Russell Brand 🤢🤮 - crunch time

[KidsDoBetter]

Continuing the docky wock

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

re Hung jury / retrial given there are 6 complainants POTENTIALLY the CPS might go for a retrial if some / all were willing. Balanced against that is of course the huge amount of publicity but that in and of itself doesn’t preclude a fair (re)trial.

What we can be sure of is that the judge will do everything in his power to get the jury to dispose of at least the majority of the charges, however long it takes. He will be very aware of the huge public resources that have gone into this and the huge toll on RB, the complainants and their family and friends.

I'm not sure that the average man who doesn't get much sex thinks that it would drive him to rape, but thinks that it may drive others to do so.

The averagely decent enough man cannot perhaps imagine why rape is about power because sex for them is simply about sex and not being nasty or having power over anyone, so if a man's getting plenty of it, why would he rape?

It's a good move to point out that Brand got plenty of women if you wish to defend him.
A lot of men may simply think 'good point.'

I think you're right about the second part. Then again, I think most people have had sex while both parties are a bit drunk/high.

I do understand the concern on here about there being 8 men on the jury. I do get the reasons why.
But not all men can be assumed to be siding with Brand. I feel the level of comments about having 8 men on the jury as a negative thing, if I'm honest - and I might get flamed for this - but it's a bit dismissive of all the decent men out there.
My husband, for example, a 50 year old man, is saying "I hope to God Brand is found guilty, based on the evidence I've listened to on all the podcasts". My brother, a 46 year old man, is saying "I haven't listened to the podcasts but fuck me if these women are saying they've been raped and they're putting themselves through this level of trauma to be believed all these years later then they're not fucking lying are they." (He swears only when he feels strongly about something that he feels is unjust). Male colleagues of mine are saying things like "It's always been obvious he's a wrong'un", and "I never understood how people couldn't see what a c**t he was back in the day when he was all over the telly" and "I wouldn't let him anywhere near my daughter, that's for sure". Some of them get quite heated or get angry expressions on their faces when they talk about him (there is a lot of talk in my workplace about this trial).
For all we know, the men on the jury may have daughters, wives, sisters who they emotionally relate to when they listen to the victims in court. They might completely believe the victims. Just because they're men doesn't mean they won't believe what the victims are saying.
He may well be found not guilty due to jury members not being able to say with certainty that they are 'sure'. But I don't think it is necessarily a given that having 8 men on the jury will work against the victims.

When I did jury service there was a high proportion of young people on the jury. I think there was one retired person, a woman, and people over 75 don't serve on juries in England and Wales.

Obviously if anyone has been in court during these proceedings they'll know more about the make up of the jury. Impossible to know what the jury is thinking.

The case I was on was nowhere near as high profile as this, but I don't remember any juror referring to anything either of the barristers had said in court. They did their jobs, but it's not like in films and tv where the erudite barrister sways the jury.

You can be called for jury service in England up until your 76th birthday.

Apparently only 10% of men are strongly misogynistic / think sexual assault is fine (I'm basing that on unofficial surveys of college students in the US, uni students in the UK and the rumour that there is apparently a list of about 40 sexually predatory MPs circulating in Westminster).

While women generally agree that rape is a crime they can be very misogynistic / judgmental of other women and generally forgiving of men (especially charismatic, popular men), though I'm not aware of any estimates for that. (But see for example the wives of grooming gang members.)

Lots of people are of course decent but let's face it, some can be quite dumb (sorry but it is true) and would simply not understand some of the finer points of the evidence (e.g. the significance of the fact that he only came up with answers after he had heard the opposing evidence). I doubt that many of them understand what is reasonable in "beyond reasonable doubt".

All in all jury trials don't fill me with confidence.

I doubt that many of them understand what is reasonable in "beyond reasonable doubt".
As covered in this thread already, courts no longer say that; they say, 'You must be sure,' which I hope is easier for people to understand (although still obviously open to interpretation).

I don't remember any juror referring to anything either of the barristers had said in court. They did their jobs, but it's not like in films and tv where the erudite barrister sways the jury.
In mine there was discussion of how useless the prosecution barrister was, and the tactics used by the defence barrister. I suspect the latter did sway some people, although I wasn't swayed by them but found I could not convict based on the evidence although I still think the cunt did it

@AlwaysExtraHot I saw that they are told "you must be sure" now and I think that is an improvement, but I think "beyond reasonable doubt" is still in people's minds.

