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

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: AlienBorg

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

So there is no case then in the US.
But again we don't know whether this is true or not.You need to press charges btw. If there are no charges there is no case.

a reply to: AlienBorg

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??

I don't its called speculation.

The wait time has already been explained.

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

What if it's photographic? And you would be supprised what people can remember and turn up when prompted to do so by authorities for instance.

I really need to go now, im getting funny looks.

originally posted by: andy06shake
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 untimely 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.

Whataboutism?

Erm.. No!

He was also found guilty in the media and on online platforms with similar arguments and accusations against him.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: AlienBorg

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??

I don't its called speculation.

The wait time has already been explained.

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

What if it's photographic? And you would be supprised what people can remember and turn up when prompted to do so by authorities for instance.

I really need to go now, im getting funny looks.

The waiting time hasn't been explained. You have speculated a lot.

And any evidence is lost in 11 years. That's the main point.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
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.

No, it's not. If any charges follow, Brand will get all the evidence.

It's early days so, not odd at all.

a reply to: AlienBorg

So there is no case then in the US.
But again we don't know whether this is true or not.You need to press charges btw. If there are no charges there is no case.

The documentary was more about his behaviour behind the scenes of the TV and radio shows he was on here in Great Britian with a little bit about his moving to the U.S. and meeting an ex-Brit at AA meetings. It was this young women that went to a rape crysis centre in the U.S.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

The Met haven’t supplied the accused persons name...

a reply to: AlienBorg

The waiting time hasn't been explained. You have speculated a lot.

And any evidence is lost in 11 years. That's the main point.

I think thats an assumption on your part here? If stored correctly DNA evidence can last a long time.

How long does DNA last?

Human DNA has been recovered from a Neanderthal fossil 70,000 years old. That's a record, but there may be plenty of DNA recoverable from a human body 10, 50 or even 150 years after death.

a reply to: AlienBorg

"The waiting time hasn't been explained. You have speculated a lot.

And any evidence is lost in 11 years. That's the main point."

Rest assured, if it goes to trial, they will be cross examined about this.

A. Lot


The CPS will decide if the evidence is strong enough. Not you.

That evidence has yet to be even gathered so, it's all speculation at this point.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

The Met haven’t supplied the accusers name...

So what?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Sorry I edited......it should have read:


The Met haven’t supplied the accused persons name....

So they haven't said it was Russell Brand in their statement that is being accused.

All the news outlets that I check online have bunches of Russell Brand stories, and youtube footage of his creepiest moments. Can't get away from the guy. I was never impressed with him. Always seemed like a Katy Perry 'hanger on' rather than a real actor/comedian. No talent IMHO.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

That's quite usual but, go figure.....

a reply to: Itisnowagain

So they haven't said it was Russell Brand in their statement that is being accused.

This is what I've seen?

Police have received a report of an alleged sexual assault in relation to the media reporting of allegations against Russell Brand, Scotland Yard has said.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: AlienBorg

The waiting time hasn't been explained. You have speculated a lot.

And any evidence is lost in 11 years. That's the main point.

I think thats an assumption on your part here? If stored correctly DNA evidence can last a long time.

How long does DNA last?

Human DNA has been recovered from a Neanderthal fossil 70,000 years old. That's a record, but there may be plenty of DNA recoverable from a human body 10, 50 or even 150 years after death.

If they have DNA evidence stored then that's strong evidence they can present in the court. The kind of forensic evidence you need when you accuse someone of rape or sexual assault. If you don't then you have nothing to show.

But we haven't said anything about stored DNA yet although I remember bastion did say they have DNA somewhere preserved. If that's the case did they have it since 2012? And why is it there for 11 years?? What are they waiting for??

But do they really have preserved DNA?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: AlienBorg

"The waiting time hasn't been explained. You have speculated a lot.

And any evidence is lost in 11 years. That's the main point."

Rest assured, if it goes to trial, they will be cross examined about this.

A. Lot


The CPS will decide if the evidence is strong enough. Not you.

That evidence has yet to be even gathered so, it's all speculation at this point.

I haven't decided anything.
I am giving my opinion and I don't condemn others based on allegations made online or in the media. Take a look around and you will see that he has been already found guilty by the online 'prosecutors'.

Do you remember the Cliff Richard case? It didn't go well in the court after he was found guilty online and in the media...

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: AlienBorg

"The waiting time hasn't been explained. You have speculated a lot.

And any evidence is lost in 11 years. That's the main point."

Rest assured, if it goes to trial, they will be cross examined about this.

A. Lot


The CPS will decide if the evidence is strong enough. Not you.

That evidence has yet to be even gathered so, it's all speculation at this point.

Last part-correct

But he is already guilty in the media and social platforms.

You see the great danger with the media trials?

a reply to: Kurokage

This afternoon's fresh statement from the Metropolitan Police does not name Russell Brand - only that its officers were aware of the allegations made by Channel 4 and the Sunday Times and, since then, it has received a report of a sexual assault in 2003.

That complaint is from a woman and predates the list of alleged incidents detailed by the media investigation.

Scotland Yard has not said - and this is important - that it has begun a criminal investigation. Nobody has been arrested either.

www.bbc.co.uk...

a reply to: AlienBorg

If they have DNA evidence stores then that string evidence they can present in the court. The kind of forensic evidence you need when you accuse someone of rape or sexual assault. If you don't then you have nothing to show.

Thing is you don't have a clear understanding of how our legal system functions or what it takes to convict someone of rape here in the UK.

So don't you think that's rather a bold statement to make?

Considering, as far as I'm aware you're not a police, prosecutor, defense lawyer, barrister, magistrate, or judge.

The same type of people that will decide whether or not Brand will face charges, his guilt or innocence, and ultimately any sentence that's imposed, if he is found to have raped anyone.

a reply to: AlienBorg

f they have DNA evidence stored then that's strong evidence they can present in the court. The kind of forensic evidence you need when you accuse someone of rape or sexual assault.

That is purely not the case, other types of evidence are just as useful to help seal a conviction in many cases.

But we haven't said anything about stored DNA yet although I remember bastion did say they have DNA somewhere preserved. If that's the case did they have it since 2012? And why is it there for 11 years?? What are they waiting for??

She didn't press charges