The trial of Russell Brand continues. He’s accused of sexual offences in relation to encounters with six women, many years ago.
It is notable, as usual with such trials, how much of the ‘evidence’ is of the ‘he said / she said’ variety. There are occasional glimpses into what may pass as normal for the high-profile men (usually entertainers of one sort or another) granted free ‘sexual favours’ by female fans. This struck me today when I read an article in The Times (£), “Woman #5” having given testimony yesterday.
A BBC article covering yesterday’s proceedings is here. The start of the piece takes up the remainder of this blog piece:
“A woman who says Russell Brand raped her at his home in London told police she “couldn’t speak or breathe” during the alleged attack, a jury has heard. [J4MB emphasis: The woman seemingly doesn’t relate why she could neither speak nor breathe during the alleged (anal) rape.]
The 51-year-old entertainer is accused of raping the woman in 2009 after meeting her at London’s Hammersmith Apollo, where he had been performing as a stand-up comedian.
Brand faces seven charges in the trial in total – three counts of rape, three charges of sexual assault and one of indecent assault.
The allegations, made by six female complainants, span a 10-year period between 1999 and 2009. He denies all the charges.
In video evidence of her speaking to a police officer, the woman said she performed a sex act on Brand at the London theatre after being invited for drinks following the show. [J4MB emphasis: The Times reports she willingly had a threesome with Brand and a 19-year-old woman backstage after they were “selected” by him, and that she’d performed oral sex on Brand but didn’t want to have intercourse as she had a boyfriend at the time. Good to know where she drew her moral lines.]
She said she gave him her phone number, [J4MB emphasis] explaining she was “a massive Russell Brand fan” and a “massive comedy fan” at the time. [J4MB: Maybe she thought Brand wanted to meet up with her again for a game of chess or something else unrelated to sex.]
After that night, she said Brand messaged her and she went to his house in Hampstead knowing they would have sex. [J4MB emphasis. How did she know they would have sex? Presumably she no longer had the aforementioned boyfriend.]
But she said a consensual encounter became rape when Brand started having anal sex with her and ignored her pleas for him to stop.
She said when she arrived at his home, Brand told her she needed to have a shower “because my hair smelled funny”. He then asked her to brush her teeth.
“I was trying to make a joke of what he was making me do”, she said. “All of those things made me feel, ‘I don’t like this’.” [J4MB emphasis: Then why didn’t she leave Brand’s house at that point?]
The woman said a short while after getting on his bed, she was turned over. It was then she said she was allegedly raped.
She told police: “From the very moment it happened, I felt I had willingly gone there and from what his reputation was, what did I expect?”
She said Brand “hurt me and harmed me, and when I asked him to stop, he didn’t“. [J4MB emphasis: How does this tally with her claim that she could neither breathe nor speak during the alleged attack?] She added: “The horror in anyone that I told was not enough to make me believe I didn’t deserve it.”
The woman said she told friends and family afterwards, and went through sexual health tests – believing that she had contracted a disease from Brand.” [J4MB emphasis. Presumably the tests proved negative, or she’d have stated otherwise. And even if they’d been positive, what proof would there have been that Brand was the source of the disease? None.]
If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.
We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.
Our YouTube channel is here.
I appreciate the commentary, Mike.
As you note, many of these trials are light on evidence of sexual assault and heavy on evidence of women fawning over celebrity men.
LikeLiked by 3 people
And once again, normal court procedure of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ does not apply. As in the Harvey Weinstein trial, multiple women give their statements and aim to ‘convince’ the jury that this man did the ‘same thing’ to all of them, therefore it must be true for all of them. But NONE of these alleged victims are witnesses of each other’s alleged crimes, so why are they being tried together? Cumulative guilt. In my understanding of probability, if each of 5 women were say 20% likely to be telling the truth, probability does not ‘accumulate’, so 20% +20% +20% +20% +20% =100% guilty. Sorry wrong, They should be multiplied not added , making the probability of the accused having done them all just 0.032% likely. Well below the 90% ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. The fact that someone killed 20 people with a red bullet does not mean that the 21st victim who was found with a red bullet was killed by the same person. Each case should be proven separately. Not in these witch hunt trials. Another sad reflection on the long gone British fair justice system..
