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

Can you IMAGINE the flack a female celeb would get if half of this came out about them

I’m not so sure about that. RB has made out this is a conspiracy because he’s been critical of the state etc. A jury member could share the same theories and thus think it’s all a set up.

I don’t think using your wife as a character reference is a good look. Of course she’s going to support him. But some jury members might now think we’ll be taking a man away from his family… it’s a clever way to finish. Put it this way, if Gisele P hadn’t been the victim, I’m sure she’d have vouched for Mr Pelicot too.

They probably called her because that’s all they’ve got. Didn’t he say yesterday that he hadn’t got anybody in his life (friends/colleagues) that would be willing to stand up and say.. this is a good guy.
I thought he Said nobody would touch him with a barge poll and blamed this on the documentary that was aired on channel 4.
The only person in the public eye that I’ve seen defending him is Daniella Westbrook and I doubt she’d do his defense any good.

Calling his wife is just silly though, like someone else said, similar to getting his mum up on the stand.
I guess the defense is just doing there job though.

I reckon his PA actually worked in his favour -— of all the time working for him and being around him and seeing all the women going on and out of his bedroom. She didn’t witness anything illegal.

Whilst clearly despising him she didn’t see him cross the line.

this will work in his favour - far more than a few mates saying he’s a great lad.

The jury will have been fully aware he has kids prior to this. He referenced his youngest being poorly in his own evidence. I don't think this is a clever move per se - I feel that it is, essentially, all they have.

Which in many ways is also understandable given where the majority of the offences took place.

I don't know that it necessarily follows that wives will support their husbands no matter what. Huw Edwards wife did not stand by him, at all.

If you are saying the if Pelicot's crimes were against another woman - not his own wife - it is certainly not a given that she would have stood by him.

Some women will - some won't.

but surely eg the toilet incident, people could say that they were with him that night, and he didn't forcibly drag her in there?

I don’t think Laura’s testimony will count for anything. I read no one would touch him with a barge pole now. I wonder whether this applies to both personal and professionally.
they are effectively isolated and she is clinging to a sinking ship, whatever happens.
on Dr Raj Persauds video which must get to the end of, he was putting it out there about whether it’s possible RB has changed to vanilla sex in a marriage. Perhaps it’s not vanilla sex and she feels special all this attention is now at her. I cannot believe he’s totally changed.

I agree the PA didn't add much to the weight of evidence against him - bar a predeliction for having sex in toilets. Which he subsequently went on to half deny in his own evidence (that he didn't find it sexy to get blow jobs in toilets).

There may be people out there - PAs, drivers, other members of the media, colleagues etc that do have evidence of him acting non-consensually. But to save their own skins they will hardly want to be saying that in open court - eh.

After Saville was fully uncovered it was deeply problematic for institutions and individuals who had to have known what was going on.

Only if there was a witness who could corroborate that. The first rule of calling/cross examining a witness is never to ask a question to which you don’t know the answer. You’d never call a witness unless you absolutely knew what they were going to say. If you call a witness and they completely refuse to cooperate you can apply to treat them as hostile. Sometimes people can’t remember or just don’t want to get involved

It would take seconds if you look at the layout.
It is similar in location type to a lot of other cases in the U.K. where men have been found guilty.

But didn’t the complainant say the layout had been changed. ?

@mummabubs

your SIL sounds very stupid

With the oral rape victim I think the woman possibly has thoughts on her career and as far as possible not causing a scene at a work/media event. Maybe in your early 20s and having got a coveted job at MTV you are acutely conscious that being angry at one of the major talents at the time could end badly. Maybe this would explain some of the lack of resistance at a crowded event when ushered into a toilet. Once in the toilet maybe again there was fear of making a scene and it could have been possible that she engaged in oral sex just to get out. Brand wanted it to go further hence her entering the car (no suggestion of force?).

He needs to be put in prison for a looooong time

Ah, ok. Thanks

Yes behind a screen but visible to the jury

One thing that concerns me is up to 82% of men in the UK watch open and there are 8 male jurors. I worry that pornography gives a distorted view of anal sex, consent and rough sex (specifically forced oral sex with hands on head). Could the men feel that sex can be like this ISLand therefore minimise the gravity of the charges?

IRL

💯

That's horrendous @Wantingachangeoflif3
I'm so sorry you went through that 💐
It sounds incredibly unjust and disgraceful
How are things now?
Has this POS at least got a restraining order placed on him?

You would have to know who the witness was and years later anything such as ticket records, CCTV etc would long have been destroyed or wiped.

The jury do see them. They are not anonymous to the jury, anonymity means outside the courtroom. The screen up in court has nothing to do with anonymity; it screens the witness from the defendant to help them give their evidence better if they are fearful/vulnerable. Many non-anonymous witnesses are screened from the defendant.

I would love to be a fly on the wall in the jury room. Do they get together every day to discuss? I’m just thinking of people dynamics. It would be quite difficult to make your points if you were very shy. I can imagine it’s quite intimidating, especially in a trial
of this nature that’s so explicit. I wonder how old they are?
Also will they have been educated on typical reactions during sexual assault? One woman said she was numb etc. will that be in their notes?

What a load of patronising nonsense. As if the pp, and other posters saying they believe the women, don’t already fully understand everything you’ve just said. And as if they are basing their opinion on the mere fact of an allegation being made, rather than carefully following what’s reported and coming to a provisional view to which they are perfectly entitled. Doesn’t mean they don’t believe in and understand the concept of a fair trial. I certainly do.

You replied to me earlier, I was going to reply with a few questions but this post answers them.