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'm very depressed to read that the thoroughly brainwashed, indoctrinated, cult of Brand follower, Laura, is representing his character in court.
After all she has sat and listened to from these 6 traumatised women, all the details they have so bravely talked about, all day every day during the trial so far, still she is willing to take to the stand today and describe him to the court as a lovely and kind man.
I despair of her.

You could say this about any allegation of any crime. And just not bother to have s trial for any offence /just sentence anyone for any reason based merely on a claim by someone else😂
There is a reason why we have a system where credible evidence has to be produced - not just simply ‘believing’ anything said by a complete stranger that chimes with your own prejudices.

The whole point is that no-one was!
He said/she said.

I think there’s some sort of psychological protection going on in her brain. Otherwise there would have to be an acknowledgement that the man she selected to be the father of her children is a predator.

Generally when someone is describing a stolen phone or a violent physical assault most people do take them at their word (all other things being equal). That doesn't mean the person accused of stealing the phone/robbing the house/committing the assault doesn't deserve a fair trial and the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty in court. But, (while insurance fraud is actually much more common than lying about sexual assault,) if a friend or stranger complained their house had been robbed the go to response would not be "allegedly, that hasn't been proven😂" most of the time. It's only threads about rape/sexual assault that seem to bring all these weird little men out of the woodwork to question if it is even possible to orally rape someone, discuss the money orientated nature if females, complain that women would have been throwing themselves at famous men anyway. It's apparently only those crimes that deserve the 😂😂😂response.

Ehh

Is every single one of them remaining anonymous??

It’s ok to express an opinion on whether or not you think someone is likely to be guilty. This can be based on pretty much anything because it makes no difference at all to whether that person is found guilty in court. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to assume that the women are telling the truth due to how many of them there, the fact they are unconnected and that they have nothing to gain other than justice. That’s nothing to do with not liking the look of him. Nobody is suggesting that Russell Brand doesn’t deserve a fair trial just because of these facts or that someone expressing them on Mumsnet will make a button of difference.

Yes, it comes down to credibility of the complaints/defendent. There was fuck all point in calling Laura Brand as a defence ‘witness’ because she was a witness to nothing during the relevant period. It was akin to damning him with faint praise because of course his wife who has stuck by him throughout his shit show is going to say he’s a marvellous husband and has never raped her isn’t she.

I was stalked about 15 years ago by my ex partners friend, who relentlessly stood outside my house, called me non stop, broke into the empty flats that were getting ready to be demolished and watched my lounge windows, literally rang me on private 300 times a day, threatened to rape me in front of my children, threaten to throw lit matches through my letter box. I lived in fear for the best part of half a year. He got not guilty on the ridiculous assumption by the defence that I was obsessed with my ex husband and made it all up to get back at the ex. It doesnt even make sense..... I mean, its just dreadful really I had the police out several times a day and i was followed everywhere to the doctors, to tesco, told what I looked like, and were able to describe my clothing even said i saw you with your aunt wheelijg thebtrolley back to the car, told me they wanted to punch me and smash my glasses into my eyes when they saw me walking around town, I felt so let down and not beleived. I was crying my eyes out in court. Crying for my twins at home, it was awful. And the jury were smirking and I felt stupid. The worst part is that my detective had proof of several withheld numbers calling all hours all night by this horrible man and they assumed that I had a friendly relationship with the stalker to be talking on the phone all the time. Ive moved home 3 times since then, never truly got over it. He knew all my personal problems as well including health problems as nasty ex had happily spilled everything about personal vaginal health issues and my abusive childhood, when they told me my address and told me they could see me walking with two 3yr old twins and they wanted to kill me was absolutely awful. Jury didnt give a monkeys and it was mostly male.

It just all stinks

Here here and I hope also the fact he was on great terms with Jimmy revolting Saville also gets played out in court to show his character at every angle!!

Well that's it for today until closing arguments tomorrow. Other than LB and one exGF - he hasn't got a single person to speak in his defence.

This was an interesting exchange:

"Brand agreed she had been at Russell's side through most of the trial and had been making notes in court.
Winter went on: "What is your view as to the truth of the allegations?"
At this point, the judge swiftly jumped in, saying forcefully: "No, no, no."
Mr Justice Bennathan added: "She is not an expert witness."
Winter then tweaked his question, asking: "What is your view as to his character?"
But then the lead prosecutor stood, saying: "No... that is wholly unacceptable."

Even if it had been allowed, I think an average jury is fairly likely to completely disregard her views on his guilt in any case ....hardly compelling evidence eh.

The only other minor thing of note was that LB claimed in her evidence that she and RB "hung out" during the period 2007 when they broke up (due to his infidelity) and 2015 when they restarted their current relationship.

But the prosecution then reminds her that in a podcast she stated they hadn't seen each other at all in the intervening period. Which is it I wonder.

I didn’t realise LB was giving evidence? The only evidence for the defence, including RB I assume?

It's not pointless though.

It wouldn't sway me as I am of the view that it's perfectly possible that there's a bit of the Madonna/Whore concept with Brand going on, are the jury?
Yes I am aware that a man can treat one woman like a queen, another like dirt, are the jury?

It does no harm to put her up there, as she's only going to be saying on the whole good things about him and it may just do go good for Brand.

Seeing what sticks, if you like. Operating under the principle of if it may do good and, crucially, it's unlikely to harm Brand, do it.

I wonder why none of the charges in the documentary were prosecuted?

I'd imagine none of the complainants in those cases wanted to, sadly. It's not really possible for the CPS to proceed with certain types of cases if the complainant does not want to - for obvious reasons.

Yes, totally, and I agree about telling her parents. I’m just saying that I don’t really see the logical link between ‘kinky’ and up for anal. However kinky you may be, anal is on another level in terms of need for preparation, pain, risk of injury. But yes I suppose that’s the line the defence are going down, plus the ‘AP’ note sowing a seed of doubt she may have given some indication she was up for it specifically. Wouldn’t work on me, but I’m not on the jury!

Am I right to presume that not being able to have any independent person there to speak in your defence is not good? Is that common? Is it a concern?

I know nothing about this sort of stuff so just wondering, if anyone knows…

Christ well let’s hope the jury are more intelligent than to be swayed by the ‘but he never raped me’ ‘defence’.

Several of these accusations arose from behaviour that happened extra jurisdictionally (in LA) so English authorities probably wouldn’t have jurisdiction to prosecute those.

I’m wondering if some defence witnesses dropped out at the last minute because why would you say at the start it could last 8 weeks But it’s been what 3?

I don't imagine it is damning really. General good character - or indeed poor character -evidence isn't really relevant I would suggest in a case like this.

Brand by his own admission in various books, interviews, podcasts etc was really quite an odious person* in his personal conduct, particularly towards women. Does that in and of itself make him a rapist - no.

Similarly two ex-girlfriends being prepared to say - yes he was a f*ckboy but he never forced himself on me sexually is also kind of neither here nor there.

*Before of course his convenient and very public conversion to Christianity after all the allegations came to light

Not that uncommon in this scenario to have no one or v few people give evidence for the defence when it’s a credibility issue. All anyone can say is - as here - he has never crossed any boundaries with me.