Danny Masterson and the Rebranding of Recovered Memories
The American Sex Panic Slouches Towards the Courtroom
Earlier this month, Danny Masterson was sentenced to two consecutive 15 year to life sentences (effectively 30 years to life) after being convicted of raping two women in the early 00s this last may. This conviction came during his second trial, his first trial resulting in a mistrial due to jury deadlock. Masterson is one of the few high profile #metoo cases that has actually seen charges, courts, and conviction and as such represents a flashpoint for the cultural attitudes that have become prevalent in mainstream culture since the movement began in earnest in 2017. Masterson’s trial has also come to embody the kind of mass hysteria, unfactual, carceral logic and overreach that has dogged the movement since its beginning.
Same old thing that we did last week
For those unaware, Danny Masterson rose to mainstream acting popularity while playing Hyde on the mega hit television program “That 70’s Show” (1998-2006) which would prove to be one of the most popular television shows of that era, launching the careers of Topher Grace, Mila Kunis, and most famously Ashton Kutcher. While Masterson would not reach the level of fame of his costars, he enjoyed consistent work and success from the show. Masterson’s #metoo saga begins in 2017 when he is accused by multiple former partners of sexual assault dating back to the early 00s. As a result, Masterson was dropped from a role in the immensely popular netflix program The Ranch which he starred in alongside That 70’s Show alumni Ashton Kutcher. Masterson would suffer the kind of professional and reputational fallout consistent with individuals named during that movement. However a new development would emerge when three charges were filed against Masterson on behalf of three separate victims in 2020 stemming back to alleged incidents occurring between 2000 and 2003 (the Police investigated numerous other claims but were unable to substantiate them).
Adding an additional wrinkle in the story was that Masterson and all 3 of the accusers are, or were at the time, members of the Church of Scientology, a controversial quasi-religious movement popular amongst celebrities in the 90s and 2000s that has long been dogged with both accusations and perpetration of cult like behavior towards its’ members ranging from intimidation, brainwashing, kidnapping and other actions generally consistent with religious cults. Scientology has drawn mass scrutiny and condemnation amongst the mainstream press, particularly in the mid to late 00s due to the rumors of these kinds of behaviors, with many ex-members speaking out, detailing horrible accusations of mistreatment at the hands of the church, though the church remains in operation and enjoys tax exempt status as a state recognized religion. One woman alleges that they reported Masterson’s conduct to the church fairly quickly after it happened in the early 00s, but the church did nothing, instead, in their words, opting to protect Masterson and harass and intimidate her into silence. Another woman apparently told her Mother when it happened. Eventually one of these women would file a police report 2 years after the alleged incident in 2004 (which current pop psychology insists is not a long time, but is a significant amount of time when discussing the collection of evidence). Charges were ultimately not pursued, ostensibly due to lack of evidence, that is until nearly 20 years later when the LA District Attorney chose to press charges.
Masterson’s first trial ended in jury deadlock with regards to all three of the accusations. I would make the argument that a jury deadlock should equate to a not guilty verdict, the job of the prosecution is to render their accusations true beyond the shadow of a doubt, and a deadlock I feel is indicative of a failure on that part, but that is not the way the legal system works, a tie doesn’t go to the runner. It would be revealed that the prosecution relied entirely on the testimony of the accusers as no DNA or physical evidence exists, nor do any contemporaneous police reports, there are no witnesses to the event outside the two people in the room, as well as a single NDA that one of the accusers entered into in exchange for nearly a million dollars. The NDA is of course used to prove that something did happen, of course, why would an NDA exist if nothing happened, it’s a smoke and fire argument. But that never cuts the other direction, the question is never asked “if something happened, why would you accept money for your silence” nor is there any sort of acknowledgment that an NDA is a choice. Is it possible that higher ups in scientology used harassing tactics to silence these women? Of course, that would be consistent with other accusations against the church, but there’s also the possibility that the church saw these things as lies and mobilized to protect an innocent man, the choice to report this to the church instead of the police severely inhibits any ability to investigate and without contemporaneous independent reports, it all becomes unverifiable. The Church may have responded criminally, however that does not mean Masterson is guilty, it only means the Church retaliated.
The second trial was markedly different than the first, as independent reporter Jessica Reed Krause would note while observing both trials. According to Krause the accusers’ testimoies in the second trial differed greatly from statements they gave in both previous police reports and the previous trial, anecdotally appearing more coached and in lock step than they had last trial. Krause also noted most crucially, the accusers played up accusation that Masterson had drugged them during their encounters, a detail that was not present in the police reports both in 2004 and 20 years later, not something Danny was charged with (drugging would require an additional charge), and it was not present in the first trial as arguments alleging such were barred by the judge due to the obvious issue of lack of evidence. There currently exists no toxicology report to corroborate this argument. It is unclear why this argument was allowed in the second trial without anything to corroborate it as compared to the first. The accusations of drugging become doubly bizarre in that Scientology is intensely anti-drug and Masterson, by all accounts, was incredibly devoted to that tenant. The prosecution appeared to play up the scientology angle, but so far as my research has found, there have been no meaningful rulings with regards to actions allegedly taken by the church in connection to the Masterson case, though it appears a civil suit is still ongoing. Masterson’s defense appears to rest on the simple fact that there is simply no evidence to support the claims, Masterson himself in both trials refused to take the stand.
The second trial however, resulted in a conviction on two of the three counts, it appears that whatever new arguments the prosecutors pulled out worked. Masterson received a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years to life for each of these convictions, the judge denying him the reprieve of serving the sentences concurrently, he must instead serve them consecutively, meaning that Masterson, if he survives, will not be eligible for parole for 30 years, and even if he survives that long, won’t be released until he’s nearly 80 if he is released at all.
So as it stands Masterson will be serving 30 years to life, the MAXIMUM possible sentence, for crimes that was at the earliest reported to police 2 years after the events allegedly occurred, that resulted in no charges and only a subsequent investigation brought charges nearly 20 years after the fact, has no physical evidence, is based entirely around victim testimony with major factual discrepancies and that at least one jury could not find significant enough purpose to convict on all charges.
It’s all about the he said/she said bullshit
I’m sure by now you’re following my point. This case is thin, so reliant on victim testimony (often unreliable, some 75% of wrongful convictions are based around eye witness testimony) recollecting events from 20 years prior and nothing else it becomes questionable why and how anyone could justify charges, let alone conviction, let alone the MAXIMUM possible punishment. The answer of course is simple, the #metoo activists demand it. While the current American Sex Panic has had far reaching cultural effects, from the Title IX kangaroo courts, to #metoo’s ability to more or less humiliate the accused out of public life on accusation alone, actual court wins have been few and far between (this of course never results in reflection that maybe there’s something wrong with this crusade, instead that the movement has been failed by society.) R Kelly, Weinstein and now Masterson were put away, but the number of actual charges originating from social and traditional media accusations remain scant. Cosby was freed because of significant civil rights violations on the part of an overzealous prosecutor, and while I believe personally that Cosby is guilty, we shouldn’t let prosecutors trample the Constitution and break whatever rules they see fit to secure a conviction. The Depp trial gave the movement a very public black eye, and other accused victories from Rammstein to the Shitty Media Men List have struck public blows to the movement.
However, #metoo still retains a great amount of support in the realms of art and culture and prosecutors eager to court the favor of these activists and culture gatekeepers will happily blow through any kind of civil rights barrier to secure that support. Masterson was already convicted in the court of public opinion, which raises questions on his ability to receive a fair trial to begin with, but the inquisition needs a bigger win in order to stave off mounting criticisms of the movement. The Masterson case proves what prosecutors have always known, that despite popular misconception that rape cases aren’t pursued, rape cases are actually a prosecutors wet dream. If you win, you’re a hero locking up the bad guys, if you lose, you’re still a hero protecting women, you don’t have to worry about the political fallout that comes with say, over zealously prosecuting flimsy murder cases.
Scientology also obviously plays a big part in this. Prosecutors have been gunning for the church for decades but it has continued to weather controversy, so Masterson becomes a convenient two birds with one stone fall guy. To be clear Scientology seems like an incredibly stupid cult to me, but my feelings with regards to any members of cults like these who are adults has always been play stupid games, win stupid prizes. I understand some may feel that’s crass, and I accept that, but these people are adults with agency. To be a member of Scientology is a choice, to bring your accusations to the Church rather than the proper authorities is a choice, to sign an NDA is a choice, and there is a feeling, at least from where I’m standing, that we are reorienting the entirety of our legal system because these people made poor choices. It feels similar to someone trying to rewrite the rules because they are losing.