LikeLiked by 3 people
‘There is no such thing as a free sexual favour’, is, in the female universe, the equivalent ‘no free lunch’ summation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Helpfully summarised 100 years ago by Robert Briffault as ‘Briffault’s Law’: ‘The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place. Females decide the rules of any relationship. A woman remains in a relationship only if it benefits her right now. Past benefits mean nothing if current value has gone.’
Robert may have failed to foresee today’s trick, though: ‘The value of past transactions can be revitalised by reviewing through a lens of victimhood.’
LikeLiked by 2 people
She told police: “From the very moment it happened, I felt I had willingly gone there and from what his reputation was, what did I expect?” As I recall Brand was very much the darling of the media then precisely because he was “edgy” and “transgressive”. Drink, Drugs and promiscuous sex were all a part of his “act” and appeal. Literally decades later in some cases, one can see how a case can seem attractive, for Brand’s reputation of the time was as a libertine. No doubt at the time the heady brew of fame, danger and excitement would have been understood. Now of course we see a middle aged man trying to defend himself against claims that are too long ago to produce hard evidence, but are easy to believe given his reputation of the time. With “groupies” only too eager to reinterpret the follies of their youth as abuse.
Of course the common sense of the quote has to be ignored now because it is heresy to suggest that promiscuity in women may be regretted later….. apparently decades later. As for Brand the very fact he’s on record as regretting his libertine past will simply make his conviction more likely.
LikeLiked by 2 people
As expected Brand is convicted. Though not on all counts. One can sympathise with his Barrister who apparently commented to the journalist who had pursued the story. Brand was convicted because of the “trial by media” newspaper stories and “documentary”. I see the “narrative” is now he “was hiding in plain sight” and yet of course he wasn’t hiding at all. His fame was because he was a libertine and addict. Achieving high ratings and huge audiences. But of course as the screen is filled with male and female pearl clutching media types claiming to be “horrified” one has to remember the current state of TV output. Naked Attraction, Naked Dating, Married at first sight, Love Island, Big Brother, Dating Naked as well as a parade of dramas awash with promiscuous sex of all forms and all “genders”. Quite clearly there is little morality in the pursuit of ratings. It really is rich to see them line up pretending to be shocked.
Brand was convicted not because there was actual evidence but because he wasn’t hiding at all. The very easiest “target” of all precisely because he himself was very publicly promiscuous a “sex addict” as well as other addictions and has even admitted as such and written of his regret as he has grown older. Long before the trial he was already “guilty”. I expect Ian Winter KC will be hauled over the coals for apparently pointing this out. In a sense its more surprising three of the accusers were not believed in this “he said she said” trial, three damsels in distress against against a latter day Marquis de Sade.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And by the magic of the interweb this popped up Russell Brand’s lawyer explodes at journalist with furious ‘you f****d it’ outburst after guilty verdict | The Standard It seems the trial by media is precisely what the KC was referring to. Much as I may dislike Brand I have to say his Barrister makes a good case.
LikeLike
I was amused by this. ‘We felt we didn’t belong’: Barristers accuse legal tailor of elitist and discriminatory treatment | The Independent Firstly it seems hilarious that some of the most privileged in our society, barristers, can play the victim card. Secondly that people who supposedly one can rely on in court to be represent either the state or the accused in serious crimes, can be bested by snooty shop assistants.
I note in amongst the whinging that it does record that many men also found the assistants snooty too. Could it possibly be that in “posh” shops snooty shop assistants are common? Or even that Barristers may have a tendency to behave in a entitled way? Lets be honest in the contest between shop assistant and Barrister it really is the latter who holds all the power, whatever their genitals or skin tone.
LikeLiked by 1 person