re: Russell Brand Found Guilty of Rape

quote:

---

we know this.

---

And the other rape and sexual assaults? You know he was charged because he was right wing? You know for sure his Christian beliefs aren't grifting? No, you don't.

Safe to say the eating arse anal rape charge is BS and leads me to think the others probably are too but I didn't listen to this trial and am not going to pretend I know for certain what this retard did. I like Russell Brand so hopefully he didn't but this headline was the least surprising thing i saw on here today.

Either way, none of this is going to change whether or not I rewatch Forgetting Sarah Marshall.

quote:

---

He said / she said. 1000 %.

---

This entire story is amazing, and not in a good way.

I shouldn't be, but I'm a bit surprised people are ok with taking away someone's liberty based on this shitshow. You have consensual sex, 20 years later she decides that the intercourse was consensual but the blowjob she gave you afterwards wasn't, she declares "I was raped", you go to jail.

And people are ok with this. I don't get it.

quote:

---

And people are ok with this. I don't get it.

---

Women not being held accountable for their decisions has no statute of limitations.

quote:

---

Courts literally found him guilty, the amount of delusion some of y'all choose to live in

---

OJ was found NG in a court.......that is a dumb argument.

Regret and remorse for sex isn't the same as rape.

The courts need to address this ( Cornell 7, Duke lacrosse team, etc...) and stop this lifetime protection for women who make up stories

quote:

---

So on a public message board where discourse occurs, your go to answer is "go look it up"??

What's the purpose in you participating in these discussions if you don't want to bring forth some evidence for your claims?

---

The same standard as everyone else on this thread?

No one has come forth with anything beyond a single quote and a time range about why the accusations are false; I did a quick search and posted the summary of what was shown as evidence.

My "allegations" are non-existent. I have not said I believe he is innocent or guilty; I demonstrated that the premise of it being purely "he said/she said" was inaccurate based on a cursory search of what evidence was presented at the trial; according to what I found, that included both witness accusations and police investigations.

I was not on the jury, so I cannot state to whether or not the evidence was believable, concrete, valid, or anything else - just that it exists.

We know the following, based on news:
1. In the UK, like in the US, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a requirement for a conviction of a felony

2. The jury must convict unanimously, on each charge individually (there were 7 total charges; he was found guilty of 4)

3. The jury was made up of 8 men and 4 women ( Law Commentary

Here is the breakdown, according to AI summary, of evidence presented on behalf of the prosecution and the defense:

For the prosecution:

Key Evidence and Testimony Presented

• Complainants' Accounts: Four women provided detailed, harrowing testimony describing non-consensual sexual acts, physical overpowering, and coercion:
• An MTV worker (2001): Testified that Brand dragged her toward a men's restroom and transformed aggressively; Brand was cleared of attempted indecent assault on this count.
• A Choice FM radio station worker (2004 or 2005): Testified that Brand "overpowered her" and sexually assaulted her in front of his entourage; he was found guilty of sexual assault.
• A Channel 4 recording session worker (2009): Testified that Brand lunged at her crotch and forced his head into her lap under the condition that she massage him; he was found guilty of sexual assault.
• A fan met after a Hammersmith Apollo comedy gig (2009): Testified that after an initial consensual encounter, Brand anally raped her at his Hampstead home; he was found guilty of this rape charge (More info: 2009 Hammersmith Apollo incident: A 21-year-old fan said she first had consensual sex with Brand in his dressing room, then was driven to his Hampstead home where he forcibly anally raped her after she begged him to stop. Two dozen witnesses supported her account.)

Police Interrogations & Inconsistencies: Prosecutors presented footage from four police interviews (conducted between 2003 and 2025) in which Brand initially claimed he did not recognize the women. As the trial approached, his account changed, leading prosecutors to characterize his defense as a "selective memory" and note admissions of inconsistencies.

Media and Career Review: Investigators reviewed thousands of pages of documents, hundreds of hours of Brand's stand-up routines, TV appearances, podcasts, and books to establish timelines and test his claims



Evidence in support of the defense:

Defence Evidence
Brand’s own testimony: He denied all charges, calling the allegations “devastating” and saying no one agreed to testify for him. He told police in 2023 the accusations were “invented or re-imagined”

Character/consent argument: Barrister Ian Winter KC argued Brand was promiscuous but all encounters were consensual, and that “treating women unkindly is not a crime”

Contextualisation: Defence claimed media reporting in 2023 had shaped or distorted victims’ memories

Witness accounts: Former assistant Helen Berger testified about Brand’s treatment of women but said she had not seen him break the law


There you go.

quote:

---

I demonstrated that the premise of it being purely "he said/she said" was inaccurate based on a cursory search of what evidence was presented at the trial;

---

No, you really didn't. You listed a bunch of verbal claims.

quote:

---

No, you really didn't. You listed a bunch of verbal claims.

---

I never said they weren't that; I stated it was more than simply "accuser vs accused." The level of validity you wish to ascribe to witness statements is entirely up to you, but regardless it should be noted a LOT of the judicial system relies on witness testimony.

I will state that some summaries included the statement that messages and the use of certain terms in his texts were also used, but other summaries have left that out, so I'm unsure if THOSE were used. The account of over 20 witnesses collaborating the accuser of the act in 2009 has held steady over multiple summaries, so it is safe to presume that the total number of witnesses that corroborated the account is accurate.

quote:

---

But folks like Bluegrass Belle think justice is being served.

---

frick you.

I never said anything to that effect. Please feel free to quote me where I said that "justice is being served" in this case. I simply pointed out that the threshold for a conviction in the UK is different than the US (the original comment Flats made was that there was no evidence, I pointed out that according to Crown Prosecution they consider statements as evidence).

Your comment that I responded to:

quote:

---

All you've claimed is that there's "evidence", which is not a claim at all because you have no idea what that evidence is.

---

I simply responded with what the Crown considers "evidence". In the UK, they consider accusations/verbal accounts and witness accounts as evidence.