Russell Brand 🤢🤮 - crunch time

[KidsDoBetter]

Continuing the docky wock

don’t want to jinx it by referring to potentially Jaily Wail

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/in_the_news/5591423-russell-brand-in-the-docky-wock?page=40&reply=155697798

old thread

Thank you.

Thanks for the new thread

Brand was seeking 'approval' and 'adoration', jury told
Ian Winter KC says it is an "extremely curious feature of this case" that out of many, many women Brand had sex with during the period of 1999 to 2009, only three of them say they did not consent.
He suggests that is a "hole" in the prosecution's case, saying they don't have a "case thesis" as to why Brand allegedly raped these three women and none of the many others.
Earlier Winter told the jury that "living a highly promiscuous life is entirely lawful however morally distasteful you may find it". He returns to that theme now, saying "even being manipulative in the pursuit of consensual sex is completely lawful".
He says Brand was "seeking approval" and "seeking adoration".

As a juror this would beg the question - there are only 3 rape allegations before us now. That does not by any means mean that there only 3 rapes …

Is it today we find out if guilt or not guilty?

Wow. I'm guessing this lawyer knows the proportion of rapes that go unreported and the many reasons behind that, including not being believed, facing a stressful court case etc. It's not a very good argument and not exactly "curious" that not many other women (if they exist) were prepared to go up against rich famous RB in public, when not many rape victims report it anyway.

But having been involved in a comparable case, I wonder if this is the sound of a lawyer putting out the most weak and unconvincing argument either deliberately, or because that's all there is. It's effectively saying "well he's a total sleaze and no one else complained - er that's all i could come up with m'lud". This is what I felt happened in the case I was part of and the person was convicted.

I hope the jurors recognise the low proportion of rapes that ever end up in court.

No. The jury will begin their deliberations today.

given the number of charges I’d be staggered if it was any sooner than Wednesday.

I “predict” a lengthy deliberation period. And potentially them coming back after a day or so to tell the judge they can’t reach unanimity on some of the charges.

v much guess work obvs.

Or maybe they won’t start deliberations even until tomorrow?

Beyond reasonable doubt?

I hope they throw the booky wook at him.

What’s your question?

Yeah deliberations start tomorrow. So unless they are in agreement about most of the charges, I expect it will run into next week.

You think just one rape accusation would be seen as bad enough ! Yet they are using language such as ‘only 3’ ???!!

You can imagine the slimy walking talking theatrical thesaurus waving his arms about and wittering on about this when he walks free 🤦

One of the problems with jury trials is people not understanding this phrase. It means you can have reasonable doubt. But the system actually seems to allow jurors their own interpretation.

I don't trust the jury system since I was in a jury and two women refused to find someone guilty because they fancied his barrister. There was no way for me to complain about it because what's discussed is meant to be secret.

Given the number of charges on the indictment and the legal wrinkle that the historic nature of this case means events on which some of the charges are based happened before the Sexual Offences Act 2003 came into force (so have to be decided according to the equivalent provision under the Sexual Offences Act 1956), I also predict it’ll be a lengthier deliberation period.

I was really worried before this case started that Russell Brands defence would be amazing, and he would be untouchable. But actually, his case has been pretty poor. The fact he didn't remember any of the girls initially, and then remembered them all in detail, the fact he said nothing to the police for the first 18 months of questioning, the fact he couldn't find anyone to speak in his defence (apart from his wife), the way he was subdued when the prosecutor was questioning him, and animated when the defence was. I'm really hoping that he'll be found guilty of at least one of the charges.

I also hope, if he is convicted, that Laura realises she's been groomed/under his control, and has the strength to leave him.

That language is no longer used. The test is “sure”.

Jesus Christ. This is what I mean, you see, and why I’m not in favour of jury trials to decide serious criminal cases.

Yes this feels like an error to me. Not compelling logic at all …

Nor is suggesting that everything in the Booky Wook was just jokes and not actually representative of how utterly determined Brand was to reach his goal of sexual gratification by hook or by crook.

Brilliant defense! It could work for most crimes.

• He didn't kill everyone he came into contact with, so it seems very unlikely that he is a murderer.
• He pays for an awful lot of his drinks, so there is no way he nicked that bottle whisky.
• He only embezzled money from some of his clients, so it probably didn't happen. After all, he did have a lot of clients.

Touché!! 👏👏

Specifically contradicting the judges direction to the jury that the delay does not indicate the complainants are lying

'Massive 20-year delay' in reporting allegations supports Brand's innocence, court told
Ian Winter KC says: "Not one of the complainants reported these allegations to the police at the time."
He tells the jury: "If a wrong has been done to you, you are entitled to have it investigated… The best moment you have of achieving a conviction is at that time, when the evidence is at its freshest."
He suggests to the jury: "It doesn't get better sticking a massive 20-year delay into the situation, does it?"
Winter says: "The absence of a complaint just supports the defence's position."

Where are you getting these updates? I can't see anything online. I'm keen to follow along