• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Russel Brand rape trial

 
 
 
DrZoidberg

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
13,123
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
So he was found guilty. But I find this a bit troubling. Its all word against word. No witnesses. No physical evidence. 20 years after the fact.

In the British comedian circuit he was notorious. A lot of female comedians "knew". So I think he was probably guilty. But that's not evidence.

I feel pretty uncomfortable about his conviction. No matter how much I dislike him. Or think he's probably guilty of a lot of it. I see a problem with women being able to get a guy convicted without evidence.

What do you think?
 
Not guilty on: two counts of rape and one count of attempted indecent assault
He was found guilty on: one count of rape and three counts of sexual assault

That at least suggests a jury that weighed the evidence and did not indiscriminately convict. One victim at least had multiple witnesses whom she had informed about the rape at the time.
Six accusers, I believe. Not up to Cosby's 50, but substantial.
Impossible to assess definitively without a transcript.
It wasn't "without evidence". It may be without physical evidence, but it's not without evidence. Testimony is evidence.
 
A miscarriage of justice is always possible, but it doesn't seem absurdly likely that one has occurred with this conviction; And while the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" applies, it is nevertheless worth noting that the acquittal of a guilty party is a miscarriage of justice, just as is the conviction of an innocent party.

The system very strongly favours the defendant, and the jury were insufficiently certain to convict on all counts. This strongly suggests that they were correct to convict on the remaining count.

Certainty is not available. Criminal cases almost never have access to proof. If there was physical evidence sufficient to prove a case on its own, the case would never make it to a jury trial - either it would be thrown out for lack of merit, or the defendant would plead guilty.
 
Always wonder how people like Brand, Cosby, Saville, Clinton, Trump etc. get away with it for so long?
The accusations were long term and just kept coming.
 
bilby said:
A miscarriage of justice is always possible, but it doesn't seem absurdly likely that one has occurred with this conviction; And while the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" applies, it is nevertheless worth noting that the acquittal of a guilty party is a miscarriage of justice, just as is the conviction of an innocent party.

The system very strongly favours the defendant, and the jury were insufficiently certain to convict on all counts. This strongly suggests that they were correct to convict on the remaining count.

Certainty is not available. Criminal cases almost never have access to proof. If there was physical evidence sufficient to prove a case on its own, the case would never make it to a jury trial - either it would be thrown out for lack of merit, or the defendant would plead guilty.
Click to expand...
One of the victims (the LA one) immediately took a rape kit test after it happened. I'd be amazed if the results weren't submitted as evidence.

I think Zoid is mistaking TV for real life. When the evidence is overwhelming, it almost never goes to trial; it gets pleaded out. I know this is anecdotal but the two times I've had the misfortune of being slated for jury duty confirms that.
 
Tigers! said:
Always wonder how people like Brand, Cosby, Saville, Clinton, Trump etc. get away with it for so long?
The accusations were long term and just kept coming.
Click to expand...

Fame. Them being surrounded by people who's career dependent on their perpetuated fame. I think its mostly just that. Its not necessarily lying. Dependence leads to self deception.

And beautiful women often like to sleep with famous men. So when the famous man has slept with a woman it'll be assumed, by those near him, to be consensual.

Resentment makes people accuse famous people of bullshit all the time. Things that rarely are true. There will always be rape accusations thrown around about famous men. Its unavoidable.

So how would the people around them be able to separate the real accusations from gossip?

I'm not surprised at all. As long as we have celebrity culture we will have these serial rapists.
 
Patooka said:
Tigers! said:
Always wonder how people like Brand, Cosby, Saville, Clinton, Trump etc. get away with it for so long?
The accusations were long term and just kept coming.
Click to expand...
The BBC was responsible for 40% of that, if that helps.
Click to expand...

If a director at BBC gives a platform to a serial rapist and a pedophile, it reflects badly on the director who hired them. So they have an incentive to cover it up.

Isn't that the BBC story?

Not to mention that the directors of the BBC all come from fancy families with their own skelletons in the closet.
 
