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

Criminal bods - is this not an odd direction?

'Only verdicts I can accept'
The judge also tells the court: "The only verdicts I can accept are those that are unanimous verdicts."
He says the group of 12 jurors - made up of eight men and four women - must all agree on verdicts of guilty or not guilty.
The judge adds: "You may have heard about majority verdicts, but if so, put them out of your mind."

I know judges very very strongly favour and promote unanimous verdicts and will send a jury back out to try and reach unanimity. But there is nothing at law that would ultimately prevent conviction on a majority basis. Unlike say certain Australian states and other jurisdictions that require it for certain v serious offences like murder.

You're not wrong, it may work this way, not for me, though.
Beastly is not a particularly positive word, either, and does not associate well with her claim that he treated her like an animal.

I think it must sit uneasily Brand being described of good character. Though legally direct I can see why some would find this offensive and would it be better to say Brand has no previous convictions and leave it to a jury to make their own inferences?

@KidsDoBetter possibly, though what you might gain through lack of public associations etc you might lose through lack of expertise! Possibly the Brands or someone around them had a personal connection to the firm.

@idontknowhowtodreamyourdreamswe are of one mind on the posh men bit. 🙄

Yes it’s difficult to put more succinctly as I don’t normally comment on individual cases but I have made an exception in this case because I am aware people don’t realise the relevance of why modern toilets are designed as they are (privacy v safety).

Toilets have always been used for sex. Sometimes that is consensual and sometimes it is not. There are ways it can be designed-out and indeed legislated against. Hence why it is illegal for sexual activity in a toilet in the Sexual Offences Act. They are vulnerable locations. I have a lot of data on offences in toilets and this case is entirely believable.

Yes - exactly! Maybe to the Gallachers. Some Wentworth estate connection.

My understanding is a judge will usually ask the jury to try to reach a unanimous verdict first. Only after they have deliberated for a sufficient period can the judge decide to accept a majority verdict (typically 10-2 or 11-1, depending on the size of the jury)

In this trial, if the judge told the jury that the only verdicts he could accept were unanimous, that does not necessarily mean majority verdicts are ruled out permanently. It often means the jury had not yet reached the stage where the judge was prepared to accept a majority verdict, or the judge was directing them that their present task was to continue striving for unanimity.

That’s what happened in the sexual offence trial on which I served as a jury member back in January. We couldn’t reach unanimity after a couple of days’ deliberation so the judge redirected majority (10 to 2). And we couldn’t reach that either.

There was only one count on the indictment in that case, mind you.

What we need on the jury are a few persuasive, feminist women who aren't blinded by a posh KC and can lead everyone in a true understanding of what sexual assault and rape can look like ...

I might have been that woman on one jury 🙄 (not SA but something very unsavoury where some of my fellow jurors needed a little bit of guidance to understand why their distaste for the unsympathetic victim was not a reason to fail to convict the very clearly guilty defendant...)

Yes - it's just odd that he said he can't accept it. Rather than you must do everything in your power to reach a unanimous decision on each of the charges.

Just to clarify BCL LLP

https://www.bcl.com/

is a different outfit from BCLP (Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner)

https://www.bclplaw.com/en-US/offices/london.html

I thought that quote came from Katy Perry, not Laura Brand 🤔

Ahhhhh! I got that wrong. Thanks for clarifying

Prosecution alluding to the madonna / whore mindset that many posters have flagged on here. RB had different categories of women - those with T in their contact names. And those he might choose to pursue relationships with...

"Prosecution turns to Brand's 'undoubtedly lovely wife' Laura
Returning to Brand, the prosecution tells the court: "He may now be a completely different person to the man he was between 1999 and 2009."
She then turns to Brand's spouse, Laura Brand, whom she calls his "undoubtedly lovely wife".
Karmy-Jones KC says that Ms Brand "bravely" gave evidence yesterday, but also notes that she was not with him at the time the majority of the alleged acts are said to have taken place.
The prosecution adds: "Any contact was, I believe, sparse."
She then compares the alleged victims' statuses to that of Ms Brand, saying they were a "very different category of women," and they included "lowly employees or just girls in the audience".
Yesterday the court heard that Ms Brand is the daughter of golfer Bernard Gallacher and the sister of sports broadcaster Kirsty Gallacher, and was told that Brand knew that when he first met her in 2006."

One of the podcasts mentioned that the solicitors were involved in the Kevin Spacey case. I made a mistake upthread where I said it was the KC, but it was the solicitors.

It did. That's who we were talking about at that point.

Is the prosecution trying to get over 'rich famous man shags working class women with no emotional regard but holds women of the same celebrity class in much higher esteem?'

Rich powerful men treating working class women as shit is nothing new in society.

Also I wonder if LB has come across as more 'polished' when presenting evidence and the prosecution are just a little worried about bias against (perhaps) working class complainants (or at least not in a celebratory sphere).

Thanks @KidsDoBetter

Brief interruption in courtroomThe courtroom was briefly interrupted by a sleeping member of the public, who began loudly snoring.
Eyes in the court darted to the noise, and the person is nudged awake by another in the public gallery.
Some people.

Undoubtedly lovely wife reminds me of a judge calling Jeffrey Archer's wife 'the fragrant Mary'. Totally irrelevant to the case.

Yes I struggled with the judge's direction that no significant convictions means the person is more likely to be truthful... Is there actually data that supports this? I'm thinking of my own experience and I'm sure countless others... My ex repeated the pattern of abuse across multiple relationships but has no convictions to this day... Definitely doesn't make him more truthful! Just means people didn't feel safe enough to report!?

@Mamamia35yeah this was Spacey’s solicitor in his criminal trial.

https://www.bcl.com/people/oliver-schneider-sikorsky

That came to mind for me too! More so in light of his recent death.

Clever though by prosecution not in any way to go for LB - quite the opposite - which will play better with the jury.

So far I think this closing is very persuasive.

I haven't been following along the whole time but the news (in Ireland) did include that his wife was giving a character reference....I think this is absolutely ridiculous. Her opinion of her husband is irrelevant to the case in question. What next....start getting his Mum, his Granny, etc up to say what a nice person he is?!

I'm definitely feeling nervous as I can see a reality in which all verdicts come back not guilty. It's so hard to judge though as even with all the reporting on evidence and testimony we won't be privvy to everything that the jury is. I also have worries (rightly or wrongly) that the jury isn't a 50/50 male female split. I felt initially surprised that they aren't allowed to bring into evidence other comedians outside of the channel 4 documentary who had named Brand as being a sexual predator (I.e Lou Sanders). I'm guessing this would be heresay and arguably not relevant to the specific charges brought today, but if Brand is allowed character witnesses to say how lovely he is in general then surely the prosecution should be able to call people who saw the other side and recognised behaviours that are relevant to the current charges?

I remain hopeful for the victims at this point and even if not guilty is the response in court I hope they know that so many people believe them and back them.