Russell Brand 🤢🤮

[Netcurtainnelly]

🤢 🤢 Russell Brand. I never liked him anyway, Now he's on trail. Denies all charges of course.

They had been doing comedy shows in Bournemouth and had probably been hammered the whole time they were there, they had a flat so they must have been there a while, on the way back to London Brand supposedly said this to the guy, it will be destroyed by a competent defence, the guy will get his 15 minutes of fame and no more IMO.

I was replying to the assertion that only the women complaining about him were witnesses, so what he will actually say in his evidence isn't really the point.

He’s already testified - didn’t say he got destroyed - his evidence is quite compelling because he was a friend and it’s not just what RB said to him - RB was behaving in a guilty way

Oh, has he? I'm not following except here, and that only in a vaguely "If Brand dunnit I hope they throw the booky-wooky at him" way.

But was the witness in fact destroyed by a competent defence, as it was asserted he would be?

Got this from another thread - it explains exactly the reason why we don’t have to presume he is innocent - that is a legal principal - explains it well I thought

”innocent until proven guilty" just means that no punishment should be exacted on someone until the evidence on the case has been heard - they should be treated as if innocent.

Some people seem to think that it means that the accused exists in some kind of Schrodinger-esque quantum state until after the trial.

Either he carried out one or more rapes and sexual assaults or he didn't, what happens in court has absolutely no bearing on that, only on whether he will be punished.

(also a rapist is guilty from when he commits the rape - not from when he goes to court - so of course we can express our opinions)

Reports I’ve read say he defended himself robustly under cross examination - they tried to undermine that he must remember and that he didn’t mention everything at first when talking to police

I hope he was accurate and credible in his accuracy. Which is how I feel about any witness in any court, really!

Laura, his wife, was 18 and he 31 when they first met. Quite a potential for a power dynamic there. But she will have been told by lawyers to play the dutifull wife for the court case and whatever the outcome they will quietly seperate and divorce in the coming year.
I thought they both looked distinctly less perky today going into court. Reckon it’s hit them how damaging the case is.
its the calculation I find so sinister. Finding God. Moving to the states. Did they sell up everything here and take it to the US so he can’t lose anything financially with being sued by victims. Palling up with the extreme right in the states. All months long in the preparation. He’s awful

I don’t think she was 18…he was 42 and her 31 when they married

@Tinydanceerthat was their second go at a relationship

ah ok

ahe shouldn’t have bothered!

The point is the defence can clearly use this to throw enough doubt that non consensual sex took place. There were no witnesses in the room and the behaviour of both parties could be easily seen as flirtation to initiate sex. The prosecution have to show reason why the woman entered a hotel room with a man with no expectation of sex imho. It is horrible and rape may have happened but I can see how this is very difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt. There is probably a reason why rape conviction is sadly so low.

I am sorry but the CPS look a little desperate aiming for conviction by having testimony of someone who was dragged towards a toilet. The behaviour is abominable but there was no sexual crime committee only the assumption of sexual crime and while I do feel for the woman involved legally this must be a bit of a push to secure a conviction? It does feel like the CPS have gathered a number of cases together with the hope one sticks and I wonder if the jury might recognise this!

I just feel so far it has been shown that RB was c:+t towards women but that is not a crime sadly.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36919219

The police have form for very quickly shutting down investigations of historical assault by famous male celebs (like Chris Evans) so it is interesting the COD are trying to run with this one. This is not to excuse Brands behaviour but I can see why people can say Brand is being singled out for prosecution from probably quite a range of celeb men in the 90s.

The Labour Party conference incident was clear cut rape imo. She thought he was a gay work colleague so let her guard down.

Seems we do have to be suspicious of all men and never give them the benefit of the doubt if we do so it is “no good deed unpunished” and we deserve to be raped. Got it.

My prediction is due to the complexity of the case it won’t be a clean sweep of unanimous convictions on all charges. I think we will see some majority convictions and a couple of not guilties. But I am hopeful for convictions on the more serious charges.

I believe them.

Brand was in a long term relationship in 1999 with a woman so again it is going to be a stretch to convince a jury that the complainant thought he was gay? It just makes it look like the complainant was maybe prejudiced about his camp persona and was trying to think of reasons to justify inviting an attractive young man to her room.......I just feel there is too much for the defence to exploit if they are any good at their job.

Hang on. Not buying this take at all. How is anal rape not a crime?

In Ireland Russell Brand would have had anonymity as a defendant in a rape case.
It is so different to England where he is named pre trial and filmed going to and from court.

Honestly I am so shocked by the victim blaming on this thread. Even if you invite a man to your hotel room and explicitly state you want to have sex all night long, you can still change your mind. The woman who claimed he anally raped her had already had sex with him. Maybe this woman was just slightly naive and was hopeful they could work together so wanted to continue talking. Who knows.

Of course it's a crime I am just arguing to prove this in a court of law is a challenge. It's not about acts it about consent and how in the cases so far described do you do go about unequivocally proving consent was given? I guess this why we have historically low rape convictions ,not because we are callous but because proof is so hard to obtain.

Sadly it's a court of law and it's all about proof. I think many people will feel the defence is victim blaming by the time the trial is over but what is the defence meant to do?

Doesn’t it just tend to show the CPS are treating each case on its merits and applying the Code (whether to prosecute) properly? I’m a little worried you think it’s a sign he’s being ‘singled out’ just because there’s someone else they are not prosecuting. They make decisions not to prosecute people all the time.

What or who are COD? I can’t work that one out despite having quite a lot of experience of the courts.

OR they're telling the truth!
If they wanted compo, then why wait all these years?

Not victim blame, obviously, like they manage not to in other crimes.

If your house is robbed, you won't be questioned about how much you've given to charity before with the implication you simply gave your stuff away and now just regret it. You won't be asked how many people you let into your house, and it be suggested you were asking for it and what else did you expect?