Russell Brand 🤢🤮

[Netcurtainnelly]

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

Re reading the reporting the focus was mainly on maybe surrounding events but hiw are things like the complainant cheating on a boyfriend relevant? You can cheat and still be raped so how can the defence raise infidelity in a way to make the complainant's moral character questionable? How is the emotional impact of infidelity relevant to the crime? It seems like the defence has been given some lee way?

Woman One met him before he was famous and thought he was gay. The defence asked her why she went to a hotel room with him, if she wasn’t expecting to have sex with him. She kept pushing back—because she thought he was gay, therefore sex never crossed her mind.

It does seem to me slightly out of balance that in rape cases the jury is expected to ignore anything any of them may know about the previous character of the defendant with regard to his sexual behaviour, but the defence spends a lot of effort on trying to ensure that the previous character of the plaintiff with regard to sexual behaviour is blackened to the jury as much as possible.

Is the prosecution not allowed to introduce the defendant's previous character as relevant? Because it seems to me to be the case that if a man has form for extreme sexual behaviour, that is at least as relevant to the case as whether a woman is a virgin, or once had sex with someone other than her then-boyfriend or -husband, or whether she had consensual sex with the defendant on a previous occasion but said "no" on this one for whatever reason.

She’s just a slapper who gave oral sex to a stranger behind her boyfriend’s back, went to have casual sex at his house, and therefore deserves to be anally raped because she’s obviously an up-for-anything-slut. Did I miss anything out?

It does seem to me slightly out of balance that in rape cases the jury is expected to ignore anything any of them may know about the previous character of the defendant with regard to his sexual behaviour, but the defence spends a lot of effort on trying to ensure that the previous character of the plaintiff with regard to sexual behaviour is blackened to the jury as much as possible.

This 💯

Exactly. This is the impression that the defence wants to leave with the Jury. We can't say this in a courtroom bit the woman is a s@/t begging for it that cheated on a loving boyfriend. don't believe anything she says. That is why I asked the question can't the prosecution object to some line of questioning?

The prosecution most definitely do have to prove lack of consent. It’s unlikely, in many cases including this one, to be accepted by the defence and is an essential ingredient of the offence. And, as some of the views of some ‘commentators’ on here have shown, it’s not a given that people will automatically believe there was no consent (she consented and regretted it later blah blah).

I thought ‘bad character evidence’ was admissible in English proceedings?
I wonder if Brand will testify - given his propensity for rambling and never giving a straight answer I think he’d be his own worst enemy.

New thread:
www.mumsnet.com/talk/in_the_news/5591423-russell-brand-in-the-docky-wock

Yes the prosecution can apply to introduce the defendant’s previous character. That’s always been the case but became codified and easier since 2003. I’m not going to try to guess exactly how it’s going to pan out in this case, but it seems to me that some of his previous pronouncements/ behaviour may be held to be relevant. Just the fact that he’s holding a bible can open up his previous character to contradict the good impression he’s trying to give.

To answer the pp’s question, if I were prosecuting this I wouldn’t object to this line of questioning as all the defence are doing there is looking silly as she’d already given a good answer.

It is the business of the defence in a rape trial to bully the woman or women complainants as much as they can possibly get away with before the judge reins them in.

Its up to the judge then, the prosecution can't raise objections? (Not a sparky comment just not a lawyer)

I think they can but need to have a very good reason, and it looks better for the prosecution if it is the judge who intervenes against the defence; he is (supposedly at least) neutral, so him saying "enough!" is a more effective rebuke and carries more weight.

Yes they can raise objections and, as just explained in reply to another poster, they can apply to introduce his bad character as well. As just mentioned as well though, I wouldn’t object to ‘why did you invite him to your room’ because there’s nothing wrong with it and the complainant seems to have done well in response to it anyway.

This is precisely why such a huge percentage of women don't pursue taking rapists to court.
First they are raped by the rapist.
Then they are raped all over again by the court process.
I have tried but failed to find words to adequately describe the trauma this causes women. The brutality of what raped women have to go through to try and secure justice, knowing a high percentage of them will never be served that justice, makes me feel physically sick, hurts my chest and pricks my eyes with painful tears in equal measure.

“If the defendant reasonably believed she did consent at the time, there is no rape.”
Really? then, I’m almost surprised any rapist is found guilty?

In England & Wales, 1% to 2.6% of reported rapes result in a criminal conviction due to high rates of victim attrition.
(Source: House of Lords Library)

In this particular case the defence had a series of questions to show the nature of the complainants promiscuity (?) I.e. cheating on boyfriend and acknowledged acceptance she had went to RBs for 'transactional sex'. The final statement that broke rhe woman was a disdainful ' you had vaginal sex and finished it off with anal sex'. It was like the whole path of questioning was to set her up as a sl£t then leave the jury with the impression as such she was open for anything and so it would be no surprise anal sex was involved. I can see why such a statement would have broke her and why women do not put themselves through this.

hells bells that’s outrageous & highly depressing.
thankyou

I know you can’t tell everything from the reports, but it’s coming across to me that the defence are doing quite poorly, contrary to some anti-complainant opinions on this thread. Talking as if anal sex is just something you would naturally ‘finish off with’ when we all know it isn’t, even reminding the jury that she was the one wanting a condom (who insists on a condom then allows condomless anal all of a sudden?). As I say, the reports are just bits, but if they’re a fair reflection of how it’s going, I think he may be fucked.

I see one or two troublemakers have gone quiet.

I was making a point about the defence breaking a woman through a line of questioning not presuming how the jury will interpret this. My point is that I can see why women would not want to go through the experience of testifying when the defence can put such arguments.

I’m not sure why you’d think I was talking about you. I mainly had in mind others, although it’s true you have been very pessimistic about the believability of the complainants. I don’t want to name them because I don’t want to bring them back.

I don't know about pessimistic as I actually have changed my mind somewhat. I think there is a breadth of evidence and it is the weight of evidence coupled with independence of complainants that will clinch it. Which specific crimes we will see.

I do think there are holes in some of the evidence though. I think the women are telling the truth but there may be some parts where time impacted memory.

And that's only about reported rapes.
There will of course be high numbers of unreported rapes, the statistics for which we will never know.