Russell Brand accused of rape and sexual assault

David Walliams will be the story next His appeal against the lifting of his 'super injunction' has failed.
 
arthwollipot said:
Ah yes. Rape jokes are perfect in this situation.
Click to expand...
Just to clarify, because the 👍 lacks nuance: I am agreeing with Arth here.

ETA: also, to clarify further: I recognise the irony/sarcasm in Arth's post. I apologise for the excessive explaining, but I've been talking to my mum, and unfettered access to GBNews seems to have fundamentally damaged her ability to parse language and paralanguage.

ETA2: the above strikethrough.
 
Last edited:
Probably been posted before, but let's get one thing straight, since right wingers flood the internet with "OMG, convicted on hearsay!"

Hearsay is anything not said under oath, by the person who actually saw it. (Or was an expert witness testifying to the physics of it, like what speed the car was doing based on brake distance.) So if you say "Joe texted me that Bonnie is trying to kill him", that's hearsay. And is not admissible as evidence that Bonnie actually murdered Joe in the end.

BUT, it can still be admissible in other ways.

The first one is to prove that that text was sent. It doesn't establish that the deed actually happened, but it establishes that Joe did send a text saying that.

The second prominent one is to support a witness that did testify under oath that X happened. Relevant here because it was what happened in the trial, when Brand's lawyer said that the victims are just making it up now. If a deed happened in 2017, and the witness/victim told their friends about it since 2017, then they're not making it up right now. In effect, it's hearsay for those extra witnesses that the deed did happen, but it is not hearsay that the victim has been saying that for a long time, and is not just now jumping on the bandwagon. In the UK it's even codified as helping prove that the testimony was true.

A third one is if both the prosecution and defence allow it without challenging it. For example if both agree that that text from Joe saying that Bonnie is trying to kill him can be read in court, that goes. They may be going into different directions with what it really means, but if they agreed not to object, it is read in court and included in the record.

Couple more ways, but this will do for that case.
 
Last edited:
Megyn Kelly, Elon Musk and Others Defend Russell Brand After Rape Conviction (N.Y. Times)

“I don’t believe the charges,” Kelly said, “and I don’t have to believe them just because the jury came through with the opposite conclusion.” She added, “I feel indignant that this obvious conservative stalwart has been targeted.”
Click to expand...
"This obvious conservative stalwart" she said. Who's "fawning" now?
Her belief appears to be that he was "targeted" because he is conservative?
Since Brand’s conviction, some X users have posted that they believe the case was politically motivated, or to claim that Brand was being persecuted, in part, because he is a Christian.
Click to expand...
And finally:
Before Brand was sentenced on Monday, a group of his supporters held a large banner outside the courthouse proclaiming his innocence. “Christ was crucified for telling the truth,” the banner said: “Russell is the truth.”
Click to expand...
Comparisons to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ!! That goes beyond fawning, to deification.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Andrew Tate
@Cobratate

With no statute of limitations and testimony alone being enough for conviction, all sex that has ever occurred between a man and a woman since the dawn of time is rape the second she wants it to be. Insanity.

Link
Click to expand...
◊◊◊◊ off.

You are also going down. And like Brand, you also acknowledged your rape in text messages to the victim. Brand wrote a book where he boasted about his behaviour that was bad but in the book, wasn't criminal

You put out videos where you boasted about criminal behaviour that agrees with the accusations against you. You also posted video of some of your criminal acts. As well as video showing that you needlessly perjured yourself in your appeal for bail.
 
www.bbc.com

Russell Brand's ex Jemima Goldsmith accuses him of violence and abuse against her

Goldsmith accuses the disgraced entertainer of "violence, coercive control and abuse" while the two were together.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

This story also relates to the one mentioned earlier in the thread about the woman given an anti-harassment court order that silenced her:
In her statement, she also addressed reports of an injunction taken out by her and Brand in October 2015 that banned a woman, Szilvia Berki, from harassing them including by making allegations of assault by Brand at Goldsmith's home the prior year.
Goldsmith said on Monday that Berki had visited her house for roughly 30 minutes on 7 June 2014 to give Brand a massage, which she said did not end up taking place once she arrived.
Click to expand...
Goldsmith said that Berki later told police that Brand had pushed her in the back while she had been leaving and that she had been attacked by Goldsmith's dog. Brand's ex-girlfriend said she "did not see anything untoward" during the encounter.
Click to expand...
She added that, after providing a statement and CCTV footage, police concluded that there was no case to answer.
Goldsmith accused Berki of then sending a series of "vicious antisemitic and threatening" messages and posting "wild and untrue allegations" about her on social media.
Click to expand...
 
SpuriusMaximus said:
Probably been posted before, but let's get one thing straight, since right wingers flood the internet with "OMG, convicted on hearsay!"

Hearsay is anything not said under oath, by the person who actually saw it. (Or was an expert witness testifying to the physics of it, like what speed the car was doing based on brake distance.) So if you say "Joe texted me that Bonnie is trying to kill him", that's hearsay. And is not admissible as evidence that Bonnie actually murdered Joe in the end.

BUT, it can still be admissible in other ways.

The first one is to prove that that text was sent. It doesn't establish that the deed actually happened, but it establishes that Joe did send a text saying that.

The second prominent one is to support a witness that did testify under oath that X happened. Relevant here because it was what happened in the trial, when Brand's lawyer said that the victims are just making it up now. If a deed happened in 2017, and the witness/victim told their friends about it since 2017, then they're not making it up right now. In effect, it's hearsay for those extra witnesses that the deed did happen, but it is not hearsay that the victim has been saying that for a long time, and is not just now jumping on the bandwagon. In the UK it's even codified as helping prove that the testimony was true.

A third one is if both the prosecution and defence allow it without challenging it. For example if both agree that that text from Joe saying that Bonnie is trying to kill him can be read in court, that goes. They may be going into different directions with what it really means, but if they agreed not to object, it is read in court and included in the record.

Couple more ways, but this will do for that case.
Click to expand...
In addition, she sought medical treatment immediately afterwards.
 
So does Jemima Goldsmith's statement (and police report) wipe out Brand's mitigation or does it have to go to a separate trial?
 

Dr Raj Persaud talking about the judge's sentencing remarks.

He has some interesting takes.

For example the Judge saying "after [the attack] she was driven to an underground station by your driver who for some reason had tissues to hand"

"Notice how the word 'humiliation' keeps cropping up with this particular judge"
 
jimbob said:

Dr Raj Persaud talking about the judge's sentencing remarks.

He has some interesting takes.

For example the Judge saying "after [the attack] she was driven to an underground station by your driver who for some reason had tissues to hand"

"Notice how the word 'humiliation' keeps cropping up with this particular judge"
Click to expand...
His tone of incredulity at the defense barrister's asserting that there's "no evidence he's some sort of psychopath who rapes someone and thinks it's normal".
 
Who thought it was a good idea to put her in the House of Lords?

Sharron Davies HoL MBE
@sharrond62
My heart genuinely breaks for those children repeatedly abused by rape gangs, whilst large sways of our politicians, including those right at the top, look the other way, whilst waxing lyrical about justice being rightly dished out to Russell Brand. We live in such unjust times.

Link
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom