Russell Brand accused of rape, sexual assault and emotional abuse

TheMightyQuin said:
So ...rapist or not. He's a dick and should go to jail?

I think he is a massive twat myself...but I don't think that warrants him being made out to be a rapist 24 years after the fact.

He was convicted in the press, based on a massive campaign by Rosamund Irwin. She's apparently an expert in convincing people of things that happened to them.
Click to expand...
Strawman.

Whether he goes to jail or not, he is gross and not worth the time to listen to or watch.
 
TheMightyQuin said:
On hearsay and circumstantial evidence.
Click to expand...
Direct , first hand testimony from the person who made the accusation isn't hearsay.

TheMightyQuin said:
She said he raped her orally.
He said he did not rape her.

Guilty!
Click to expand...
He was actually found not guilty of that particular charge It's truly fascinating how you can wrong, about so many things, so often.
 
Cray said:
Direct , first hand testimony from the person who made the accusation isn't hearsay.
Click to expand...
When it can’t really be corroborated by anyone, and there is no other physical evidence to support the claim, it still kind of is.
Cray said:
He was actually found not guilty of that particular charge It's truly fascinating how you can wrong, about so many things, so often.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that bit is still doing my head in. So he isn’t guilty of forcing her to give him a blowjob (implying she willingly did so), yet somehow he is guilty of touching her boobs…. Make this make sense.
 
Perhaps the MyBB expits could let Brand's counsel, Ian Winter KC, know about these glaring mistakes.

As a senior advocate of many years' standing, it's possible that he may simply have missed these obvious issues leading to the bogus conviction.

/s (just in case) 👀
 
Zellephant said:
When it can’t really be corroborated by anyone, and there is no other physical evidence to support the claim, it still kind of is.
Click to expand...
He didn't deny it, did he? If he didn't, then it's not hearsay.
Zellephant said:
Yeah, that bit is still doing my head in. So he isn’t guilty of forcing her to give him a blowjob (implying she willingly did so), yet somehow he is guilty of touching her boobs…. Make this make sense.
Click to expand...
Using your example, if you're authorised to be in area A but not B, but you're somehow caught sniffing around in area B, it's deemed tresspassing.
 
konfab said:
How can a court distinguish between bad sex and rape? Especially since it is 17 years since the incident. It is genuinely a case of believing one person over another. And here, there is evidence that both parties are degenerates.
Click to expand...
That is what happens in a lot of rape cases it becomes a he said she said case. Maybe old russel boy is paying the collective price for all the victims who got screwed over the years by defense lawyers treating them absolute horridly on the stands and convincing judges and juries that because they aren't angels they deserved it.
 
Zellephant said:
When it can’t really be corroborated by anyone, and there is no other physical evidence to support the claim, it still kind of is.
Click to expand...
No its not. Look up the definition of the word.

Hearsay is second hand testimony. If you hear from someone else that a crime was committed, that is hearsay. Direct testimony of a crime committed against your person or someone else that you witnessed directly is first hand evidence and it's not hearsay.

Zellephant said:
Yeah, that bit is still dng my head in. So he isn’t guilty of forcing her to give him a blowjob (implying she willingly did so), yet somehow he is guilty of touching her boobs…. Make this make sense.
Click to expand...
One act was was in public and was witnessed by others, the other wasnt. One crime was easy to corroborate. The other was her word against his.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X