Russell Brand 🤢🤮 - crunch time

[KidsDoBetter]

Continuing the docky wock

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

Just put the news on (ITV) and they are covering the prosecution case of the 9 men in the drugging and rape trial where the husband advertised his wife online. It's hard not to feel absolute despair at the way women are treated and wonder about the countless crimes of sexual violence that are never reported as well as the ones that are which don't make it to court or result in a prosecution.

What I found even more depressing was that there's been two very similar trials going on at the same time - I hadn't registered they were two separate cases until the victim in one case waived her anonymity whereas the other didn't, so it was more obvious it was two separate cases when skimming across news reports. How many men are doing this?

What day are we all thinking there might be a verdict? I'm looking at Thursday.

I feel they might come back by Thursday afternoon on some of the charges but not all

I know this isn't related to this case - but just got this update! Poor old David Walliams (image shows he's lost the case to keep his name secret)

Where?? I cant see the DW story.

Williams was always as dodgy as hell. A clear pervert. I never let my children read a single one of his books, they even got given them as gifts for Christmas and they went into charity bags. I couldn't believe people couldn't see that he was a creep. I'd rather my children read proper literature anyway.

It's on the Telegraph phone app. I've screenshotted a pic of it, but picture isn't showing. Trying again as a png

Sorry, here...

Same. And he doesn't even write them! Getting all the glory for just coming up with book titles (probably)

I was a little surprised at Walliams as I'd always assumed he was gay. So I'm surprised it's women he was targetting (allegedly etc).

Re the anal rape

“The judge then points to the "many witnesses" the court heard from giving evidence of discussions they had with the complainant in the days, months and years after the alleged rape.
Mr Justice Bennathan suggests the jury might want to "keep an eye on when the conversations took place", adding "but it is only my suggestion".

@eastegg - what do you think he means by this? Just giving weight to the fact that some are close in time to the event and I think all pre-date the Dispatches doc?

Oh god, I didn't realise there were two separate cases, I want to weep. As a survivor of sexual abuse within my family and also as a woman who has on two separate occasions been sexually assaulted i often only read the headlines as it can be overwhelming at times. And sadly of course there will be many people who are triggered by such cases. They gave a waring on the news about the content of the report which was good and much needed.

I think you’re thinking along the right lines, yes. I think he’s got the defence claims of poisoning the well of justice in mind there. I was just listening to the Sky news summary of the defence speech with particular reference to complainant 5 (‘she didn’t think she’d been raped until the suggestion was made by others or words to that effect) and I thought hang on that’s not right.

Have to go out, I will catch up with the summing up later. But I think I rather like this judge.

(Am not eastegg, but I'll comment anyway) Personally, yeah, I do think that's what he's getting at. The big defence argument is that it's all only arisen since Dispatches, accusations of "bandwagon jumping for money etc etc".

Obviously, most of the conversations with those witnesses appear to be well before Dispatches. And are pretty much what you'd expect: someone talking to friends and family about something traumatic that's happened to them and the friends and family seeing you traumatised. i thought the friend who was at the festival with the alleged rape victim when Brand showed up gave a particularly compelling testimony, because of how she said her friend reacted when Brand reappeared. It depicted a kind of involuntary trauma response that I think a lot of us can relate to, and certainly rang true to me.

The defence case is that the Dispatches documentary in 2023 poisoned the well and these accusations are basically fabrications induced by the documentary.

The judge appears to be highlighting that complainant five repeatedly disclosed she had been raped contemporaneously and many, many years before the documentary ever existed.

I think he’s pointing to it as credible- that it wasn’t said out of nowhere but had been said for years. Offsetting prosecution arguments that the women only came forward or started to interpret things as rape because Dispatches “poisoned the well”.

that’s my interpretation anyway.

just watched the summation of the defence case and am so bloody angry at how things were twisted. If there are no convictions I will be beside myself. It’s so clearly a predatory pattern.

Thanks to all on the timing point of Bennathan J’s comment. That’s what I thought and I feel it’s compelling.

I see Ron Brand turned up late in the day. Not the optics the Brand entourage would desire unlike Bernard Gallagher…

Yes, I was also surprised that given the judge himself has stated to the jury that delay in reporting doesn't have a bearing on whether it happened or not that the defence are allowed to state this as a piece of evidence in their favour?
Maybe it's desperate hope but the more I look at the defence the weaker it feels in some ways...

Winter stated that it's odd that out of all the people Brand has slept with that "only 3" have resulted in allegations of rape... But we (and the jury as it's been acknowledged in court) already know that's not true at all as none of the women featured in this trial are the same women who featured in the channel 4 documentary... Which also included allegations of rape!? So he's literally talking rubbish there.

I'm hanging onto hope where possible - I note that the judge has just told the jury that he "suggests" they consider when and to who claimant 5 spoke to about the incident when considering their verdict - I.e that she told multiple people the same account consistently over years from the time that it happened. I hope they this helps the jury to find her account credible. I believe he's guilty of all of them but concede it would be harder for the jury to reach a guilty verdict (based purely on the media reporting. Obviously I hope the full evidence in court was more damning).

His defence has felt empty and weak from the go, but I keep having to remind myself that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. So he can have no one testify in his defence and a lawyer who spouts inaccurate misogynistic victim-blaming rubbish ... But none of that strengthens the prosecution's ability to demonstrate that the incidents happened as accused. Just paints it plainly as to why so many victims never speak out.

Why did you put them into charity bags if you right they shouldn’t be read? OK for other people’s children to read?

I hadn't realised until the summing up that complainant five had 23 consistent corroborating witnesses. That's a lot.

I've a horrible idea that any misogynist jurors will see that as her attention-seeking/being your typical woman who can't stop blabbing. At the same time, of course, as believing that the women who didn't say a word till years later are also fantasists. I feel like women are dammed whatever they do. I really hope I'm wrong.

God speed to the jury. Let’s pray that they see this for what it is.

Compelling for me is the similarities in their stories. Rather than causing me doubt - the fact that he took numbers / email addresses after he raped / assaulted women makes me believe them more.

That along with the “mundanity” of their accounts. If they were lying, they’d “lie better” with more dramatic effect etc I feel.

And finally - a point that I feel the judge really reiterated today - exactly what do 6 unrelated complainants have to gain from going through this. Theoretically you could get one fantasist who was inspired by a documentary to embellish an unpleasant encounter. But 6 women willing to perjure themselves with no gain to them? Nah I don’t buy it.

But a man who knows that whilst he had a vast amount of consensual sex in his life, on occasion when denied his goal ignored that lack of consent- lying in court to save his skin. That I buy.

So you do not let them read any cs lewis listen to M jackson etc

So you give your kids presents away
What do they read at 6 war and peace LOL
You win the virtue signalling woke contest LOL