Russell Brand 🤢🤮 - crunch time

[KidsDoBetter]

Continuing the docky wock

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

What was it that you found compelling about the defence case? What further evidence or arguments would you have wanted from the prosecution?

How familiar are you with the law, given you have reached this conclusion without hearing the judge’s final legal directions?

That isn’t just working one way through. Have you read the inconsistencies in some of the victims stories?

This is why they forewarn about the right to a fair trial, because people already decide someone is guilty then even when the verdict isn’t the one they wanted still don’t accept it. Personally I wouldn’t be surprised given the extent of ‘he said, she said’, presented as evidence, that there just isn’t enough proof to make a decision either way.

Haven’t followed the podcasts, but regarding what people are saying re clothing etc.
in many countries and in a significant population of the UK, people’s cultural expectation is still that women should dress modestly and that if they wear short skirts etc that they are immoral.
We have no way of knowing what the cultural expectations are of any or all of the jurors in the trial.
If their culture or religion demands modesty, this may be a factor in their assessment of the charges.
I really don’t see how you can get around that in the English system. It seems that in the US both sides can reject a number of jurors for various train(only ‘know’ this from John Grishsm, so many not be the reality in the US).

Jury selection in the US may be around this. I agree cultural norms of the jurors could be a factor given the diverse make up of the UK. Those from more misogynist cultures (especially males) would be appalled by the some of the 'immodesty' on display.

@m00ngirl it’s really quite depressing to watch their interactions. He referred to their daughters as “your daughters” too which is very revealing in itself.

This has so many parallels with the Cornell University case…she allegedly agreed to a threesome, which was interpreted as a free-for-all group invitation to 57 in the group chat. There is such a strong view in society that once a woman does something “slutty”, she can’t complain about how the man/men escalated without her consent, because she’s a slag anyway.

Yes in the US they can manipulate the jury in way the UK can’t. There are even companies that can be hired to assist the voir dire (the process by which the jury is chosen) to optimise jury selection for their particular case (defence/prosecution. There is a questionnaire and each side has a fixed number of jurers they can reject. Can’t remember how many it is.

I once read an article about it. In addition to obvious things like colour/race/gender/ political views there were things like choosing overweight people to be on the jury if the defendant had lost control in a particular situation. It was believed that overweight people were more /forgiving of momentary lapses of control than people of average weight.

The “defence case” does not need to be compelling. It is the prosecution’s job to prove the charges to the extent that the jury is sure what happened. I’m not sure they have. This is not the same as saying the events complained of did not happen or that the complainants are lying.

I've said in subsequent posts that I tried. I went to the Clerk of the Court

I'm not confused I'm saying it's left to the jury to interpret this phrase. So insulting me doesn't really help.

However the phrase now is 'are you sure?' apparently.

However the phrase now is 'are you sure?' apparently.
I did jury service fairly recently, and yes, this is the question you're now directed to ask yourself.
So it does require certainty; but I suppose the issue is how you decide whether you're sure.

I also wondered this. I understand a trial judge need not wait until the end of a closing speech, if defence counsel starts making submissions that contradict a ruling or direction the judge has already given. The judge may intervene immediately and say something like:

"Mr Winter, that is not a submission you are entitled to make in light of my earlier direction."

I understand the judge told the jury earlier in the trial that they shouldn’t draw any inference from the fact there was a long time between the events and the complainants reporting them. Then Winter said that factor was relevant, directly contradicting the judge’s earlier direction.

So I’m surprised the judge didn’t step in to correct this.

I’m a lawyer but don’t practise in crime. A poster called Eastegg has more expertise than I in this but I don’t think they have joined this new thread.

@AskandyforcompoTBF you did say the phrase “beyond reasonable doubt” means “you can have reasonable doubt”. In fact, it means the opposite: jury members cannot have a reasonable doubt. I think that’s why PP was asking whether you were confused.

BBC execs looked like complete eejits at that point.

This is interesting as it did indeed contradict the judge’s directions.

It’s certainly the case that the passage of time makes certain things harder for BOTH sides. Physical, cctv, witness evidence could have assisted both the complainants and RB. That’s just the nature of historic prosecutions.

But a delay in reporting does not go to veracity and Winter was very very wrong to state that.

Trying to be cool and edgy etc. Backfired hugely

@VanCleefArpelsthat isn’t quite accurate. You’re right that the burden of proof is on the Crown (prosecution) - but a compelling defence case could cast the reasonable doubt on the Crown’s case that means the Crown doesn’t meet the standard of proof.

Same 😢 I hope we're both wrong!

Thinking about the jury /if you know the accused you obviously can’t be on the jury but with a sleb/politician etc you might feel you ‘know them’ (as many posters in this thread seem to in this case) so how does a public figure get a fair trial?
I had no knowledge of RB before this case other than the Andrew Sachs thing, let alone his wife’s name - but it seems common knowledge the situation re their lives/kids and already have opinions on them.

@KidsDoBetterI have posted on the old thread to invite Eastegg to join this new one and keep us right.

Here is the Sky news link for today's proceedings if anyone is wanting to follow. I'm not sure that male jury members will convict tbh, I think a lot of men dislike him also.

Cosplaying a bishop. Tosser.
ETA photo not showing yet..

Sorry, here is photo...

Not be surprised.