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

The one most likely to have a book in the pipeline is not any of the accusers, it’s the one currently standing by him ironically - his wife.

I'm glad that you have said this given that you're an expert.
As a layperson, I couldn't understand why it was indecent assault and thought it made no sense.
Thanks for putting it into words.

I wonder if the fact he’s says in his statement that he doesn’t recall any of the complainants will work in his favour or not? Equally some of the footage on the documentary demonstrates him crossing boundaries, eg pulling his trousers down and sitting on a female guests’s lap without her consent, talking about enjoying putting his penis in a females mouth so deep their mascara runs. I’m sure this can be brought up as evidence of his capacity to cross boundaries. If he does this in public what does he do behind closed doors. Also did he sue channel 4 for defamation ???

I wonder if the fact he’s says in his statement that he doesn’t recall any of the complainants will work in his favour or not?

Works against. If he can't remember them the only narrative is the complainant's and if the jury only hears one version that's the version they will tend to accept.

So he’ll be found guilty for all of them then ?

That's quite a leap!

How can his wife stand by him? That's all I have to say.

Many reasons, one being that she believes him.
Probably also being brainwashed.
Can't admit to herself that she's chosen to marry a rapist.
Can't admit to herself that the father of her children is a rapist.

I watched this today (it's long, I had it on while I was working). It's Andrew Sachs granddaughter basically sticking up for him. The first 3/4 of it is mostly about her life and the Sachsgate phone call, but her and the podcast hosts then go onto say that they think he's been 'set up' because he speaks up about big pharma, and that the girls are possibly misremembering. Then she goes on to say 'Women should support women' 🤦‍♀️

It looks like the link isn't working properly. It's called Russell Brands Ex Tells All-Georgina Baillie-Pod 839

Well he can’t remember any of events so they only have the victim’s version of all the allegations ? So surely that means he’ll be found guilty of all the charges ?

What’s your opinion?

Personally I don't like the potential defence of reframing consensual sex as rape as it may evoke some dubious psychiatric theories of traumatic events not being clearly stored as clear memory. Could RB be calling on psychiatrists to give evidence on memory retention and shaping over time?

I also think there was a mistake made with one sexual assault charge being dropped as the judge thought it assault. I think I it was a a charge brought to show pattern of behaviour which is understandable but I can see in reality as sexual assault may not have taken place. The women herself called the police I believe to ensure other women weren't vulnerable to this behaviour and much worse rather than maybe being fundamentally traumatised herself. It gave the impression of the prosecution 'show horning' in charges in and I don't know if the acquittal on this one charge may somehow influence the jury.

That makes no sense.
If the events were fabricated he obviously couldn’t remember them!
Up to the jury to decide if the accusers are telling the truth, not just to assume they happened because he has no counter version.

I am under the impression that he couldn't remember the women full stop.

Now if I am right, the evidence provided by his peers saying how anxious he was after the first alleged rape really refutes that.

As an aside, I always think peer evidence counts for a lot.

It’s only what you might call a technical acquittal on the basis that it didn’t reflect the evidence. A new count has been added to better reflect the evidence, and the meat of the allegation continues. I don’t think it will affect how the jury approach the case.

On the question of whether he will give evidence, I’m starting to get on the fence on this. The reason being his statements that he can’t remember any of the women. If he really is saying that, then that makes it more likely he will stay out of the witness box. The way the cross examination went gave me the impression that he was putting forward a positive case about what happened. But now I see that may not be the case. I know many will be wanting to hear from him, but personally I will be fine with him not giving evidence, as I think on balance it’s worse for him.

Exactly: I was playing devil’s advocate

Exactly. They will just prove him unreliable as he can’t remember. You can stand up for something you have no recollection of.

Will defence call Brand first if he’s decided to give evidence?

Is no recollection the equivalent of no comment on a police station. It a means to avoid further self incrimination as I think Brand personally would do himself no favours taking the stand?

Why do you want it to be worse for him when you have no idea if he is guilty or not, as do none of us!

@easteregg In one of the podcasts of the cross examination on Woman 5 (it may be the Trial one from the Mail) IIRC they said that RB had told the woman he was going to do anal. If he doesn’t remember her, how could he be sure he said this? I’ll need to listen back.

I don't think anyone has said for sure he doesn't remember, it's just conjecture that he might well not.