Can someone help me understand why the prosecution didn't use experts to help the jury understand that the responses of the women could be entirely in line with them being victims of rape and abuse. It was unbearable listening to the defence arguing they couldn't have been victims because of the way they responded....

You must be sure is a definition of beyond reasonable doubt. It doesn't represent a shift in the law.

I don't understand this either. The prosecution should have 100% brought in experts to explain the five Fs.
Most people I've raised this with in conversation about the trial hadn't heard of this. We can't expect the jury to have heard of this either. They needed to have been educated as part of the process.

My fear is that if he is found not guilty it will set us right back in terms of how victims of SA "should" respond. I am so angry about the defence's closing

@Fast800goingforit That's fine, it's still an improvement (if only of phrasing).

I wonder if in the legal directions by the judge the jury would have been given written guidance on this. The legal guidance must have explanatory guidance. But I’m not a lawyer so don’t know.

I don't know everything that was said but, from what I can tell, prosecution could have anticipated the defence's arguments far more effectively. Defence raised the perfect victim trope, criticised responses to fear & attack, said sexually successful men don't need to rape, suggested women shouldn't be nice to men they don't want sex with.

All totally predictable and, unfortunately, all still part of everyday thoughts about rape. I realise that, had these been dealt with, defence would've come up with other arguments - that's their job. But wouldn't it have been wiser not to leave these matters hanging?

I'm hoping this stuff's in the information pack provided to jurors.

I don't really understand, either, why prosecution couldn't speak to Brand's character via his own recorded and published statements.

I agree with you that many people are going to have low levels of knowledge about the complexities of the subject matter of this trial (I dislike the use of the word dumb, sorry). I work in a public facing professional role, have done for 25 years, and I am regularly made aware by members of the public that many, many of them display very low levels of understanding about information that I provide them with. Either they point blank don't understand, or it is difficult for them to grasp, or I have to break my language down to aid their understanding, or repeat things until they get it, or they completely misunderstand or misunterpret what I've said, or I can tell their processing of information is slow and they are struggling to take on board all the content of what I'm saying to them. Often, I'll see the person 2 weeks later, and they have forgotten what I said to them previously, or they can't accurately recall what I said, or they misremember, and I have to go through the information again. This all happens very, very regularly. And this is regarding important information that in my mind is straightforward and easy to understand. I have had to really learn in my career that many people struggle to fully understand certain information.
The ones who understand perfectly well what I explain to them the first time round, who totally get it, who don't misinterpret any of the information and who can very accurately recite at a later date what I said to them at our last meeting, stand out to me.
So if I come across this many people with poor understanding in my job, and have done for quarter of a century, then I am going to assume that out of 12 jury members not all of them are going to have excellent understanding of the information that has been presented to them in court, or of the judicial process.
And to me, this is the biggest threat to the outcome of this trial.
To me, it's irrelevant what the ratio of men to women is on the jury.
To me, the relevance is the ratio of jurors who are able to understand, comprehend, assimilate and retain the information presented to them in court compared to those on the jury who are unable to.

I totally agree. As much as I hate the bastard, he should not be barred from the hospital and I bet there is another side to that story

@CoconutSwirlI and some others tried to address this question on the previous thread.

@CoconutSwirl i have been on jury duty twice. One of those juries had people who just didn’t seem to understand logic or could have reasonable discussions about facts that were being presented to us.

on one of the minor charges we had to give up trying to reason with them as they were never going to change their mind and agree with the other 11 of us.

i do think there should be some sort of IQ test for jury selection, or professional jury members who can process information fairly.

This weak cognition, poor ability to comprehend and dreadful analytical skills stand out as some of the major reasons juries should be abolished.

I saw it first hand during deliberations when I served on a jury. One jury member clocked the defendant had worn glasses in court and wanted to send a note to the judge to ask whether he always wore glasses or whether (essentially) he was wearing them for court attendance only, to create a certain image. She argued until she was blue in the face that this was (or at least could be) relevant to the question the jury had been asked to determine (ie whether he was guilty of the offence on the indictment)

I tried all angles to explain why it was irrelevant but it was like speaking with a brick wall.

It was absolutely mind boggling.