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

In his statements to police read out yesterday he says he doesn’t remember the complainants.

🙄

Yes. Defendant goes first before any other defence evidence. So we should find out today.

What an odious creep. There are people you come across that you just know are wrong uns.

There are certain people that just make my flesh crawl. Russell Brand is one of them, why all those woman found him attractive is beyond me. As a child I thought Jimmy Saville was horrible but was too young to identify why. David Walliams is another one who gives me the creeps.

Giving the impression of being an odious creep is not yet a criminal offence.

OK how does having a some that needs heart surgery (heart tending as it is) material to a rape trial. The surgery seems to impact the material facts of the trial in no immediate way?.Does this mean RB is presuming he will be found guilty of something and wishes to elicit sympathy and possible leniency upon sentencing; is this allowed?

I said I’ll be fine with it, not that I’ll be dancing in the streets. He will decide based on what is best for the defence, taking on board the advice he receives. It logically follows that whatever he decides will be the best option in the circumstances for the defence, so there’s no point anyway in hoping for what might be worse for him. I shouldn’t really have said ‘worse for him’, what I mean really is that not giving evidence has its pitfalls, and unlike some posters have previously said, not giving evidence isn’t some easy escape for him.

He’s giving evidence now.

There are people you come across that you just know are wrong uns.

Christopher Jefferies was one such person.

He is trying to to elicit sympathy. I can’t see a world in which a hospital would refuse to let a parent stay with a sick child on the basis of allegations which at that stage were not even criminal allegations. Even if he had been on bail or awaiting trial, why would that possibly impact on his being able to stay with his child? Absolutely zero relevance to this case.

I usually have faith in the jury system but this is a man who I think could convince many people that black is white. Why else would anyone be taken in for a moment by his faux religious awakening?

I have found the evidence on the anal rape allegation to be compelling. Unlike other allegations there is a lot more contemporaneous corroboration.

"this is a man who I think could convince many people that black is white"

I do agree with this and I fear he will have a stronger influence on the jury because of it.
And I think he knows it, too.

RB seems quite rehearsed in his defence and the general theme seems to be be enjoyed a lot of consensual sex and these events were just part of that cycle. Brand is suggesting invitations for activity that obviously weren't suggested during the prosecution. I was surprised RB took the stand but there you go......does he questioned by the prosecution?

It’s telling he hasn’t been able to persuade anyone to come forward to defend him in court.

But if he is saying the events did not take place who could come forward to defend him on those soecific charges? A ‘character’ witness is utterly pointless. If a person accuses another of an offence from years ago and there are no witnesses or other evidence how can you know who is telling the truth?
Really worries me about the integrity of juries when there are so many posters who dislike the public persona of a complete stranger and are happy to convict them of a heinous crime regsrdless of the truth or provable facts.

I don’t think it’s purely a case of disliking his public persona. In many ways he was a bit like Jimmy Saville - hiding in plain sight. Some of the things he said even in the noughties where we had hideous lad mags etc really crossed a line.

We all know that there are so many examples of powerful men thinking that they are entitled to exercise their power over women. This is just another example. We also know that many of these men evade justice - let’s not forget that Jimmy Saville never faced justice in his lifetime.

The problem with the oral rape potentially is that the question arises why did the woman simply not clamp he not shut prior to penetration especially as Brand was standing on a toilet which may have required balance. How can you prove that initial cell relationships was voluntary but force on the head was not? Might be difficult to envisage for the jury....

Yes, after he’s been examined by his defence barrister then he will be cross-examined by the prosecution barrister, and after that he will be re-examined by his defence barrister. The same process took place for the witnesses for the prosecution when they gave their evidence.

He was innocent though. Odd looking perhaps....

Very. Look how many people came out to defend Depp. I can’t think of another celebrity case where NO ONE will come to their defence. It’s because they’ve all witnessed the behaviour.

His evidence so far this morning is sickening. “Flirty eyes” etc, he takes sex as the inevitable consequence of women being nice

Yep, I’m not sure what the intent was behind that tactic but it doesn’t give good optics.

That was my point.

I’m not surprised he’s taken the stand. He’s always fancied himself as very clever hadn’t he?

Ugh. I can't imagine that's particularly straightforward, if a man is making you gag, is standing over you and probably is gripping your hair. All while looking possessed.

He tells the jury he saved the woman's telephone number in his phone afterwards.
His lawyer asks how he entered her name.
Brand says he saved three letters next to her name: T and AP.
He says the T denoted "tart" - "what I used to denote casual hook-ups" - and the letters AP stood for "anal play", meaning "fooling around with anal sex".
He says he also put two asterisks next to her name, which he tells the jury meant: "Never, ever forget this individual, this is a memorable encounter."

He is Gross!

?

Christopher Jeffries was nearly a miscarriage of justice