Russel Brand seems to have an situation

[Beebo]

Yeah we won't know until after the verdict what exactly was the evidence against him but based on the various reports and comments I've seen it appears to be not much, except "He said she said" from many years ago.

But it’s the weight of evidence over a long period of time from a number of unconnected sources which will be used to show a pattern of behaviour.
I suspect he feels victimised because plenty of high profile characters have gotten away with similar behaviours in the past. But times have changed.

 

[Shortfall]

But it’s the weight of evidence over a long period of time from a number of unconnected sources which will be used to show a pattern of behaviour.
I suspect he feels victimised because plenty of high profile characters have gotten away with similar behaviours in the past. But times have changed.

I ask again what's the evidence other than one person's word against another? Or several people's word against his? We've seen this sort of thing before. Beyond reasonable doubt is the burden of proof but like I said, probably best to await the verdicts and then we'll know exactly what was presented the jury

 

[Psamathe]

I'm way outside any knowledge but my (quite possibly incorrect) understanding is that for many rape trials there are not witnesses who can confirm they saw the defendant commit the rape. The majority of such cases take place in private with just victim and perpetrator present.

But in the past I've been told the courts recognise this and factors that become significant evidence are the actions of the victims after the attack eg did they discuss what happened with a friend, did they attend STD clinics, etc.

eg in the Brand case reports include (from https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9e8lz4mrg88o)

Statements from the woman's parents were also heard in court, saying their daughter had told them about the alleged attack, and that she had been "very worried about HIV".

and a friend

She said when they spoke about it "quite soon after", she said she "was just crying - really upset".

More details from fields talked to after that incident https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9e8lz4mrg88o

 

[matticus]

But it’s the weight of evidence over a long period of time from a number of unconnected sources which will be used to show a pattern of behaviour.

If the "pattern of behaviour" is just being unfaithful, and shagging around, using his privilege to get a lot more sex than he would otherwise ...
... well, that's not evidence of criminal offences, is it?

 

[matticus]

From what I've read and seen there is little in the way of actual evidence. Years old uncorroborated witness statements don't seem much of a basis for a conviction as we've seen in recent high profile cases like operation Midland and others. As a caveat I've never liked Brand, his so called humour, or his transition from darling of the left to religious zealot and Tucker Carlson lite conspiracy theorist.

It's rather sad that you feel you have to add that sentence (and I don't blame you!)

 

[Beebo]

If the "pattern of behaviour" is just being unfaithful, and shagging around, using his privilege to get a lot more sex than he would otherwise ...
... well, that's not evidence of criminal offences, is it?

Depends if consent was sought and given.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

People like him - with their "finding Jesus" make me think of something that was said in Divinity lessons at school a few times

Something from the Bible about how humans cannot be expected to be able to tell the difference between Jesus speaking to them
and The Devil speaking to them pretending to be Jesus
after all - the Devil is a supernatural being and capable of almost anything

So you are supposed to tell the difference by looking at what this "person" is asking/telling you to do

Cases like this make me wonder if they are listening to the wrong one

assuming either exist and do things like that

add a politician's name instead of Brand for the same concept!
and several leader of Churches

 

[bobzmyunkle]

I don't know the details of the case but I understood that the CPS only takes cases to court where there is there enough evidence against the suspect to provide a realistic prospect of conviction?. And to assess that the prosecutor must consider whether the evidence is reliable, credible and whether there is anything that might undermine the case against the defendant.

So I can't see the case having got to court were "there little in the way of actual evidence".

But then I'm no legal expert and have not seen the evidence as presented to the court.

Looks like there's a few on here think the CPS don't understand the process for proceeding to trial.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Yeah but we don't bang people up because nobody likes them. Surely we've learnt from recent miscarriages of justice that we can't just believe the word of accusers?

That's also highlights the difficulty of proving sexual abuse, it a long tie ago and often his words against theirs And all years later Alltough i tink the testimony right in the beginning about the "Bournemouth incident" was pretty damming, especially considering the testimony of his former friend.

 

[Shortfall]

I'm way outside any knowledge but my (quite possibly incorrect) understanding is that for many rape trials there are not witnesses who can confirm they saw the defendant commit the rape. The majority of such cases take place in private with just victim and perpetrator present.

But in the past I've been told the courts recognise this and factors that become significant evidence are the actions of the victims after the attack eg did they discuss what happened with a friend, did they attend STD clinics, etc.

eg in the Brand case reports include (from https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9e8lz4mrg88o)


and a friend


More details from fields talked to after that incident https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9e8lz4mrg88o

That's not evidence is it? If someone caught HIV after having claiming they had sex with him, even if he also happened to have HIV himself that doesn't prove they had sex let alone that a rape took place. Moreover if someone tells a parent or a friend that theyre "worried about HIV" it's even flimsier, particularly if they don't go to the police until years, possibly decades later. Nobody wants rapists to go unpunished but be careful what you wish for if you think obtaining more convictions is the only consideration.

 

[Shortfall]

Looks like there's a few on here think the CPS don't understand the process for proceeding to trial.

I'm sure the CPS understand the process very well, however they aren't the final arbiters (thank God) and putting a case before a jury means that the evidence can be fully tested. If the CPS were the be all and end all then we'd never have a Not Guilty verdict.

 

[Psamathe]

I don't know the details of the case but I understood that the CPS only takes cases to court where there is there enough evidence against the suspect to provide a realistic prospect of conviction?. And to assess that the prosecutor must consider whether the evidence is reliable, credible and whether there is anything that might undermine the case against the defendant.

So I can't see the case having got to court were "there little in the way of actual evidence".

But then I'm no legal expert and have not seen the evidence as presented to the court.

Looks like there's a few on here think the CPS don't understand the process for proceeding to trial.

I'm not sure I do - no idea if I'm included in your comment but I just sort of assume that part of the purpose of the CPS is to not be wasting court time when there is no realistic prospect of a conviction (hence their looking at the evidence and also their having the option to pass the case back to the Police for further investigation).

But if my assumptions are not correct please do correct me as I claim no expertise in such matters.

 

[Psamathe]

That's not evidence is it? If someone caught HIV after having claiming they had sex with him, even if he also happened to have HIV himself that doesn't prove they had sex let alone that a rape took place. Moreover if someone tells a parent or a friend that theyre "worried about HIV" it's even flimsier, particularly if they don't go to the police until years, possibly decades later. Nobody wants rapists to go unpunished but be careful what you wish for if you think obtaining more convictions is the only consideration.

I'm no legal expert so just repeating what others have said.

The courts must have ways to assess to the point of making a safe conviction otherwise there would never be any convictions for rape eg one party says "I was raped" other party says "it was consensual" and no witnesses or video to corroborate either's assertions.

So there must be some basis for to juries deciding who is telling the truth and who is lying without signed confessions and absolute categoric documentary proof.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

I'm not sure I do - no idea if I'm included in your comment but I just sort of assume that part of the purpose of the CPS is to not be wasting court time when there is no realistic prospect of a conviction (hence their looking at the evidence and also their having the option to pass the case back to the Police for further investigation).

But if my assumptions are not correct please do correct me as I claim no expertise in such matters.

I quoted you because you seemed to be talking sense.

 

[Psamathe]

I quoted you because you seemed to be talking sense.

Thanks. I wasn't taking any offence either way as on this (as on many things) I claim no expertise so being corrected is part of learning stuff.