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

They don’t need an expert - the judge will give a direction as to the fact that people do not all react in the same way etc and there is no standard way in which a victim of a sexual assault will react. I think most jurors would be expected to understand this and therefore expert evidence would not be necessary.

We’ve seen on this thread alone how people do not understand reactions, therefore I do think it would help.

@Mamamia35I think there’s a genuine tension here.
Critics of the current approach argue jurors inevitably bring stereotypical assumptions into the jury room. They think expert evidence on trauma would help prevent complainants from being wrongly disbelieved because they did not behave in an expected way.
Critics of greater expert involvement respond that there is no established psychological profile of a truthful rape complainant. They argue that expert evidence can easily slide from education into implicit credibility enhancement. The law tries to strike a balance between two risks:

1. jurors wrongly reject a truthful complainant because her behaviour seems unusual; and
2. Jurors end up giving undue weight to expert evidence suggesting that unusual behaviour is consistent with genuine victimhood.

Especially with men where there is a greater assumption that you simply fight back (men possibly being more innately aligned to violence).I don't think men have possibly a full conscious of what it could potentially like to be attacked in a sexual manner (apart from male to male assault). You don't get many men not consenting to oral sex on them (if offered) for instance so is their a disconnect with men when trying to imagine force and fear with such an event?

She's brainwashed and believes he's innocent. It's all a witch hunt in her mind. She's completely under his spell and in a coercively controlled relationship....plus she's invested so much of her life to this relationship and has 3 kids with him. It would take a complete breakdown for her to see the light and leave.

What did yum yum say (approximately) please? Their comment has been deleted

I think a diligent jury will also have in mind the 6 women who want closure and justice, so will want to do right by them. The judges summing up, directions and route to verdict will be crucial in guiding them.

How RB came across on the stand will be crucial and as we were not in the court room (I assume) it’s hard to tell. From what I’ve read the women came across as genuine and honest, RB changed his accounts from the police interview to the witness stand which won’t do him any good . The fact no one came forward to defend him really is poor so I imagine that will come into it. But juries are human beings, and it will be a mixed make of people who come with their own beliefs, experience, and attitudes . Will there be one or a few who are more persuasive. Who knows.

Three kids? Imagine having him as a father.

I understand the reasoning for this legally but for 2. isn't there a need for education to a jury to overcome prejudices that could potentially lead to acquittal. the freeze or shock in and of itself may indicate lack of consent in much a similar way to being incapacitated by alcohol . Does a jury recognize that freezing or non response may not mean the victim is just lying back awaiting the end of a disappointing sexual encounter?

I do understand the difficulty with this in terms of fair trial but a little education. or direction may help.

It was revolting so it was deleted. Why would anyone repeat it in those circumstances?

I do wonder if she's standing by him because of money?

If he's found guilty could the victims come after him in civil courts for compensation? If so he (and she) stand to lose a lot financially.

I wouldnt be surprised whatever the verdict she will divorce him afterwards. How could you sit there and listen to that and still want to be married to that - even if she believes it was consensual it's vile behaviour. And I think some of it when married to her!

Its a good point. If Laura wants a divorce in future and there are civil claims pending against RB it would be interesting legally.

The #metoo movement caused a lot of debate in our office. I’ve worked with the same people for many years so we had a frank discussion and I could see that the men were genuinely shocked by the experiences women described. A lot more education of VAW and misogyny is required.

I think the judges directs around consent would include this . I read somewhere there are 19 pages of route to verdict. I just chat gpt judges directions around consent in rape trials and it was very informative. If the jury conclude the women didn’t consent they then have to determine if the defendant reasonably believed they consented. Again I think they will be given directions around this.

I hope credibility determines much of the way the verdict goes. I hope the way Brand delivered his evidence is laced with his trademark smart-arsery and by contrast, I hope the women gave their evidence in a totally believable way. I hope Ian Winters KC’s lack of experience in defending sexual assault charges made him weaker when cross examining the complainants.

I know 😱She's in deep poor girl.

As an aside: there’s a longstanding and quite serious debate in the UK legal system about transparency of jury decisions, as their deliberations are almost completely secret. Jurors do not have to give reasons for their verdict, are not recorded, and disclosure of what was said in the jury room is generally a criminal offence in England and Wales. I think the current system makes it very difficult to determine:

• Whether jurors misunderstood the judge's directions on law.
• Whether prejudice, bias, or stereotypes influenced deliberations (relevant to the issue we’ve been discussing about jurors needing fully to understand there’s no “typical” reaction to rape and sexual assault)
• Whether a verdict was reached through improper reasoning.
• Why apparently inconsistent verdicts occur.
• Whether jurors ignored evidence or relied on matters outside the trial (relevant to the discussion about the risk of jurors disobeying the judge’s instructions on not reading any media about the case)

Unlike a judge sitting alone, a jury provides only a verdict, not a written explanation. So, when a jury acquits or convicts, the public, the parties, and appellate courts usually cannot know the reasoning behind that decision.

The secrecy rules also make academic research difficult. The Law Commission noted that Parliament ultimately chose a broad prohibition on disclosure of jury deliberations rather than permitting wider research access.

That's why I said "approximately"

It referred to a sexual practice to describe some posters. That enough for you?

Bernard Gallacher has joined them today...

Can anyone with legal knowledge explain why the two male witnesses to the unwanted massage / RB putting his face in victim’s crotch were not called to give evidence? wasn’t there another work allegation with witnesses as well?

Oh fgs, dad of the year then 🙄 explains a lot. Laura has no chance.

Sympathy for him, having a daughter with such low self esteem to have married Russell Brand cannot be easy. Indeed sympathy for his wife and other members of the family.

I disagree not because I think that he's innocent but because the point of a jury is judgement by one's peers.

This makes sense in a civilised society if you accept that you're part of that society.

They come as they are - they may have knowledge, they may not. It's luck of the drawer.
In this trial, the claimants may be lucky, or they may not.

You can't be 'educating' them about anything.

If you want expert knowledge then that necessitates removal of the jury system.