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 think that was an impressive comment from the complainant under duress. In my opinion the prosecution or judge should be intervening when the defence goes down this line. The defence seem to want to portray the complainant as being morally defective in terms of just wanting 'transactional sex ' and cheating on her boyfriend with the hope that the jury may be more reluctant to believe the complaint. To actually face down the defence with the entirely reasonable comment that the trial isn't about morality is brave and importantly the jury may have taken notice.

Oh god please let him go to jail!

I did and hope the jury don't . I think this is a ploy to sway public opinion mainly and also the jury of any of them happen to see it. The presence of Brands wife and the children's slide in the background is to show a stable family life and to remind the jury that a conviction would be removing a father from his young children effectively. The preaching is to put in the mind of the public a character vastly removed from the one in the trial and to suggest a reformed man that is potentially remorseful and no threat to the community at present. I know practising Christians are few and far between now but if one would be on the jury would they condemn a fellow Christian spreading the good word?

by the way does anyone know if the jury will have access to the internet during the approximate month of the trial? It would seem impractical in 2026 to keep anyone offline for a month.....

Very good point about getting the trial stopped.
Though you'd think that he would also suffer from this hanging over his head. Not as much as the women, though.

Sunday Service is bizarre:

I saw two chickens the other day. The more colourful male was strutting in front of the more dully coloured female. They were tiny and very cute.

This put me in mind of Brand and his wife. Not the cute part obviously.

I'm going to be straight and say that she is far more ordinary than he is and as such she is totally in awe of him.
Useful for him, eh?
You can just see why Katy Perry got chucked by him.
Can't have somebody as more charismatic, famous and physically attractive than him as her in his life. Though it must have seemed a good idea at the time.

The sort of man he is is really clear, isn't it?

A colleagues commented yesterday that the women could possibly be making these allegations up for fame and fortune

where is the logic? How does this trial make them money? I would hardly say there’s a book deal to be had from any of these stories and i cant imagine there is a huge amount of compensation to be claimed

🙄

even more mind boggling are the people who claim he’s being set up by the Government for his claims about big pharma

I presume the jury will be reminded (frequently) that they must not look at anything online about this case, and that would include his YouTube channel. If they have this be dismissed and themselves in trouble.

Mind you, surely any sane person only has to watch for 5 mins to see what he’s actually doing.
I wonder if he’ll go on the stand, I suspect his legal team wont want him to.

Unless the complainants have been absolutely destroyed, and it’s not coming across to me that they have, he’ll pretty much have to give evidence. It will be interesting to see how he does with all his long words then.

Yes it will be very interesting. I expect the prosecution would want to question at length and in precise detail.

There was interesting commentary on the slew of podcasts that have sprung up around the trial on The Rest is Entertainment this week. They said that the Times absolutely BBC ones are hosted by experienced court reporters and have a team of lawyers who make sure that the content stays the right side of the line so they don't risk ruining the trial, but that influencers and other online commentary, such as by Brand himself, have no such guard rails. It's surprising the judge hasn't stepped in but maybe they have no control about what he says on his social media?

I've listened to most of the BBC ones. Very good and factual with explainers for any legal terms. Probably because there will be an American audience listening as well. Absolutely horrific details though. You really get a sense of how manipulative and seedy he is.

The lying for money idea is crazy. For a start they are all anonymous so how could they use the attention for any financial end even if that were the motivation.

And if one wanted money, it would be far easier to sue in a civil court rather than pursue criminal proceedings where the burden of proof is higher and there's no payout in the end.

I am really concerned that social media support for RB will sway the jury and he will walk.

I found The Trial Podcast from Marina Hyde’s reference. The two journalists explain in great detail. They said the court is getting through the evidence much quicker than anticipated. I also watched RB’s YouTube after Marina suggested the case may be thrown out for contempt of court.

I’ve just listened to the latest BBC one and it sounds like Number 5 had a very tough time yesterday. It seems she was interviewed for the Ch4 prog and seems to have discrepancies in what she’s said. It just sounds horrendous and I believe her. Part of the defence seemed to be because she didn’t explicitly message RB that he raped her, then it wasn’t rape. I hope these women are ok after this. Such a brave thing to do.

I also feel concern for Laura Gallagher. I can’t see how you could listen to this information and not be adversely affected by it. I couldn’t put some of these descriptions out of my mind. I hope she has the strength to divorce him when this is over.

