• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Russel Brand rape trial

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
13,113
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
The BBC was responsible for 40% of that, if that helps.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom