Danny Masterson Charged with Three Counts of Rape "By Force or Fear" *GUILTY 2 of 3*

Danny Masterson Charged with Raping Three Women "By Force or Fear"

If convicted on all counts, the That '70s Show actor could get 45 years to life in prison.

www.vanityfair.com

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.

 

[Guess Who]

I can't think of a single good reason he'd do that, why? He'd just be asking for trouble if registered to him but found to be used in a crime. Or if even a felon was found in possession of one registered to him. They should check to see if he reported them stolen though and tried to collect insurance. That I could believe but probably unlikely too with how well known his name is...Maybe he pawned them to get himself some hookers with $$ the wife didn't know about. I mean his rapes became a bit harder to pull off and count on no one talking so he'd need some new outlet. I am being half facetious of course.

More likely they are hidden. Who would be dumb enough to do that for him?

I don't now. How does the Court know they are gone, did the Court have them or cops? Maybe I am going to have to read the article but I thought I did read one and none of that was said but not sure if I did or not. Tired brain.

The insurance would have requested registration info and reported it as such, so they wouldn't be on the list of what he has registered to him.

Pawning them wouldn't be any better than giving them to somebody that couldn't buy one because the only way that would work would be an illicit pawn shop. Pawn shops are supposed to go by registration laws. Above board ones do so they don't get shut down.

No matter how you want to slice it, he's given them to somebody that shouldn't have them.

 

[Mel70]

I can't think of a single good reason he'd do that, why? He'd just be asking for trouble if registered to him but found to be used in a crime. Or if even a felon was found in possession of one registered to him. They should check to see if he reported them stolen though and tried to collect insurance. That I could believe but probably unlikely too with how well known his name is...Maybe he pawned them to get himself some hookers with $$ the wife didn't know about. I mean his rapes became a bit harder to pull off and count on no one talking so he'd need some new outlet. I am being half facetious of course.

More likely they are hidden. Who would be dumb enough to do that for him?

I don't now. How does the Court know they are gone, did the Court have them or cops? Maybe I am going to have to read the article but I thought I did read one and none of that was said but not sure if I did or not. Tired brain.

Think of 9 good reasons.

 

[Mel70]

The insurance would have requested registration info and reported it as such, so they wouldn't be on the list of what he has registered to him.

Pawning them wouldn't be any better than giving them to somebody that couldn't buy one because the only way that would work would be an illicit pawn shop. Pawn shops are supposed to go by registration laws. Above board ones do so they don't get shut down.

No matter how you want to slice it, he's given them to somebody that shouldn't have them.

Exactly. And there is a very good reason that person shouldn't. So get one for them. Or 9. GREAT IDEA!

 

[GrandmaBear]

The insurance would have requested registration info and reported it as such, so they wouldn't be on the list of what he has registered to him.

Pawning them wouldn't be any better than giving them to somebody that couldn't buy one because the only way that would work would be an illicit pawn shop. Pawn shops are supposed to go by registration laws. Above board ones do so they don't get shut down.

No matter how you want to slice it, he's given them to somebody that shouldn't have them.

I'm tired and you lost me with your first sentence. (I wrote this last night) as I was falling asleep.

It is now morning.

I can think of what I believe to be a false claim back when and it was someone I knew/knew of and he reported all his guns stolen and he got paid. I worked in an office re insurance claims for two decades. He got paid they were never found (my bet is he still had them somewhere/hidden). So yes they would be claimed to be gone and not on the list of things registered IF such happened in the right time frame. Anyone who figures one place knows about the other place and claim. Court versus ins. co. and also timing and when each thing occurred, court vs. ins. co. It depends and yes, he would be likely caught in a fraud IF they look into it and such happened. If people think LE or courts report or look into insurance records or theft reports anywhere or that all ins. companies report to LE and even in the right county, they are dreaming. LE can't even determine if there is life insurance in most cases and life insurance sure does not report to them when a policy is taken out, one collected on or attempted to be, etc.

Not putting it clearly and not even saying such happened but yeah it would depend on a lot of things but then I don't know if the court or LE ever had or saw the guns? if they did then how did they go missing? If they didn't then how did they know such still existed other than assuming from records and maybe anything Masterson "claimed"...

Never did get a chance to read the links and doubt they answered all this anyhow and won''t get a chance but again do they even know of guns by sight or just from records?

I'm just saying he does not dare produce them if he formerly reported them missing or stolen in any jurisdiction. I may be all wet on this from not knowing the finer details but I sure didn't see any in here as to even how the guns are a thing in this.

 

[Mel70]

Hi @GrandmaBear.
I have thought many times of how exhausted you must be. I love you my friend. If that helps. Probably not.

 

[Mel70]

I'm tired and you lost me with your first sentence. (I wrote this last night) as I was falling asleep.

It is now morning.