Statutes of limitations draw a great deal of ire from the punitive and carceral, but they exist so that defendants can mount the strongest defense possible as they are entitled to under the law. As you get further and further away from the event, it becomes much more difficult, memories fade, people who may be able to provide compelling evidence in your favor die, evidence becomes harder and harder to collect. There have been movements in the past few years to extend statute of limitations, which I agree with if there is compelling physical evidence, but this is not one of those cases. The statute of limitations in California from what I’ve been able to find is between 6 and 10 years, all of these cases fall outside that. Masterson is guaranteed a speedy trial by the 6th amendment and in my view this directly cuts against that. They had a police report from 2004 they could’ve charged him with, yet they let the statute expire on that and then some. In fact the only reason charges were able to be brought against Masterson and those statute of limitations revoked was through a confluence of legal loopholes arguing that crimes that can result in a life sentence have no statute of limitations and that multiple victims removes the statute. The “multiple victim” angle becomes even more problematic when you point out that the accusations Jane Doe 3 could not bring a conviction in either trial, and that another one of the Jane Doe’s testimony is incredibly problematic.
The new pop psychological concept that it takes people years, even decades to understand they’ve been sexually assaulted to me reeks of a reinvention of the concepts that animated the junk science of repressed memories. It seems that at least one of the accusers who Danny was convicted of raping didn’t “realize” she had been raped until 2018, believing that the encounter had been consensual for 16 years. What follows is transcription from the trial.
Again, this is testimony from a victim Masterson was CONVICTED of attacking. Masterson is being convicted of raping someone who by their own admission, both at the time of the encounter and for decades later considered the act consensual. How can you argue that Masterson knowingly violated her consent when by all metrics, at the time of the encounter, it was consensual? If she doesn’t know it’s nonconsensual, how could Danny possibly know? This opens up a whole nightmare surrounding consent. Consent is supposed to be for an act, in the moment, it’s an agreement for an act, not how that act will make you feel, it’s not something that can be retroactively revoked weeks, months, years, decades down the line based on how the person feels about the encounter moment to moment. It is no longer enough to simply secure mutual consent, you must now know how your partner will feel about the encounter, and you, in perpetuity, which is obviously impossible. What you create is ultimately a consent culture that is entirely reliant on your partner liking you for the rest of your life. Now you or anyone you love’s ability to avoid total reputational destruction, and now in this case, decades of imprisonment, is that every person you’ve ever slept with it feels the same way about the encounter forever. This of course, in my opinion, a feature, not a bug of a increasingly punitive consent culture during a sex panic.
CORRECTION/CLARIFICATION [9/18/2023 4:45PM]: The testimony in the screenshot above belongs to Jane Doe 1, during the first trial, in regards to an ADDITIONAL rape that was not reported to police, not the one she reported to police. In my initial writing I did not attribute it to a specific Jane Doe on purpose due to the difficulty of finding specific sources, however I did write it under the impression that it was Jane Doe 2 based around a process of elimination with regards to the date and a lack of labeling. As I’ve said before finding exact details of this has been troublesome. I think the point I’m making still stands surrounding the dubiousness of this accusations, this was still testimony of someone who Masterson was convicted of raping, regardless if it was Jane Doe 1 or 2, however, last thing I would want to do is be accused of not being forthright about information. Thank you to reddit user BlowMyNoseAtU who was able to track down and clarify which Jane Doe gave the testimony.
#metoo activists insist that it can take decades for someone to understand that they were sexually assaulted, but when they finally come forward, it is undeniably the truth. Of course the question rises, why are so many other victims of sexual assault able to understand they are being attacked in the moment, go to the proper authorities, and secure convictions off of DNA and other physical evidence, but only people involved in these #metoo movement takedowns claim that trauma makes them unable to accurately understand events in their life until years after the fact. Individuals who get PTSD from say, war zones don’t need two decades to understand it was being shot at that caused trauma, why is it different in these cases? As I’ve said before, this is just a rebranding of the Recovered Memories hoax that was so prevalent during the 80s and 90s sex panics. The Recovered Memory acolytes insisted that trauma caused individuals to lock away memories of painful events for years, but later would be able to recall those events with crystal clarity (in stark defiance of all research that shows that’s not how memory works) and must be believed as absolute fact. How is this any different?
