Russell Brand 🤢🤮 - crunch time

[KidsDoBetter]

Continuing the docky wock

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

I am so sorry. But desperately unsurprised. The patriarchy is still strong in the court system

thanka For the threads

Incredibly brave women.

I’ve seen too many high-profile men walk free to have any hope: Kevin Spacey, Alex Salmond, Belfast rugby players and many more.

I won’t go into detail out of respect for the complainants and any victims who might be reading, but I suspect the jury might find some complainants more sympathetic than others - and it probably won’t be in the most violent case(s).

If only the attempt/SA’s are guilty, he’ll likely serve no time in custody. Given passage of time and his current portrayal as a wonderful family man that might be on the minds of jurors.

There’s been some research that shows that men are more likely to convict than women. Perhaps women think ‘I wouldn’t get myself into that situation’ or ‘if that was my son/husband I wouldn’t want his life ruined over this’.

Oh that little celebrity from Britain.
Hope the computer says No.

One huge problem is that so many people, some who then end up on juries, believe rape is simply about sex.

There will be some who fall for the “he had countless women willing to have sex with him, so why would he need to rape anyone” bullshit.

Totally oblivious to the fact that it’s not simply about sex.

And in my experience (which I get is purely anecdata) from working in a sexual health clinic men who are very often told yes, often end up targeting those that say no.

I don’t think the prosecution has made their case I’m afraid. If I was on the jury I would not convict. RB is a vile human but it’s the prosecution’s job to provide compelling evidence of lack of consent at the time of each incident and nothing I’ve read does that for me.

It shouldn't be allowed to question women over their clothes, sexual pasts, morality, why they didn't come forward and so on. The stereotypes they can invoke in a trial! Can you imagine if a Black person was on the stand and they were like 'but sir you must acknowledge people of your skin colour are inherently untrustworthy' that's basically what they are allowed to do to women. It's gross.

I believe you, and have heard similar. But surely you could report it to the court? I really think we need to change things, so juries are made up of people who have been interviewed. Of course, that wouldn't be perfect, and means the pools are less "random", but if it picks up on someone who will decide their verdict based on your lawyer's appearance, it has to be better!

FFS! a very dear friend of mine was raped by an ex. He used to call round sometimes as they had remained in contact after the relationship ended and he would sometimes do odd jobs around the flat for her. One evening he made a move for "old times sake", she said no, he raped her. She never reported it because she felt it was her fault for offering friendship

What is apparent to me is how much of a taboo there is about the crime of rape. Look at literature and TV and there are literally hundreds of thousands of stories based around murder for MacBeth to Agatha Christie to Harry Potter. How many about rape? Very few. There is a huge social taboo that is incredibly ingrained in humanity when it comes to sex and sexual crime.

Does this filter down into the quality of discussion in jury rooms......possibly. I said before there might be an amount of discomfort around the discussions amongst the jurors given the specifics of the crime especially with women who have to discuss anal sex and forced blow jobs with 8 males for several days. Maybe the taboo limits discussion and has been pointed out on this thread taboo gives birth to myths which prejudice views on this offence.

If you read the media commentary it is often prefaced with this article may include distressing detail. We have an option to avoid the detail the jury doesnt .

He seemed to go after women who wouldn't normally want sex with him. I also strongly believe he was so desperate to orgasm that he would do whatever and be as rough as he wanted to be to get what he wanted. So its irrelevant that some women were throwing themselves at him. In the moment, he got them where he wanted them. Remember the black eyes and maniacal expression. On drugs or not, his own former friend said he'd said he'd pushed it too far and was cowering in the car from police cars that morning. RB knew for years what he was up to.

I think I the psychology of Brand wasn't explained enough. 20 million quid buys a lot of prostitutes so this is not about sex but some very complex need for domination or to feel attractive. Who knows?

Being realistic about it, I don't think he's going to be found guilty on any of them.

There may be more sympathy for the women who were, for want of a better term, just going about their business such as working or at a bar when Brand went for them but they are still not going to think there's enough to convict, they may appreciate that it was not pleasant and undeserved but not that much of a 'big of a deal' to the extent to deny him his liberty.

In the cases of actual rape, I can't see him being convicted for the toilet incident.

Nor the 1999 PIV one, though if any this may be the one he does get convicted for owing to the strong evidence from his peers saying how agitated he seemed after it, though still not likely. That is going to count.

As for the anal rape. I'm afraid to say that it's not a chance.
It is absolutely right and proper that if this was forced he should be convicted, absolutely right and proper and it's an absolutely terrible thing to do but I think that realistically the image of her rimming Brand within a short time of meeting him may give the jury the impression that she was extremely sexually experimental.

I'm afraid I don't think that the argument that she's been open about this will count for much.
Not realistically. I think that in all honesty the idea of rimming somebody they've just met is going to be something that is completely alien to the jury.

My belief is that it is entirely plausible he did all the things he is accused of.

Do you think there is a large difference in perception between stranger rape and non stranger rape even though it's the same crime? I unfortunately feel there are significant number of people who are appalled by stranger rape but feel non stranger rape is a complex situation where precious police / court times shouldn't be wasted pursuing (what happens between closed doors between a couple stays behind).

Regarding the victim of anal rape I thought she had really strong evidence. Wasn’t there 24 different people including an ex boyfriend and a sexual health nurse that she’d all told consistently for almost 2 decades.. Russell brand raped me.
If I were on the jury I’d find it hard to believe that she’d lied to that many people for such a long time.

Yes, spot on

i feel this too. In many ways the fact that she was unflinchingly honest about an embarrassing initial encounter (the threesome / rimming) & went to his house willingly for PIV for me strengthens her evidence. She knew she’d be revealing this in open court in front of family members etc, face cross examination - plus as you say she had loads of back up evidence that predated the the Dispatches doc and physical details that align with non-consensual anal penetration.

Really? I feel like they shoehorn rape into every TV programme now, have for at least ten years. I think it's vile and probably gratifies some men whilst desensitizing a lot of people to it. I don't think there is any need to actually show what is happening tbh.

It's not so much about perception but provability.
If a stranger rapes a woman it seems highly unlikely that she'd just be willing o have sex with him.

If she's had consensual sexual activity with him before, though, well why not this time?

This does not mean disbelief at all it's just much, much more murky if sexual activity has occurred previously.

Wow that’s insane! A rapist doesn’t rape every single woman he’s with, what is this guy on about?

I don’t under why he was allowed to keep repeating rape myths!!!
Im so fucking angry. It’s 2026 ffs.

8 men and 4 women.

OK things like game of thrones might have hints of rape but most family friendly shows would ever away from the crime. Look at Agatha Christie ....plenty of easy Sunday watching about murder. You see plenty of fairly explicit scenes of murder and death on TV but imho not much on rape.

Thought anatomy of a scandal was good TV exploring this though

I've been catching up on the trial podacast today and ooosh, some of the testimony is shocking.

Well, I say shocking (because it is) but am I honestly shocked?

I didn't realise at least one of the incidents occurred before Brand was famous.

I was raging at some of the comments from defence lawyers. Absolute scumbags, honestly.

Surely they can do their jobs without being so bloody accusatory and judgmental of women literally crying and shaking in the dock!

They seem to be focusing heavily on the victims not speaking up earlier, which is a weak argument considering it's a well known fact that the vast majority of rapes/SA's go unreported, partly due to themselves being such utter cunts in court, but I guess it at least plays into the hands of the right-wings fuckwits Brand is now sucking up to for attention, who are hell bent on protecting rich white men from all of their discretions.

How his wife is sitting in court and listening to it all and going home with him every night is beyond me.

We can only pray that she’s on her last few nights of going home with him, eh 🤞🏼🤞🏼