I can think of what I believe to be a false claim back when and it was someone I knew/knew of and he reported all his guns stolen and he got paid. I worked in an office re insurance claims for two decades. He got paid they were never found (my bet is he still had them somewhere/hidden). So yes they would be claimed to be gone and not on the list of things registered IF such happened in the right time frame. Anyone who figures one place knows about the other place and claim. Court versus ins. co. and also timing and when each thing occurred, court vs. ins. co. It depends and yes, he would be likely caught in a fraud IF they look into it and such happened. If people think LE or courts report or look into insurance records or theft reports anywhere or that all ins. companies report to LE and even in the right county, they are dreaming. LE can't even determine if there is life insurance in most cases and life insurance sure does not report to them when a policy is taken out, one collected on or attempted to be, etc.

Not putting it clearly and not even saying such happened but yeah it would depend on a lot of things but then I don't know if the court or LE ever had or saw the guns? if they did then how did they go missing? If they didn't then how did they know such still existed other than assuming from records and maybe anything Masterson "claimed"...

Never did get a chance to read the links and doubt they answered all this anyhow and won''t get a chance but again do they even know of guns by sight or just from records?

I'm just saying he does not dare produce them if he formerly reported them missing or stolen in any jurisdiction. I may be all wet on this from not knowing the finer details but I sure didn't see any in here as to even how the guns are a thing in this.

I have not kept up on this case. I saw the charges. The evidence that to me that was enough to say he was guilty. But then the gun issue did catch my attention. So for whatever the reason. It's a problem now. Ordered to surrender them. Allegedly can't because he because he doesn't have them. He provided, To my understanding at least one to a person who cannot legally purchase and own a gun. Guessy knows alot more. From what I understand. LE never had them. At first, I ASSUMED they lost them. Again, Guessy knows alot more.

 

[Mel70]

I'm tired and you lost me with your first sentence. (I wrote this last night) as I was falling asleep.

It is now morning.

I can think of what I believe to be a false claim back when and it was someone I knew/knew of and he reported all his guns stolen and he got paid. I worked in an office re insurance claims for two decades. He got paid they were never found (my bet is he still had them somewhere/hidden). So yes they would be claimed to be gone and not on the list of things registered IF such happened in the right time frame. Anyone who figures one place knows about the other place and claim. Court versus ins. co. and also timing and when each thing occurred, court vs. ins. co. It depends and yes, he would be likely caught in a fraud IF they look into it and such happened. If people think LE or courts report or look into insurance records or theft reports anywhere or that all ins. companies report to LE and even in the right county, they are dreaming. LE can't even determine if there is life insurance in most cases and life insurance sure does not report to them when a policy is taken out, one collected on or attempted to be, etc.

Not putting it clearly and not even saying such happened but yeah it would depend on a lot of things but then I don't know if the court or LE ever had or saw the guns? if they did then how did they go missing? If they didn't then how did they know such still existed other than assuming from records and maybe anything Masterson "claimed"...

Never did get a chance to read the links and doubt they answered all this anyhow and won''t get a chance but again do they even know of guns by sight or just from records?

I'm just saying he does not dare produce them if he formerly reported them missing or stolen in any jurisdiction. I may be all wet on this from not knowing the finer details but I sure didn't see any in here as to even how the guns are a thing in this.

What a scumbag! Is it?. There was a case I had watched. I don't remember which one. It is an older one. Not a case featured here. The gun was reported stolen decades before. It was legitimate. LE traced it to a pawn shop states away. The gun was used in a murder. This is where I don't remember the details of how this all came together. They contacted the original owner. He had nothing to do with the murder. But they had the pawn ticket that the dummy filled out with all of his correct information. It has been in the news alot about "Ghost" Guns. Where every identifying #, Etc. Is removed and sold on the street. OF course to criminals prohibited from purchasing and owning them.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Hi @GrandmaBear.
I have thought many times of how exhausted you must be. I love you my friend. If that helps. Probably not.

It does help. A lot. And I am flat out exhausted and don't know how I get up and do another long day, day after day, week after week. A day off takes almost all of it just to recover to do it again.

If only part time were an option but it isn't. I need insurance and the paycheck.

Anyhow, yes it helps. Miss you. Miss everyone. Miss having even more than a moment and hate that I can't at least keep up here.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I have not kept up on this case. I saw the charges. The evidence that to me that was enough to say he was guilty. But then the gun issue did catch my attention. So for whatever the reason. It's a problem now. Ordered to surrender them. Allegedly can't because he because he doesn't have them. He provided, To my understanding at least one to a person who cannot legally purchase and own a gun. Guessy knows alot more. From what I understand. LE never had them. At first, I ASSUMED they lost them. Again, Guessy knows alot more.

Same. I did not follow closely. I stayed up with the basics of it but not my first or top case by a long shot. I don't "do" Hollywood types of cases. I follow the Baldwin thing though far less than this one. This one I know the "basics" of but no more.

So they never had them nor ever saw them or so it sounds...? Hmmm.

So I am assuming and also asking Guessy since as you say she knows more, they have NEVER seen these guns just know of purchase/ownership through state records?

 

[Guess Who]

Same. I did not follow closely. I stayed up with the basics of it but not my first or top case by a long shot. I don't "do" Hollywood types of cases. I follow the Baldwin thing though far less than this one. This one I know the "basics" of but no more.

So they never had them nor ever saw them or so it sounds...? Hmmm.

So I am assuming and also asking Guessy since as you say she knows more, they have NEVER seen these guns just know of purchase/ownership through state records?

Registration laws vary too much from state to state. I have no idea of how California registries work, but they somehow knew he had 10 registered to him and now he's claiming one was destroyed (I'd like to know what that consists of) and nine are unaccounted for. They had to have proof of those somehow and now he can't show proof he has them. IF he was the one that volunteered that he had 10, it would have been really stupid because now he has to produce them somehow. I'm sure his high priced attorneys would not have let him state he had 10 if he had none. Well, most attorneys would advise their client of that, I would think.

 

[Mel70]

Registration laws vary too much from state to state. I have no idea of how California registries work, but they somehow knew he had 10 registered to him and now he's claiming one was destroyed (I'd like to know what that consists of) and nine are unaccounted for. They had to have proof of those somehow and now he can't show proof he has them. IF he was the one that volunteered that he had 10, it would have been really stupid because now he has to produce them somehow. I'm sure his high priced attorneys would not have let him state he had 10 if he had none. Well, most attorneys would advise their client of that, I would think.

Thank you very much Guessy.
High priced attorneys couldn't get him out of 30 years. Yes. If he divulged the information. That is very stupid. Some information is missing IMO. Like I had said. I don't know the specifics here. So I don't know the connection between the rapes and the guns. So LE must have checked the registry, And those are the weapons that came up he owned. So maybe?. It doesn't have anything to do with the rapes. It was to take away weapons from a convicted felon?.

 

[Guess Who]

Thank you very much Guessy.
High priced attorneys couldn't get him out of 30 years. Yes. If he divulged the information. That is very stupid. Some information is missing IMO. Like I had said. I don't know the specifics here. So I don't know the connection between the rapes and the guns. So LE must have checked the registry, And those are the weapons that came up he owned. So maybe?. It doesn't have anything to do with the rapes. It was to take away weapons from a convicted felon?.

I am fairly sure it has more to do with his conviction than from them being involved in any crime.

Yes, they are either legally registered to him and/or he volunteered the info about them. I have no idea which one though.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

Is it possible that they confiscated them during the first trial, but when it ended in a locked jury, they gave them back to him?

 

[Guess Who]

Is it possible that they confiscated them during the first trial, but when it ended in a locked jury, they gave them back to him?

Why would they have confiscated them? He wasn't a felon going to prison at that time.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Well it appears no one really knows how and why guns ever came into this and shows that had I read the links which I still haven't, they don't answer any of this or why and how they are now looked for or why they were being looked for, etc., etc., etc.

I've seen in my lifetime guns often put up as bond so that crossed my mind, first trial or second and that would mean if the court took possession of them they would now go to return them but it doesn't seem that is the case, he is the one who had them go missing.

Why aren't they explaining this or if it played into first trial, second or what the reason, the why, how, when, etc. Or are others like me and the answers are out there but no one followed this case or the last closely?

All I can think of at this point, NOT SURE HOW THEY EVER CAME ABOUT BEFORE, but as a now convicted felon he can't have any and of course he wouldn't have them if he is in prison but he also can't have them registered to him as a convicted felon so they have to ensure they are taken, sold, whatever. BUT again how did they come about to begin with BEFORE conviction? DO they even KNOW if he had them physically for even the last ten years, etc.

I admit I am lost and I guess I thought it was just me as I haven't followed close but lol seems everyone is lost on it.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I am fairly sure it has more to do with his conviction than from them being involved in any crime.

Yes, they are either legally registered to him and/or he volunteered the info about them. I have no idea which one though.

So you don't know either? I guess I thought you did and others did too here until I read the day's posts.

 

[Guess Who]

Why would they have confiscated them? He wasn't a felon going to prison at that time.

Also, let's add that why wouldn't they have re-confiscated them during the last trial, going by that logic?

 

[GrandmaBear]

Also, let's add that why wouldn't they have re-confiscated them during the last trial, going by that logic?

I'm lost. It seems to me the subject hit the news or was said by the judge and not a person nor a news org has explained or knows the history of it and even those that followed more closely. Why am I surprised. A subject just hits out of the blue in a case no one I know for like Yters followed or tried to FOIA or may be we would know more. Can't figure news will do it, they are worthless.

So in summary, none of it is really know. Past, present, why, who, how it came about, the info did, why required, etc. None of it is known.

 

[Guess Who]

I'm lost. It seems to me the subject hit the news or was said by the judge and not a person nor a news org has explained or knows the history of it and even those that followed more closely. Why am I surprised. A subject just hits out of the blue in a case no one I know for like Yters followed or tried to FOIA or may be we would know more. Can't figure news will do it, they are worthless.

So in summary, none of it is really know. Past, present, why, who, how it came about, the info did, why required, etc. None of it is known.

That was in response to Cuz's question.

 

[GrandmaBear]

That was in response to Cuz's question.

Regardless, no one seems to really know about it. I figured I just was not up on things. That isn't a knock at anyone, it just means either this is something the public knows NOTHING of that came up by the judge and knows no prior thing about gun, and makes no sense as to how it all came about, OR just none of us here do.