She did an amazing job but here’s my worry having been in her position in a court room. I was asked by defense..
What were you wearing to bed that night?
Me.. A vest top and knickers.
Defence.. can you not see how that might be confusing for a man?
Me.. (head ready to explode) Not really the restraint marks prove he wasn’t confused at all. But yeah let’s blame it on what I was wearing and not the fact your sticking up for a piece of shit that gets off on pinning a woman half his size to a bed so he can rape her.
Judge banged his hammer and told me to only answer the question I’d been asked.
Along with this the defense accused me of being a feisty woman who could clearly stand up for myself. (I told her it was a lot easier to stick up for myself in a court room than it was having 14 stone on top of you.
He was found not guilty. Looking back now (2 years) I sort of regret arguing back, I don’t think the jury saw a victim, it would have been better if I’d just stood there crying and shaking (according to the police this is what my rapist did the entire time I was on the stand, I couldn’t see him because of a screen)
From what I’ve seen there I had a lot more evidence than these poor women have, I’m hoping there’s power in numbers for them.

I think there's power in numbers here in a way but then again I suppose it could be argued that 'only' 6 out of the large number of women he had sex making accusations against him may seem insignificant.

I think that a lot of women like myself and many others believe the accusers but I think that a lot of men won't.

I am really, really hoping that the I'm sorry text he sent after the 'animal' comment makes the male jury members think,

Hang on, why is he apologising? I'd be horrified if I'd had consensual sex with a woman and she said something like that. If I were innocent that accusation of treating her like an animal would shake me to the core.

Also it is good that another man, his former mate, said how strange he'd been.

These things matter when 2/3 jury are men.

I don’t know if there’s any truth in this but somebody posted on the first thread that statistically women are just as likely to go not guilty as men.. apparently they picture their own sons. Again no idea if there’s any truth in this.

i think women are just a likely to find him
nor guilty. Sad but true

@ItalianChipswell done for being so strong. That jury are sickening

Im finding the Times podcast good and also BBC fame under fire is always really strong

I imagine the courtroom hears a lot of details that aren’t reported. It must be excruciating to go through this as a victim. I wonder if Laura recognises any behaviours from her husband

Slowly, i think things are changing for victims. Thanks to the bravery of victims: the Pelicot case in France stands out as an example where a woman has refused to be shamed into silence.

Most would want to hide away if this happened to them but of course have done nothing wrong

A friend of mine is a sitting criminal judge and said that male jurors are much more likely to go with a guilty verdict from the off in a rape or sex assault case, whilst women are much more ‘let’s listen to the evidence and what the law actually says’.

this view was backed up by someone I know who was a juror on a sex crime case last year. Some male jurors were self employed and wanted to get back to work asap…

RB is worth 20M and so he would have deep pockets to get the best if the best in terms of defence. I assume in legal circles the KC would have a formidable reputation.

I get the impression the defence were hoping for an explosion to undermine the complainants case. The defence made it sure that the jury fully understood she was a a groupy and she had lowered her sexual threshold to engage with Brand and that the visit was about one thing sex. There also the irrelevant fact the complainant was in a relationship....again this is about leaving an impression of the complainant with the jury.

Even the term transactional sex had a connotation of prostitution, again it's about perception.

My concern is that in an era where the defence should no longer refer to clothing or previous sexaul history it is still valid to try and portray a woman as morally bankrupt sexually to undermine her claim to justice.

where can we see these please ?

I cannot bring myself to watch any more of the vlog that he and Laurs do. I saw a short bit, where he stares at her the entire time she's talking, then explains what she means (when it was already completely obvious what she meant) - then he tucks her hair behind her ear for her. He obv does this a lot, as she doesn't even register that he has done it.

Anyway, has anyone watched any of them, and could shine a light on what Laura thinks about it - ie does she think all these women are lying? Does she think they are embellishing consensual experiences?

Why did that fuck piece of a defence barrister keep insisting over and over that the woman wanted anal?!

No. That's the reason why she's there. She wanted vaginal and it became non consensual when he started doing the anal without asking. It wouldn't make any difference when he stopped. By putting it there he did anal without consent. Rape.

Apparently when the women have been giving evidence she’s been raising her eyebrows/rolling her eyes. I think I heard this on The Times podcast. She fully supports him and presumes they are lying.