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

Could it be an average jury may look up to educated upper class figures as authoritative and to be respected though. There have been plenty of politicians who have connected to the public despite class and mannerism difference. Maybe a genteel manner by the KC would subtly hint at generations where women would 'not have made such a fuss'. Maybe the KC wants to leave the impression that Brand is certainly an old fashioned cad and bounder but certainly not a sordid criminal.

@mids2019I did think of that. Were we all on the jury, I think Winter’s choice of that word, plus his accent (listen below - though the host of this podcast is marginally posher) would make us really bridle. Times and attitudes towards women have changed - and he comes across as a dinosaur from a bygone age.

There was blood all over the bed FFS and she had to sit on a tray of ice cubes for some time afterwards - facts I don’t think the defence is disputing. It was clearly a lot more than just “beastly”.

What worries me is the fact the jury is two thirds men and I’m concerned they’ll be unable to empathise with the reality of the complainant’s clearly frightening and painful ordeal.

She literally named people who were there at the time- they could absolutely say what did or didn't happen, or what they recall. why have they not been called?
If the prosecution has approached them to ask them to be witnesses, there aren't many reasons why they'd refuse - eg they don't want to speak out, so would say they don't remember; or
they can't remember the accuser specifically, but do remember the incident; or this sort of thing happened so frequently that it wasn't memorable to them. None of those reasons are going to paint them in a good light.

If the defence approached them, there are few reasons they haven't been put on the stand- eg they can't defend that incident because it did happen; or they don't really remember because it happened so frequently; or they simply don't remember but are refusing to help his case.

Precisely.
This who are saying that he must be guilty as ‘witnesses’ are not speaking out in his defence should also question why if she she is telling the truth she cannot get witnesses to speak for her, It works both ways so provides no evidence to support her claim.

But it’s not the same. If they were to corroborate her story and say yes this happened- as a PP has pointed out this would potentially be career ending for them- admitting they stood and did nothing. If they were to corroborate RB’s story that this did NOT happen- there would be no backlash on them at all. So yes the fact they won’t take the stand and talk about their recollections says a lot in itself .

Are you his mate or summat?

No, that's not at all what I was saying! Im saying the reasons for them not taking the stand are much more damning from a defence point of view.

Yes. I think a KC of his class and background may want to direct the jury from considering the sordid nature of the sexual encounters with a maybe a nod to the male jurors that is course sex can be quite ,let's say varied, but the minutae aren't to be detailed in polite society while safe to say of course there isn't proof of rape. I think maybe there is a contrast between the prosecution wanting to get into raw detail and the rather (anachronistic?) KC wanting to appear above the sordid messy detai! and concentrate on the wholesome (?) married family man who is very much divorced from the follies of his youth.

Another day ... this time LB & RB have matching top knots.

Is it closing speeches - then judge's summary and legal directions?

Ah no - defence hasn't rested yet.

I have listened to the podcast and I really wonder if he was the best KC suited for this role?..I get the impression he probably found the case sordid to himself involving subjects that he didn't really want to talk about with a language he would any away from in London gentleman's club. I think to many of his class and background sex would be something not to be discussed in a respectable environment or if discussed some with suitable language, 'a kiss and a cuddle' etc.

I really do wonder what her take on all of this is.

Where did you hear this?

Why do you think they picked him then ?

I've found it an odd choice too as a former solicitor albeit commercial, not criminal.

The class / accent thing, for me, is neither here nor there. That's the reality often - still - of the Bar. Juries perhaps find it (subconsciously) reassuring bizarrely.

It's more that as has been pointed out (non-financial) criminal and sexual assault cases are not his bread and butter. Though I do know many highly rated criminal KCs who do other types of work - say corporate manslaughter, health and safety etc.

I am at an event this evening with a highly experienced criminal KC and will see if he has any thoughts on counsel selection etc.

Certainly from my observations gleaned only from the reporting obviously it seems that Riel has done a much better job. But that might be my perception only.

Sky's live feed

Court begins for the day
The jury is back in the court and day 14 of Russell Brand's trial on rape and sexual assault charges begins.
We are expecting to hear the defence's final evidence.
Follow for live updates through today's proceedings.

I wonder will counsel seek to have final arguments on Monday - so that jury deliberations start on Tuesday with them freshly in mind. Rather than with a weekend gap.

I don’t live in the UK and was wondering why RB’s wife was asked to give evidence?
Is that the norm in those sort of cases ?
In Ireland we don’t know who the defendant is in SA cases unless convicted.
The “Innocent Until Proven Guilty” premise.

As I mentioned upthread, she previously said "..then I found out the real truth, which I can't necessarily disclose because I keep it locked in my safe for a rainy day."

I'm hoping that this will be revealed after the trial. Altho frustrating that she's kept it all to herself for now

We don't have that system here in the UK - although there are calls for it from time to time.

She was called essentially as a character witness and had no relevant information relating to the alleged crimes as she was not with him during those periods.

And contradicted previous pod cast comments that they’d not seen each other at all by suggesting they were hanging out together.

Can I just add my thoughts on one of the charges? I’m going to say this as if I was a jury member on this case and what I’d bring up in the deliberations.(and yes, I’ve been sexually assaulted more than once). Happy to be corrected. The oral rape in the toilet cubicle charge. You’d have to drag someone in. Squeeze into the cubicle and lock the door. The woman would have to be standing waiting whilst he climbed up onto the toilet seat (or lid), balanced himself and unzipped his trousers. That would take a certain amount of time.

@BanjasWinter and co called LB to the stand to testify as what’s known as a character witness. Her evidence was intended to support the defence case by giving the jury evidence about Brand's behaviour, character, and attitudes in his personal relationships.

The defence’s strategy in calling her is to try to:

• Challenge the prosecution's portrayal of Brand's character by presenting evidence from someone who knows him intimately.
• Support the defence argument about consent and respect in relationships, as Laura said he respected her wishes when she did not want sexual contact.
• Humanise the defendant before the jury, showing him as a husband and father rather than solely through the lens of the allegations.

Ok defence has now rested. It was just reading out a couple of agreed facts.

Thank you @Piglet89