Russell Brand denies 'serious criminal allegations' he claims are being made against him

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Yes? And?

a reply to: Kurokage

Right.

If he’s guilty fry him.

Since this is a conspiracy site though, I’m guessing tptb don’t want him talking since they’re trying to push for another lockdown.

a reply to: AlienBorg

No CCTV evidence of possible assault and abuse

Do you create CCTV of rape victims and abuse?

Of course you don't, and if not, then why should Brand as that would indeed be unsurmountable evidence.

You do not need video evidence to prove rape, and to even suggest so does a serious disservice to the victims of such a horrendous act of depravity.

No forensic evidence- This is the most important part of any such investigation

I think you might be rather wrong on that score.

No audio or photographic evidence

Now we know you are wrong and so would you if you had bothered to watch the documentary or accept the evidence you have been shown now time and time again.

The alleged offences were committed many years ago and by definition the collection of any type of evidence is something that seems almost impossible at this point.

Yawn, again there is no statute of limitations where serious sexual offenses are concerned here in the UK, how many times???

Unless there is serious evidence and a court of law with judge and jury deciding then what is presented until now can't do much.

Stop moving goalposts and just watch the documentary.

Oh aye and now this.



www.bracknellnews.co.uk...
news.sky.com...
www.express.co.uk...
www.ladbible.com...
www.telegraph.co.uk...

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: AlienBorg

We're talking about the kind of evidence presented and it doesn't seem to be anything that can convict someone of sexual assaults or rape.

So you decided to watch the docoumentary then, and have seen the phone messages for yourself?

You can't base your case on a documentary or phone messages to convict someone for rape or sexual assault. As already discussed a documentary cannot be the basis for the arguments of the prosecution. You need very strong evidence.

I don't have to btw. Others here have done it already and explained the arguments. All seems to be testimonials and one case here in the US where someone presented themselves at rape center but didn't go to the Police to report it. I wonder whether there is any forensic evidence to prove Russell Brand was with her that evening/night and whether there is evidence to prove these two were not consenting to having sex. That's how you prove your case. I don't really whether this account is true btw.

a reply to: AlienBorg

"It's scary to even think someone can be convicted only on the basis of testimonials.

Either there is something wrong with the defense given by the defense team or there is something wrong with the system or both."

Eh?

He hasn't even been charged, yet, if he even will be.

The Police and CPS would have to decide if there is sufficient evidence to do so.

And said evidence will not just be a TV program.

Is that too hard to understand?

a reply to: AlienBorg

You do realise that any accuser has to give evidence on Oath and gets to be cross examined by the Defence lawyers?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: AlienBorg

No CCTV evidence of possible assault and abuse

Do you create CCTV of rape victims and abuse?

If not then why should Brand as that would indeed be unsurmountable evidence.

No forensic evidence- This is the most important part of any such investigation

I think you might be rather wrong on that score.

No audio or photographic evidence

Now we know you are wrong and so would you if you had bothered to watch the documentary or accept the evidence you have been shown now time and time again.

The alleged offences were committed many years ago and by definition the collection of any type of evidence is something that seems almost impossible at this point.

Yawn, again there is no statute of limitations where serious sexual offenses are concerned here in the UK, how many times???

Unless there is serious evidence and a court of law with judge and jury deciding then what is presented until now can't do much.

Stop moving goalposts and just watch the documentary.

Oh aye and now this.

www.bracknellnews.co.uk...
news.sky.com...
www.express.co.uk...
www.ladbible.com...
www.telegraph.co.uk...

I am not the one who moves goalposts btw.

Do you have DNA evidence? Any other forensic evidence?

CCTV evidence?

Photographic evidence?
Audio evidence?

If you claim that some text message with Brand apologising for something is evidence of sexual assault or rape you have moved the bar way too high.

So I will say again

Unless there is serious evidence and a court of law with judge and jury deciding then what is presented until now can't do much.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: AlienBorg

"It's scary to even think someone can be convicted only on the basis of testimonials.

Either there is something wrong with the defense given by the defense team or there is something wrong with the system or both."

Eh?

He hasn't even been charged, yet, if he even will be.

The Police and CPS would have to decide if there is sufficient evidence to do so.

And said evidence will not just be a TV program.

Is that too hard to understand?

Was replying to another one who said this had been the case in the UK (on some instances).

So it's really scary it has happened in the past.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: AlienBorg

You do realise that any accuser has to give evidence on Oath and gets to be cross examined by the Defence lawyers?

And? They can also lie if they want.
God will not come down to earth and prevent them from doing so....

a reply to: AlienBorg
Asmod...I mean Alienborg.

You seem to want to keep repeating the same denials?
Phone messages are used as evidence to prove a crime has been commited, it's called Digital forensics, time to join the 21st century.

Posted as an example..
Hundreds arrested after messages cracked

Major crime figures were among over 800 Europe-wide arrests after messages on EncroChat were intercepted and decoded.

Another...

In 2019, a man was convicted of rape after attacking an intoxicated woman who had become separated from her friends after being refused entry to a nightclub.