I never really paid much attention to Russell Brand. I tried watching one of his stand up comedy specials but I tapped out after about ten minutes, I thought it was terrible. I heard about Brand and Ross calling national treasure Andrew Sachs and leaving crude and offensive messages on Sachs' answering machine. What is noteworthy about this incident is it was allowed to air on the BBC. The BBC really is a cesspit of warped people. Brand appeared in a few low brow comedies that were quite successful at the box office and seems to have been quite a prolific performer in the USA and was once married to famous US astronaut Katy Perry. Since his conviction of the rape and sexual assault charges I've had a lot of snippets of video of Brand showing him in the worst possible light including one video of him discussing the time his father took him on a sex tourism holiday in Thailand (or Hong Kong) when he was a teenager which was well icky. Brand seems to be an annoying prick but also a huge sex pest to women. I don't understand what women see in this guy other than his fame and money. Brand took full advantage of the situation and never hid it. In fact he seems to have pretty much made his career of being a notorious "shagger". He was found guilty of anally raping a woman by a jury and this charge alone counted for nine years of his ten year sentence. I think the jury probably got it right.
 
I had no idea who he is or why anyone would care, same for most in entertainment.

I'd chalk it up as yet another self destructive abusive entertainment figure.

Yawn. More of the news media filling time 24/7.
 
I vaguely remembered him from some rom com that my wife made me watch once upon a time. Then he showed up in the Joe Rogan sphere of macho right wing dumbassery and conspiracy theories. Aliens, antivax, alt-medicine,anti-fem, any pseudoscientific Jordan Peterson go take you testosterone boosters and roids crap he could grab, and a little bit of god-bothering too…typical “manosphere” meatball garbage.

I don’t pay attention to much pop culture but I do get wrapped up in debunking crap. So when he pops up as some kind of pop guru promoting dum shit conspiracy theories I thought “who the fuck is this gibberish spewing moron that the dummies are holding g up as a twoof teller”? Well, now we know. Except the really entrenched right wing conspiracy fans think this trial was all a made up sham to silence their truth telling hero.
 
TSwizzle said:
I never really paid much attention to Russell Brand. I tried watching one of his stand up comedy specials but I tapped out after about ten minutes, I thought it was terrible. I heard about Brand and Ross calling national treasure Andrew Sachs and leaving crude and offensive messages on Sachs' answering machine. What is noteworthy about this incident is it was allowed to air on the BBC. The BBC really is a cesspit of warped people. Brand appeared in a few low brow comedies that were quite successful at the box office and seems to have been quite a prolific performer in the USA and was once married to famous US astronaut Katy Perry. Since his conviction of the rape and sexual assault charges I've had a lot of snippets of video of Brand showing him in the worst possible light including one video of him discussing the time his father took him on a sex tourism holiday in Thailand (or Hong Kong) when he was a teenager which was well icky. Brand seems to be an annoying prick but also a huge sex pest to women. I don't understand what women see in this guy other than his fame and money. Brand took full advantage of the situation and never hid it. In fact he seems to have pretty much made his career of being a notorious "shagger". He was found guilty of anally raping a woman by a jury and this charge alone counted for nine years of his ten year sentence. I think the jury probably got it right.
Click to expand...
Sounds like the type of guy you vote for.

And have voted for.

With your consent,
 
Another UK celebrity sex pest has been outed.

David Walliams, one of Britain’s best-known television personalities and top-selling children’s authors, has been accused by multiple women of using his power and celebrity status to prey on young women and teenagers for sex. The allegations include accounts from two women who said they first met the star when they were 15 years old. Both women, now in their 30s, said they had been groomed by Walliams and that the experience had affected them for nearly two decades. Walliams, 55, has also been accused of abusing his position to pursue women through the family television show Britain’s Got Talent (BGT) and at his former children’s book publisher HarperCollins, where he had a sexual relationship with a junior member of staff.
Click to expand...

Teh Grauniad

It is not clear if Walliams has broken any laws but Walliams tried to keep his name out of the news with a gag order which has been lifted. Walliams was at least funny in Little Britain.
 
steve_bank said:
I had no idea who he is or why anyone would care, same for most in entertainment.
Click to expand...

It's a broad subject and goes beyond tabloid reporting on the high jinks of celebrity sexual proclivities. People on here seemed to "care" (obsess?) about the Epstein thing. I'm not sure the Brand situation comes under the subject of "Political Discussions" but it is interesting how public figures such as Brand can behave like monsters for decades and be feted and possibly protected by the lefty darlings but when Brand cleans himself up, rehabilitates himself and is embraced by the "right", the shit hits the fan for him and he finds himself doing ten years in jail for a crime committed 20 years ago.
 
steve_bank said:
I had no idea who he is or why anyone would care, same for most in entertainment.

I'd chalk it up as yet another self destructive abusive entertainment figure.

Yawn. More of the news media filling time 24/7.
Click to expand...
Self destructive? Nah. He never thought he’d get into any kind of trouble.

Abusive? Oh, yeah. The celebrity part surely helped attract victims and keep it quiet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom