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

@SpanishFly maybe encouraged is the wrong word, but they told her to do it so they could get the work done because RB was in a bad mood and refusing to proceed without a massage. There are several podcasts that you can listen to The Times, The Crime Desk and BBC.

@KidsDoBetter where are you getting the updates from?

It was made up, in my opinion. The defence got it spot on.

Oh so the police didn’t find it in his phone?

Sky news
Although the prosecutor in fact said says ‘he made no mention to the police of remembering her’ rather than ‘he told the police he didn’t remember her’. Perhaps there’s crucial nuance there. I think he was either lying to the police or lying in court this morning - I think he’s a liar, making him not a credible witness.

If they did it hasn't been reported. The whole phone thing appears to be made up to give some kind of fictional credibility to the idea that claimant No5 was into anal.

I study toilet safety. It is entirely possible. This is why the safest toilets are single sex cubicles which are permitted to have gaps at the top and at the bottom, within a single sex washroom. The gaps are there for health and safety in building standards. It allows an element of supervision and prevents misuse. Brand said he used toilets because they gave him the privacy.

Eh? An iphone stores numbers on icloud. I have many many contacts on my phone from the time I first had one - 2007. He won't have been manually transferring anything across.

Sky news also with some DM

Can I just add; who keeps the number of someone from a brief sexual encounter in the 90s? Our phones have evolved and changed. We update and delete.

2009 I thought it was

There is no suggestion from anywhere credible that he has any phone records to corroborate his (rather unlikely) lie.

A load of people have read "unless there is corroboration he's lying" and come away with the message that there's corroboration.

There's a crisis of comprehension in the western world right now. We are lost. 😢

All power to the brave women in this case. What RB did to them is reprehensible. Having the details of it splashed across the press and pored over on social media must be so hard for them and their families.
I just hope they get justice.

You are clearly too young to know. Trigger was the thicko in Only Fools and Horses.

I don’t understand. Either the police found the phone number saved as TAP** or not?!

For me the fact he said he couldn’t remember a single encounter, despite being interviewed iirc four times over a period of years, and he suddenly now can remember them, throws huge doubt on his honesty.

And he can’t find one single person to vouch for him??? Well I think we can all draw very similar conclusions from that.

What I said was that I have missed the statement that it was the police who had this data from his phone. I'd like to know when this was said by them, or if Brand said it during his evidence, or what. Because if there is nothing other than Brand's word for it, at this point I don't think it convincing.

If the police have said it, then it wasn't made up. If they have not, then it seems to me likely to be made up. Either way, it makes a bit of a nonsense of his Trumpian assertion that he had no recollection of this woman in his statement to the police. I have no recollection who she was but I have her name and comments on her in my phone. Yeah, right.

This is from Sky News https://news.sky.com/story/russell-brand-trial-live-defence-evidence-rape-sexual-assault-latest-13592674

“Prosecutor Riel Karmy-Jones KC again points out alleged inconsistencies in Brand's prepared statement to police and what he has told the jury with regard to the fifth complainant, who accuses of anal rape.
Brand answers: "Ms Karmy-Jones, I completely agree. Since these events occurred there's been escalating recollection.
"It's been a deeply traumatic episode of my life."
Brand adds: "I've focused on it at the expense of my marriage, my children and health.
"I ask your forgiveness, well not your forgiveness. I recognise that this recollection includes small details which are inconsistent, and I recognise that."
The judge then asks: "In this document, do you ever say you asked her if she was up for anal sex?"
Brand replies: "No, but to tell the truth I wasn't looking at sex talk in that way."
Karmy-Jones asks if it's true that he didn't ask if she wanted anal sex.
Brand says: "No, that's not true; that's not what happened."

So he is admitting the “small details which are inconsistent” just happen to be that he suddenly remembers asking consent for anal sex. He didn’t recall that in any of the police interviews over many months/years?

So do we believe a man who has had a sudden epiphany and remembered asking for consent years later or do we believe a woman who told tens of people she had been raped at the time and for years afterwards?

You better hurry along to Battlebridge Lane and tell the judge he’s got it wrong then, because he’s let it past half time so he must think there’s sufficient evidence on which the jury could convict.

But surely you put forward a defence based in the allegations made. Anything else is irrelevant.

Oh I expect you'll be told that this is an example of " a crisis of comprehension in the western world" and that you're really simple and thick in comparison to certain posters who are 100% sure that all a woman has to do to avoid oral rape is to keep her mouth clamped shut bc it's 'really easy' and anyway Brand didn't hold a knife or a gun to her head before dragging her into the toilet so she must have been a willing participant. 🙄

Amazingly for the average rape case, I do actually think - and forgive the terminology in the context of this particular allegation - that he's going down. He's not covered himself in glory so far at all, and his defences have been weak.

The point is that he didn’t advance a defence at the first opportunity. He waited for the prosecution case to unfold pre trial to formulate a defence in response. This is the point the prosecution are making.

I doubt the judge gets his information from what someone on mumsnet described she heard on the news. So he'll probably manage without your input.

Try and let us know how you got on?

Yes and this seems logical. Of you are innocent, how can you offer a defence before you know what you are accused of?

Hear hear

I realise things have moved along - and I may have missed somebody posting this already. First time I've seen it, though.

Concerning the woman who says she thought Brand was gay: in his own words ...