The call and message log helped prosecutors piece together the sequence of events including when she joined the group and when she was isolated by the offender.

a reply to: AlienBorg

"Unless there is serious evidence and a court of law with judge and jury deciding then what is presented until now can't do much."

This is what everyone has been trying to point out to you?

It's too early yet.

a reply to: AlienBorg

Yes, they can lie. So can anyone under Oath.

So what do you suggest, we don't bother to prosecute anyone based on witness evidence?

For God's sake, he's not even been Charged?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Is it odd that it says this in your link?

The Met statement does not identify the accused person, but says the report was made directly to them following the Sunday Times report and Channel 4 documentary about Russell Brand.

a reply to: AlienBorg

I am not the one who moves goalposts btw.

You are also not one who's ever willing to watch the documentary where the allegations and evidence have been presented.

Do you have DNA evidence? Any other forensic evidence?

Why would i have any evidence of any sorts?

But remember the claim of the woman that went to the rape crisis center in 2012.

Obviously, not coz you did not watch the documentary.

What are you going to say if it turns out they documented or gathered some kind of forensic evidence?

CCTV evidence?

Photographic evidence?
Audio evidence?

Yadda, yadda, yadda. LoL

Not required to prove rape, thank god for small mercies.

If you claim that some text message with Brand apologising for something is evidence of sexual assault or rape you have moved the bar way too high.

I would take that one up with the CPS should they choose to present the txts as corroborating evidence.

So I will say again

Unless there is serious evidence and a court of law with judge and jury deciding then what is presented until now can't do much.

I wonder if Brand is quite so self-assured.

What you say doesn't matter what does matter is what the victims will say to the Police.

And how the CPS chooses to proceed based on the witness testimony and evidence.

And the band played on.

a reply to: andy06shake


What I find extraordinary is hoe easy someone is convicted in the social media and how easy conclusions are made about how guilty they are. It's just unbelievable.

Was it Cliff Richard that was found guilty in the media but innocent in the court of law?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: AlienBorg

I am not the one who moves goalposts btw.

You are also not one who's ever willing to watch the documentary where the allegations and evidence have been presented.

Do you have DNA evidence? Any other forensic evidence?

Remember the claim of the woman that went to the rape crisis center in 2012

Obviously, not coz you did not watch the documentary.

What are you going to say if it turns out they documented or gathered some kind of forensic evidence?

CCTV evidence?

Photographic evidence?
Audio evidence?

Yadda, yadda, yadda. LoL

If you claim that some text message with Brand apologising for something is evidence of sexual assault or rape you have moved the bar way too high.

I would take that one up with the CPS should they choose to present the txts as corroborating evidence.

So I will say again

Unless there is serious evidence and a court of law with judge and jury deciding then what is presented until now can't do much.

I wonder if Brand is quite so self-assured.

What you say doesn't matter what does matter is what the victims will say to the Police.

And how the CPS chooses to proceed based on the witness testimony and evidence.

And the band played on.

If she did go to the rape center do they have any forensic evidence and how do you know this??
If they do why they have waited for 11 years??

As time passes any forensic evidence is likely not to exist anymore (even if they had something back there).

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: AlienBorg
Asmod...I mean Alienborg.

You seem to want to keep repeating the same denials?
Phone messages are used as evidence to prove a crime has been commited, it's called Digital forensics, time to join the 21st century.

Posted as an example..
Hundreds arrested after messages cracked

Major crime figures were among over 800 Europe-wide arrests after messages on EncroChat were intercepted and decoded.

Another...

In 2019, a man was convicted of rape after attacking an intoxicated woman who had become separated from her friends after being refused entry to a nightclub.

The call and message log helped prosecutors piece together the sequence of events including when she joined the group and when she was isolated by the offender.

What digital forensics?
A few text messages and a phone call?

You need to have more than that to convict someone of these serious charges. DNA for example, blood, body fluids, signs of physical assault, etc.

Doesn't seem to be much of it after 10-15 years.

a reply to: AlienBorg

What I find extraordinary is hoe easy someone is convicted in the social media and how easy conclusions are made about how guilty they are. It's just unbelievable.

I think you already said that did you not?

Its ultimately a court of law and the CPS Brand should fear if indeed these allegations and now reports led to him being charged, so there is that.

Was it Cliff Richard that was found guilty in the media but innocent in the court of law?

So whataboutism?

Again leave the goalposts alone ta very much if you dont mind.

And there is my delivery, busy again for the time being.

a reply to: AlienBorg

The police were informed in the U.S. but the woman didn't want to press charges as Brand was very popular at the time and she knew it could ruin her career.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: AlienBorg

Yes, they can lie. So can anyone under Oath.

So what do you suggest, we don't bother to prosecute anyone based on witness evidence?

For God's sake, he's not even been Charged?

No I am not saying don't bother to prosecute anyone. Never said that.

He has been charged and convicted already in the media and social media. Even in this thread they portray him as guilty.

So you may direct your concerns at them!