Russell Brand

There was evidence though.

People that say there wasn't, don't understand what comprises evidence.

If they would convict with no evidence, then he would have been found guilty on all counts.

You are Being Unreasonable for starting the 836th thread on him

There was enough evidence and there was more than one woman. I have no doubt there were many more than the brave ones that came forward.

Clearly there was evidence and the jury listened to it and decided there was enough to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt.

So you think he’s been unfairly victimised because he’s famous? Because the logical conclusion to that is that it’s okay to be an aggressive sexual predator if you’re famous.

Use people's names, Op. My guess is that you aren't bothered by actual facts.

The woman who was (brutally) anally raped told all her friends and family at the time, and went to a sexual health clinic as she was terrified she had AIDS. You are right that historic cases are difficult, including lots more involving Russel Brand, so we understand, but in this case there was evidence.

From what I can gather , some of the women had medical evidence they could submit.

His barrister admitted Brand's guilt today - "short and momentary failure to respect her consent."

There was evidence.
There was over a hundred witnesses and over 4000 documents.

There are some very good podcasts out there explaining how they conducted the police investigation.

If you are interested in the facts, there are a couple of podcasts (BBC sounds and Crime Desk) who have spoken to the lead detective and she really clearly explained how much evidence was investigated and how the case was brought together. There is another one by The Times who spoke to someone from the CPS who explained how things are taken to prosecution. He was very clear that the perpetrator's 'fame' had no impact on the decision to move to prosecution.

And there is that …
It’s like he was trying to do a poor job. It was unbelievable.

Testimony is evidence.
Even if there was DNA evidence, all that would prove is that they’d had sex. The question wasn’t whether they had sex or not, it was whether it was consensual.
Based on the case presented to the jury over multiple weeks, the jury decided that he committed the crime, beyond reasonable doubt.

Possibly the fact he was famous meant there was more evidence than there would be for a case involving rape by an 'ordinary' man - people will remember interactions with him, they'll remember being at a party he was at, they'll remember if someone who'd been alone with him was distressed afterwards.

He was found guilty on some, not all counts by a Jury consisting of mainly men in a country where it’s notoriously difficult to get a rape conviction. I’m sure there must have been enough evidence.

No, non recent sexual offences are prosecuted every day.

I wish people would just look into facts before posting things like this. It’s all there for you to read.

Considering his behaviour when cross examining witnesses I’d say he did everything in his power to excuse Brand. High time the law was changed to stop women being victimised again in court.

My opinion on the case is that it’s about time these men got held to account. Nobody can say there is no evidence of there is evidence though so I’m not sure what you mean there. I’m hopeful for the future that this case will positively impact not only other victims of famous men but other victims of any men.

For the one rape that resulted in a guilty verdict there was a record of the visit to rape clinic including that the victim told the nurse she'd been raped and her injuries. She also told friends and her parents contemporaneously. So there was enough evidence apart from his and her witness accounts, that was a big difference.

The sexual assaults that resulted in conviction were all witnessed by third parties (I think, please someone correct me if I'm wrong).

That's not to say there's no chance of a rape conviction without physical/contemporaneous evidence but it's much harder. In fact almost all rape cases where the parties already knew each other are difficult because the defence will be "consent".

His behaviour had been appalling. Although Russell Brand’s dad appeared to be giving him a run for his money today.

Are you asking this from the perspective of someone considering reporting a historic rape and the chances of it resulting in a conviction, or as someone unsure of the strength of the evidence against Brand?

Sorry posted in wrong RB thread

Non famous people are prosecuted for historic sexual crimes though.

as others have pointed out there is more to evidence than dna evidence. All that does anyway is prove sex took place - not that someone consented. And it wasn't in question whether sex had occurred but it was whether there was consent or not.