Russell Brand 🤢🤮 - crunch time

[KidsDoBetter]

Continuing the docky wock

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

The “what was she wearing” argument drives me mad. There was an art exhibit called something like What I Was Wearing, where rape survivors donated the outfit they were wearing when they were raped. There were hijabs, full winter clothes, etc etc etc. The majority of clothing items in the exhibit weren’t “asking for it” outfits.

OMG, is that real?!

I need to listen to exactly what Winter said, but there are two different possible things going on; delay going to the credibility of the complainants, and delay potentially causing problems in getting witnesses to support a case (more of a problem for defendant than prosecution as an innocent defendant for the sake of argument won’t even know about the existence of the allegation until it’s made). The second is definitely something the jury can consider and iirc was dealt with in the judge’s legal directions.

It sure is! The exact house. Only recently sold again with the same master en suite still there from the time of the rape 😢

Anybody seen the Alton Towers statement this morning?

Ooh just read it.

Jusf looked!

This is positive on the first charge. The 1999 case

“Mr Justice Bennathan also says the jury needs to ask themselves why Brand didn't say anything about consensual sex with the first complainant in his police interviews in late 2023 and 2024.
He says the prosecution's conclusion on this count was largely: "Why has she, an intelligent and educated woman, exposed herself to this ordeal unless it's true?"”

I suspect Stockholm syndrome

They will not find him guilty. He is male, and a celebrity, and his victims aree "only" female.

Jury trials should be abolished. Have a judge and two co-judges instead. At least they can be reprimanded if they show obvious bias or base their decisions on misogynistic reasoning.

I have no idea either way, but in the nicest possible way, I really hope you're wrong.

There could be any number of reasons why she's done it even if is untrue- I'm not saying it is untrue by pointing this out BTW.
The flip side of this is that uneducated stupid women should not be believed.

That's not a positive at all.

Also if was consensual given that he's had sex with a lot of women, why would he remember her in particular?

More convincing for me in this particular allegation is his friends' and peers testimonies along the lines of we've got to get out of dodge.

Sorry but this sort of thing pisses me off.
Not having a dig at you personally.

I get you. I do despise the “deserving victim” trope that has been dogging women for centuries in criminal cases particularly DV and SA.

But motivation behind claims is compelling when everyone (hopefully) now knows that being a complainant in a rape trial is a horrendous experience esp if it’s not a stranger rape.

Also if was consensual given that he's had sex with a lot of women, why would he remember her in particular?

But he did claim to remember her. Just only once he'd got her entire story and all the evidence the police had on it. Before that, he was shown her photo and given an outline (I think), and claimed he couldn't remember it at all. Then when he learnt what he'd have to defend against he suddenly had a detailed recollection of how much he'd respected this woman and how nice he'd been to her throughout their consensual encounter.

• The flip side of this is that uneducated stupid women should not be believed’

💯!!!!

On the remembering her point, the point being made I think is that he’s gone from saying nothing/ not remembering, to remembering rather a lot in his evidence. IIRC he’s put a positive case of asking her if he was doing it right/ if she liked it as it was the first time he’d been with an older woman. So adverse inferences potentially come into play; drawing an adverse conclusion against the defendant for failing to mention something they could reasonably have been expected to mention when they were questioned. I’m not saying that should necessarily apply here, but that’s the argument; not that he doesn’t remember full stop, but that he seems to have improving memory syndrome.

I think this is really important. It’s very much come across as him building a narrative around the evidence that was presented rather than him simply describing what happened.

Correct: jurors are told they need to be sure of a defendant's guilt as that is clearer and easier to understand than, "beyond reasonable doubt". To be clear, this is not a change in the law, it is a definition of beyond reasonable doubt.

Would basically quickly take us a step toward a police state with politically pressured judges giving politically motivated verdicts and prison sentences. Not sure it’s a good idea.

Ime if a defendant remembers the complainant rather the claiming not to know them or recognise them, it makes it more difficult for a jury. If they deny knowing them, why are doing so, especially if witnesses remember seeing them together, etc?

Standard police caution:

”You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”

@thiswillbedisplayednope. The constitutional doctrine of the separation of powers would guard against this.

Is Norway a police state? Germany? France? Sweden? Finland?

the first time he’d been with an older woman.

And this is so disingenuous of him too. Iirc, she was 4 years older than him, but he's trying to portray himself as the young, nervous boy. As if 4 years would figure as an age gap the other way round.

I have a heavy feeling inside when I think of how those women must feel now. They are so brave. I am not at all sure I could do it. It must be such a high cost to them.
And yet, their bravery gives all of us so much.
I have not prayed in decades but I am now - I really hope they win.