I ask, in any other situation, with regards to any other crime, would this kind of prosecutorial overreach and outcome be accepted? If someone was convicted of a murder from 20 years ago despite there being no DNA evidence, no physical evidence, only testimony that constantly changed and resulted in one jury deadlock mistrial would the public at large accept that? Of course not, there’d be netflix documentaries, hashtags, podcasts, letter writing campaigns, all pointing out the gross and glaring miscarriage of justice. People are rightfully outraged by things like “Making a Murderer” (whose first false conviction was based around false victim testimony) yet constantly cheer on the kind of gross oversights that created those situations in the first place. It creates a strange system in which the only way anyone can actually be treated as “innocent” is by going through the nightmare of trial, conviction, and incarceration, and simply hope that their story reaches a documentary crew while they lose countless years rotting away in a cell. But because Masterson is accused of sex crimes (the kind of crime most commonly overturned by innocence projects) this all goes out the window.
The Masterson case should be cause for alarm for everyone, if you exist under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States, you should be worried. When people point out the draconian aspects of #metoo and punishing people over evidence-less accounts, the response commonly deployed is “well it’s just the court of public opinion, it’s not jail or anything”. But now the logic of the mob has seeped into the judicial system, from the actions of prosecutors to the attitude of jurors, one questions if it’s even possible to receive a fair trial when the public has been fully indoctrinated by the pop psych pseudo science of a moral panic. The nightmare of the twitter lynch mobs and Title IX star chambers was never just going to be contained to the internet and college campuses, it directly shaped public perception that was downstream from the judiciary. Could the people targeted in the Satanic Panic receive a fair trial when the news consistently told their peers that repressed memories were a thing? Could the residents of Salem get a fair trial when everyone accepted witches as a reality?
Masterson is a crossing of that line, and as anyone who studies law knows, law is ruled by precedents, once an outcome is argued successfully it becomes possible for other cases to utilize that same outcome. Masterson’s plight is often dismissed as the case of a “rich white man” but if you think that District Attorneys across the country aren’t looking to this case and the hysteria surrounding it to use as a blue print to lock up people much less wealthy and much less white you’re woefully ignorant to the way in which the law, and those who enforce it operate. The precedent now exists that anyone you’ve been alone in a room with, or had consensual sex with can accuse you of rape and you can be charged, convicted, and receive the harshest possible sentence purely on testimony without any corroborating evidence, decades after the fact.
This can be used on you, it can be used on people you love, it can and will be used on the kinds of vulnerable communities modern radlibs claim to champion. Do you truly believe a corrupt cop won’t use the newfound power #metoo hysteria has created to jam up some innocent Black kid? This is going to be the first time in history that a great amount of unaccountable power is going to be used totally above board? This is what constantly happens with civil rights abuses, you argue to throw out the rules on the worst possible offenders, and then slowly it blows back on everyone. Republicans cheered on the expansion of the security surveillance state when it targeted muslims, but now find themselves on the wrong end of the FBI stings as the catch all of white supremacist terrorism becomes the new “worst possible offenders”. Liberals cheered on the rolling out of RICO charges (already a controversial law) against the Trump administration in Georgia, but now see anti-police protestors being targeted under the same precedent. This rollback will be no different.
Years ago, this kind of prosecutorial and judicial overreach would be met with resistance from legal watchdog groups for the gross abuse of power that it is, but not anymore, not a single peep from any civil rights legal groups big or small. The media, who at least at one point had some wings that treated the punitive arm of the government with skepticism instead manufacture support. Even finding information with regards to the actual facts of this case, the differences between the trials, the evidence etc was nearly impossible to find, mainstream reporting framed this as a slam dunk, which it clearly isn’t, but by refusing to acknowledge the intricacies, they shape reality and public opinion. Masterson has appealed the decision on multiple grounds, but even if he secures a win, it’s hard to see a world where he is viewed as anything but someone who got away with it, the possibility that this all was a farce simply can’t be entertained. This is the #metoo movements big win, a case so flimsy it can’t stand up without prosecutorial trickery and civil rights violations to bolster it, a terrifying blue print for the future of civil rights.
You can find me on instagram at @jacktorrancefakeshisdeath and on twitter @jtorrancesghost