various kinds of suits. It is not up to you and it is cheaper for them to just settle and not pay for defense attorneys.

Different things, apples and oranges, and not saying I know, but to me, with all DUE respect, your beef seems to be with the law and the system... And I would agree it is far from perfect...

To stick to Masterson, it is the same... The court shall have to decide if the case has merit.

Jmvho.
It's certainly the system that I have a problem with. One which has totally redefined rape to include as "victims" those who have consensual sexual encounters they later regret. 'Well, she had a few drinks, so she couldn't really consent. He was her supervisor at work, so she didn't feel she could really say no. He was rich/influential/famous, so there was a power differential; that's not really consent, she was taken advantage of. And she was only 24 years old'...etc. 'She continued to have a sexual relationship with him and couldn't come forward for 15 YEARS because (insert excuse here)'...

Right, it's apples and oranges to the Masterson case. He's a public figure whose livelihood is dependent upon public perception, and I think that's a key point. And importantly, these are criminal charges. The court doesn't decide the merits of the case, the DA does that alone. Any notable person could fall prey to a couple of ex-lovers with an axe to grind or dollar signs dancing in their eyes.
 

Cousin Dupree

I know nothing - Grandmabear about herself.
It's certainly the system that I have a problem with. One which has totally redefined rape to include as "victims" those who have consensual sexual encounters they later regret. 'Well, she had a few drinks, so she couldn't really consent. He was her supervisor at work, so she didn't feel she could really say no. He was rich/influential/famous, so there was a power differential; that's not really consent, she was taken advantage of. And she was only 24 years old'...etc. 'She continued to have a sexual relationship with him and couldn't come forward for 15 YEARS because (insert excuse here)'...

Right, it's apples and oranges to the Masterson case. He's a public figure whose livelihood is dependent upon public perception, and I think that's a key point. And importantly, these are criminal charges. The court doesn't decide the merits of the case, the DA does that alone. Any notable person could fall prey to a couple of ex-lovers with an axe to grind or dollar signs dancing in their eyes.

Did you read any of the articles posted that explain why women will wait to report rapes?
 

Howell

Active member
Did you read any of the articles posted that explain why women will wait to report rapes?
No I didn't, because as I stated earlier, I already understand the reasons women don't come forward immediately. We're discussing a case where the allegations are 15+ years old. If you want to offer a reasonable explanation as to why a woman would wait more than 15 years to accuse her ex-boyfriend of rape, I'm willing to listen.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,528
Messages
51,137
Members
279
Latest member
Clarice
Top