Russell Brand 🤢🤮 in the Docky Wock

[U53rName]

Credit to @thebrowncatisback for the title. Original thread is here: www.mumsnet.com/talk/in_the_news/5589048-russell-brand?callback=in&code=YTEWYJJJMZQTMJFHNS0ZNDI5LTK3N2QTZWJHYWNHZJGXNZA2&page=39&state=aa7521b41da5458084d85ced7c73c27d

One thing that the jury shouldn't think about but being human may is that a conviction for the more serious charges effectively removed a father from 3 young children for their formative years. Could there be members of the jury who might think these are appalling crimes but we're committed some time ago and by finding Brand guilty of would be some sort of " collective punishment' on a family. I know this should not be a consideration at all but I am more and more thinking the defence may be one of just trying to get leniency.

Can I ask you something please? At one of the trials where I was a jury member the prosecution presented video evidence of the defendant behaving in a similar manner, on a previous occasion, to the offence of which he was accused. It showed how he liked to behave. I was surprised they could do that. In this particular case wouldn’t his proclivities etc make up part of the prosecution’s case to show what he what he was capable of? His character?

@Whosthetabbynow But RB explains his own behaviour himself. He was “shagger of the year”. He does own this side to his character, but says all the sex was with consent.

I am wondering how the judge will view the recent US media coverage where their children are being used. Baby had heart surgery etc. I don’t follow the Brands but if you don’t use your kids all the time in your socials or media, I get the impression they don’t, how will the judge view that now? Marina Hyde thought the case may be thrown out of court. Is this what they’re trying to do?

I agree although maybe the judge feels it gives a great illustration of the man RB is.

Mind you, I don’t winder if he does the buttons up before he goes into the court room?!

Do you think a jury can be kept away from the internet for a month?.is this a realistic prospect..if the jury do go on their mobiles they will be presented with a vast array of opinionion, it would be like a side trial.

Quite.

@mids2019A sworn juror who reads press coverage risks being removed from the jury and could, if the conduct is serious enough, face contempt of court proceedings carrying up to two years' imprisonment. UK courts treat this as a threat to the defendant's right to a fair trial - it’s really serious and the jury will have been well warned. Mr Justice Bennathan will probably warn them about this repeatedly, including it in his remarks at the end of every day the court sits, when he dismisses them.

Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, Andrew Windsor Mountbatten (demoted & pariah), Dr. Frankenstein...

Absolutely, in theory they can, just like in the case in which you were on the jury. I think the prosecution will be very choosy in how much of his past behaviour if any they try to bring in. Much of it he could brush off with ‘it’s just my stage persona’, and anything they used to show propensity would have to be capable of helping to prove what’s in dispute ie lack of consent and his awareness of that, and there’s a good argument that just wanting to shag 5000 women or whatever doesn’t do that. So it depends exactly what behaviour we’re talking about. I haven’t read his books so I don’t know what’s in there. I haven’t seen the documentary either, but I’m pretty sure that although unproven serious allegations can sometimes be admitted as bad character evidence, you can’t generally throw in a load of complaints from absent women who can’t be cross examined so I don’t think we’re going to be hearing about any of that.

I also expect to a large extent RB is going to be admitting what he ‘used’ to be like - he kind of has to if he wants to be able to swan into court holding a bible as he can’t pretend to be holier than thou without the prosecution calling him out on it. And many of the jury know anyway. I think the prosecution will want these allegations to speak for themselves. One way in which they might want to use the bad character principles is in asking for the jury to be able to use one count, if they find the behaviour proved, to help them on another, which they can sometimes do subject to a careful direction from the judge.

The Andrew Sachs incident gives a good insight into the character of RB.
Johnathan Ross was his cohort in the so-called 'prank'.
Odious creatures.

I despise the pair of them for this.

The best mate I'm most disappointed in is Noel Gallagher, though.

I know Gallagher's not perfect-who is?-but I really thought he'd have some sense to realise what an absurd twat Brand is.

(Also want to make it clear that I have NEVER EVER thought Gallagher is dodgy and still don't.)

Wonder where these friends are now? Distancing themselves I suspect.

I mean it's perfectly OK to use a platform for general support without doing anything illegal, isn't it? Surely a good friend would do this?

If his celebrity friends are not doing this, it shows lack of faith in his innocence.

Many thanks for that clarification x

@easteregg is it odd that the documentary participants have not been included though? Their stories are very similar and show a pattern of behaviour.

One thing that concerns me is that the most recent evidence is that Brand's sexual 'adventures' were an everyday depressing occurence. Hopefully the jury will not think that if only 6 women can forward why not others? I am sure there were others but I wouldn't want to think the impression is given that the offences were 'mis remembered' as there was a lot of concensual though sordid episodes going on throughout a significant period of time.

Could this be that the defence may wish to portray the documentary as a press lead witch hunt that potentially could have pressurised complainants? Isn't it better for all the complainants be independent of that production so that the waters aren't muddied? Just a thought.

Another thing coming from this case a whole though it is a side issue is the ability for management and HR to sweep things under a carpet. I am sure if you had secured a prime job with a successful media company like MTV you knew your career would be over if you want directly to the police with a very serious allegations which we difficult to prove against ultra top talent. Surely that would be career is media over?

If the poor woman chooses the HR route then you would simply be gaslighted to drop the accusation (I have seen this in other areas) and gently threatened if you decide to take it further.

I’m just wondering how RB would remember each complainant given the frequency of his sexual encounters which wouldn’t be good for his defence i wouldn’t have thought. Just normal behaviour. Interesting the defence didn’t cross examine his PA . Interesting to see which witnesses he’s called.

For those who have been following this closely - we may find out tomorrow if he’s chosen to give evidence. The prosecution will rest tomorrow.

Anyone want to call it - will he take the stand or no?

My instinct is he will desperately want to - his arrogance and ego will tell him he can speak in his calm fake man of god voice and mesmerise the jury into believing him.

BUT on balance - his self preservation will kick in. And he will take the advice of counsel that the evidence is not overwhelming from the complainants and he’s best to remain schtum. It will kill him but he won’t take the stand.

I’d say he’s unlikely to take the stand but we shall see in the coming days

I think he will take the stand. Perhaps quote from Isaiah?

I called it earlier and my bet remains the same. He will give evidence I think.

@Mamamia35I watched the Dispatches doc yesterday afternoon.

Following the media investigation, the Met conducted its own inquiry. That inquiry led first to five charges involving four women, and later to two additional charges involving two further women, making seven charges involving six complainants in total.

The public reporting indicates that the original five charges relate to allegations between 1999 and 2005 involving four women, including allegations of rape, sexual assault and indecent assault in England.
So it is not correct that none of the UK-based allegations are part of the current criminal proceedings. Several of the charges appear to stem from allegations that were already public by the time of the Dispatches investigation.

Also: two of the women featured in the Dispatches doc made allegations stemming from Brand’s
behaviour while he was in LA. In criminal law, jurisdiction is generally tied to where the alleged offence occurred. If an alleged rape or sexual assault took place in Los Angeles, the primary criminal jurisdiction would ordinarily be California/United States authorities, not the courts of England and Wales.

@Piglet89
I am not sure what you mean, the Times podcast said it’s different women in the current trial. However I see on the BBC that his assistant (who was in the documentary) gave evidence today.

@Mamamia35which episode of the Times podcast said that none of the complainants in the current trial featured in Dispatches?

I’ve listened to all of them so I’m afraid I can’t recall which one it was.