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

I know it's from but the defence may try and make it look like some initial fellatio may have been engaged in them Brand grabbed her hair/head and forced the fellatio with perhaps unconsented ejacualtion. Once the penis is in the mouth I guess it becomes impossible to voice lack of consent. It muddies the waters in the defence's favour of it can't be proved there was no initial engagement in this sort of activity (thinking an initial reaction of shock may have been he mouth clamping shut).

That is disgusting and shows how he views women

Pig.

Oh by the way I do think it's rape but I can see how it may be difficult proving initial lack of consent to any form of interaction.

Yup gross but I do see why the defence are trying to imply anal sex was already discussed prior to the alleged rape.

I've just read some of the live updates - at the Fringe show, he was wearing fishnets and pants, before the woman went up to his room. She is the woman who thought he was gay. His clothing in his show (and probably his mannerisms) would back that up.

WILL THE PROSECUTION QUESTION HIM OVER WHAT HE WAS WEARING AS BEING RELEVANT................?

Also, he seems to be saying "I dont remember" to a lot of things. Yet can say that eg he definitely didnt force the woman to take photos of him. It's all so flimsy.

I agree plenty of holes and I think the prosecution were bang on asking if he was making up a defence based on what the prosecution had put foward. The and argue against the things you can and conveniently forget the rest.

I was surprised his barrister asked him that.

Perhaps they’re trying to pre-empt the prosecution asking why Brand has no one who will testify on his befalf giving him the opportunity to try to argue that it’s all ‘because of the documentary’ (which is a rather flimsy reason to me). I think it’s an own goal.

The poster was being ironic

Indeed.

I think he has shot himself in the foot rather by basically claiming to have no recollection of any of these encounters during police questioning - but now on the stand remembering a startling amount of the detail.

The prosecution will surely pull him up on this fact in cross. Of particular note is that he claimed not to remember the Apollo night / threesome - then suddenly say it was particularly memorable to be rimmed right at the start of an encounter ...

That seems a huge error and hopefully will lead the jury to find that his subsequent explanations are fabricated.

I would contrast this sudden remembering of details when it suits to the Apollo complainant who has so much contemporaneous third parties who relate what she said then - many many years prior to the Dispatches programme when Brand was viewed as a bit gross, but a "top shagger" and was immensely famous. She had nothing to gain back then from alleging anal rape in the context of consensual vaginal sex.

** edited to add - not that she has anything to gain now. Quite the opposite - a world of pain and some hugely private details subject to worldwide scrutiny

I'm judging Brand on his documented behaviour. It's a total arsehole.

Yes, it’s the epitome of ‘it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court’.

Is that definately her version of events?

That isn't sounding like rape to me. She could have kept her mouth shut, pushed him, turned her head away, screamed blue murder. I can 100% guarantee that a rapist standing on a loo would not be able to get his todger into my mouth.

Maybe there's some missing information or the report is wrong.

Just after I posted .... go on Riel 💪 "The prosecutor accuses Brand of staying silent on the accusations in his police interviews so that he "forged" his account around the evidence.
"Were you waiting to see all that evidence before you gave your account?" asks Riel Karmy-Jones KC.
Brand replies: "I was doing my best to participate."
The prosecutor points out his police interviews stretched over 18 months, when he "answered nothing".
"Did you wait to get the material and then structured your account around the evidence?" she asks.
He replies he had been "doing his best" during the police interviews.
Referring to the fifth complainant, the prosecutor says in Brand's July 2025 interview with police he made no mention of remembering her or saving her number.
Earlier he told the court that he saved her name with two asterisks next to it, telling the jury that meant: "Never, ever forget this individual, this is a memorable encounter."

I think (hope) this is very damning - and by taking the stand he is opening himself up so much more to negative inferences being drawn from the initial "I can't recall" stance ...

He actually told the jury this? Wow 😯

If I were to call it - this may not succeed esp in light of the fact she went on with him afterwards to an another party. Sadly.

Not saying that is correct.

I think the stronger charges are the labour party conference, the TV researcher and the Apollo case.

Those saying an oral victim could have clamped shut etc is a huge misunderstanding of the dynamic around a sexual assault. People freeze with fear and shock. There will be women who will have clamped shut but many would have felt powerless and just wanted it to be over.
in any case this isn’t about how any of the women did or did not react it’s about whether RB did act in a certain way.

Russell Brand stated in court, ‘I invited her to the lavatory to fool around.’‬

‪That’s been a criminal offence in itself for over 20 years. Sexual Offences Act (2003).‬ It was made law in May 2004. Beforehand homosexual sex was illegal in toilets but not heterosexual sex.

‪‘Invited’ ‘lavatory’ ‘fool around’.‬

Look at the ‘quaint’ language.

This is his defence to a woman who told how she was pushed into a toilet and raped.

There are three tests (I think).

If the sex is consensual it's not guilty.
If the perpetrator believed the sex is consensual AND a reasonable person would have it's not guilty.

So the ease of avoiding this rape is relevant to the first test.

I'd agree some of the other charges the second two tests are more relevant.

Maybe I mosreported the standing but apparently the toilet was flooded. I agree that it is very difficult to force a penis into a shut mouth so any rape has to take advantage of shock. I as just saying you can't necessarily rule out initial consent when the penis entered the mouth and I wonder if the jury will have this view.

I think maybe this was some initial reluctant consent followed by rape because of the inability to remove consent but very difficult to rpove.

Unless there is corroboration for the phone save I don't believe it and as the defence say it's all a blatant pack of lies.

Mind you, he's only got to establish reasonable doubt in 3 out of 12 jurors. It's not impossible, and the alternative is a life sentence.

In general if we're going to infer things from lack of memory (and defendants making up lies about what they remember) we should stop having trials over offences that date back decades.

The "knowing he was a wrong 'un" is not just about what Brand looks like, though, is it?

Which WAS pretty much the entire case, quite wrongly, and on one single case for Christopher Jeffries.

It's not "Brand looking weird" that was leading to anyone "knowing he was wrong un". It's what he himself has said and done, quite openly over the years. Including his TV appearances, Sachsgate and the way he talked about women both onstage and in his book. Which quite specifically relate to the charges we are seeing here.