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

This is not logical.

He would have been given more than enough information when questioned three times by the police to recognise the nights in question - if he remembered them. (Not the complete set of all the prosecution's evidence as that is assembled at a much later date obviously as part of the trial preparation). Either he remembered the events or he didn't - in large part. It is understandable if, giving the whole thing further thought, additional details may have come to you. But to go from - I have no recollection at all of these nights and these women to - yes I remember clearly what happened - is going to be, I suggest, potentially problematic for a jury.

I can well imagine at the time him thinking that claiming non recollection was the safest avenue. Before realising that in essence that leaves the complainants' accounts unchallenged.

His defence this afternoon has largely consisted of ‘I can’t remember, except that they consented - I totally remember that.’

Exactly! I hope the jury see it that way too.

Ooft, this is interesting. The way he speaks to the women like shit.
Emily Blunt particularly seems to be disgusted by him....

This could be got around, though.
It's like he's saying, 'No matter what state I was in, I would always have consent.'

It's like I don't remember killing anyone from 20 years ago but I could confidentally say I didn't because it's against my nature.

BTW, Please don't take this as me saying he's innocent, just offering an explanation as how he could get around it.
Hope it makes sense.

It does and i think this is what he's doing. Although tbf the chances of anyone actually believing it's "not in his nature" when there's quite a bit of evidence that it absolutely is, including his own words, means it's unlikely to succeed as a tactic.

Whereas you probably don't have loads of instances where you've made it clear that you might be cool with killing people on occasion. (At least I hope not!)

His strongest defense was him saying morally consent is needed but also for his own ego, he always wanted consent as he was craved the approval of women.

Luckily he won't be getting it from some random victim-blamer's "expertise" and non-knowledge of either details of the cases and what has been reported and what hasn't, or their supposed expert knowledge of what it's like to fend off oral rape, or how a woman can be dragged into a toilet cubicle by a man without the use of a weapon, then isn't it?

Patronising twunt. Give it a rest.

Makes sense to me. The defendant is always going to do and say things that will help their case. That applies equally to the guilty or innocent.

If Brand were innocent of all these offences he'd still be saying and doing exactly the same things because he and his lawyers think that's his best way out. His lawyers wouldn't be saying "Oh, if you're genuinely innocent we'll adopt a completely different strategy."

This should be a mandatory thing for all jurors. I was on a jury earlier this year on a sex assault case and the absolute lack of understanding around consent (and this was by the male jurors) was appalling, as was the victim blaming which went on. Was an absolute eye opener to me about what many men still think/understand about consent.

Luckily he won't be getting it from some random victim-blamer's "expertise" and non-knowledge of either details of the cases and what has been reported and what hasn't,

Yes it is. That why I thought and said it was a foolish suggestion. Glad you agree.

I agree that this is likely to evoke the sympathy vote/ show him as a caring father. I definitely can't comment on GOS hospital, all I can say is that the hospital ward i work on has cubicles and we have certainly had people visit who we are aware may have accusations or previous convictions. I doubt his fame helped, but I also confess I find it challenging to believe the way he's putting the account forward. When our very young son was on the high dependency unit in hospital only one parent was allowed to stay overnight so I did as his mother. So I wonder if his wife stayed under similar rulings but it fits his narrative now to say that he was excluded.

In any event I feel hopeful hearing reports on his responses on the stand and the fact he couldn't find a single person in his life who would be willing to say they don't think he was capable of doing what he's been accused of is absolutely damning. I know the burden of proof is so high in cases such as this but regardless of the outcome I believe the women.

i hope for your sake that you have absolutely no idea how you would react in that situation. Because saying that the woman should’ve reacted differently is absolutely vile victim blaming rape apology territory.

The defense and the prosecution can both apply for a key witness to be subpoenaed (compelled to testify). However, this is potentially a risky thing to do for both sides since you don't know what the (reluctant and possibly resentful) witness will say. The most obvious route for someone who doesn't want to testify is "I don't remember" etc. of course quite like they actually don't remember it well, if it was a while ago. But that is then embarrassing for the prosecution/defence who insisted that the evidence they had was important to getting to the truth of the case. It risks pissing of the judge/jury by prolonging the trial for no good outcome. Worst case scenario the witnesses say something detrimental to the case (imagine if the defense called them and they said yeah actually it happened like the witness described).

I don't agree. You're full of it.

As I say, give it a rest.

Exactly. But despite the fact-free crap that poster has been spouting, they're busily patronising everyone else with their supposed "intelligence" and "expertise". Which they really don't appear to possess themselves.

As I say, the "arguments" seem oddly familiar.

RB was questioned by police 4 times and failed to remember a woman that he claims rimmed him within a few minutes of meeting and that he entered into his phone a code that meant “Never, ever forget this individual, this is a memorable encounter."

How odd that he didn’t recall her in the hours that he must have been questioned by police.

That woman had to seek medical attention, was traumatised and developed an alcohol problem. But we’ve to feel sorry for RB because he’s had to focus on this trial and has neglected his wife and children.

I know the conclusion I’d be making if I was on the jury. I feel sick for all these women.

So no one will touch him with a barge pole or come out in support of him? Everyone knew.

Distancing themselves as fast as possible lest they're implicated.

Given how many apparently enabled him, I'm not really surprised.

If Russell Brand is convicted I hope Jonathan Ross is questioned for his part in supporting his behaviour, for one.

@hihelenhi @ThinkOfABetterUsername

Glad it makes sense.

It's like it's, 'hey I've had so much sex with so many different women that I can't reasonably be expected to remember what happened with all of them, or indeed who they were, but it's not in my nature to have unconsensual sex, so I can be sure that I didn't.'

As a defence in itself, it's plausible.

It has a cool reasonability to it.

In other words not being able to recall in Itself does not necessarily point towards him being guilty.

Even though he may be.

So we end up with the bizarre situation where there are two named witnesses to a crime who aren't going to be asked what happened.

In extreme crimes like these I'd have thought not remembering would be useful evidence in itself.

I think the judge should be able to subpoena witnesses and then they wouldn't resent either side but then I guess the judge needs very broad and detailed knowledge which I guess he doesn't have.

If new evidence that wasn't covered at a trial comes up I guess that's grounds for appeal. So I wonder if it's possible to have a situation where a key witness wasn't involved in the trial and then after conviction the witness says "OK, I'm prepared to exonerate the defendant now." and they have to go to all the expense of an appeal?

🙏🏾 🙏🏾 🙏🏾

The comments insinuating oral rape can be avoided simply by closing your mouth are reminiscent of the old fashioned trope that a woman ‘only needs to keep her legs crossed to avoid rape’. It doesn’t take into account the strength differential, forceful nature of assault, being taken by surprise, freezing in shock before getting chance for flight or fight to kick in.

That he was unable to recall any of these women would be reasonable and might point to his not being guilty.

That he is now able to recall one of them by name, phone number, sexual proclivities. and the fact that he was never ever to forget her. might hole that particular defence below the waterline.