First of all, let's make this clear: Brand was convicted on the word of a number of women that made allegations of sexual assault or rape.
The cases were historical, going back over 20 years and covering a period of 13 years.
Now, rape is rape. It's a heinous crime.
But, why speak out now? You may say that well, they didn't realise there were other women affected, and that if they knew back they, they may have been emboldened to press charges.
But, on the flipside, there's the pressure from a team of reporters to push alleged victims into saying things that maybe they didn't want to, I know how these things work. I've been involved in a couple. You get the phone calls asking for information and well you tell them no, they keep coming back. Harassment, but I suppose that if it's a journalist you can get away with it.
I've always thought it was quite seedy and irresponsible. Let any evidence you get speak for itself, don't force things or get witnesses to say things they wouldn't have normally said. And of course, once that witness statement is on the record to a journalist for their sensational scoop, that then becomes evidence in any court case.
The other thing that irks me is the "victims" get a payout. So there is another incentive to embellish anecdotal evidence. And after 20-odd years, finding the actual truth of the matter is difficult.
In the UK, the normal standard for putting someone behind bars is "Beyond reasonable doubt". Over the years, this test has been watered down. I've heard a number of court cases now tried and convictions made "On the balance of probabilities".
Now hang on, that's not beyond reasonable doubt. That's more: "I suppose knowing he was a randy dog and liked to hump everything in sight, there's a fair chance he's guilty".
It's not quite hearsay, it's a step up because there's a legal, sworn under oath witness statement.
But is a witness statement without corroboration in the form of hard evidence like DNA enough to convict someone? Put them away for a decade? Witnesses do lie, or embellish statements. Especially if a reporter has pressured them to do it to make the story more sensational than it actually is.
Again, it boils down the "On the balance of probabilities", rather than "Beyond reasonable doubt".
And that's where I stand on The Russell Brand case, and also others like the Lucy Letby case. In her case, it's just statistical evidence, where babies died while she was on shift or shortly after, where drugs went missing.
Drugs go missing in hospitals all the time. Hospitals are run by humans and humans make mistakes. So there's always a fuzzy area. You can make that fuzzy area as small as possible, but there always that vagueness that appears when dealing with humans.
Now, if there were video evidence of her stealing drugs, or taking drugs and not signing them out or whatever, then there may be more of a case, or even video evidence of her injecting the victims when she wasn't directed by a doctor to inject them.
In that case, there's more hard rather than circumstantial evidence.
It seems that circumstantial evidence is now enough of a standard to convict people, where twenty years ago it wasn't.
Whether it's the diminishing of legal standards during the Blair years, blurring lines so badly, I don't know.
What I do know, is the Russell Brand case, amongst others that I've seen over the years, makes me very uneasy.
When Tony Blair reduced the legal standards for convictions combined with payouts for victims, it's obvious that there would be innocent victims going to jail.
I have no idea if Brand is guilty or innocent, but I've seen some pretty bad convictions in the news over the years that raise questions about the soundness of the conviction.
Now you're getting cases where the Police ask publicly for "victims" to come forward. In most cases there isn't strong evidence or any evidence, but the prosecution use the number of cases to push a narrative, a pattern of behaviour (they say) that proves guilt. Again, prosecution based on the balance of probabilities rather than solid, hard, evidence. Not beyond reasonable doubt. Get those numbers up, get those statistical probabilities leaning in the prosecution's favour.
He was a horny dog, shagging anything seemingly female that drew breath. If he shagged that many women, there will be a least one he said come on love, you've got me this horny, why not? Only the two people in that room know the truth.
Is it time for the defence to go on TV and publicly ask every woman that has had sex with Brand to create witness statements also. Let's see how the balance of probabilities works out then. Are we condemned to that sort of game? Is it just a numbers game? If the defence get a thousand women to testify in his favour, does that nullify the 35 that testified against him?
Of course not. All it takes is one to be believed and then he's convicted. That's why playing the numbers game is always skewed in the prosecution's favour.
And don't forget, if the perp is convicted, the "victims" all get a payout.
Add reporters into the mix and their ability to pressure alleged victims into making embellished statements for sensational headlines that then become sworn victim statements, the payouts for victims and the willingness by judges to accept circumstantial evidence, it becomes obvious that there will be miscarriages of justice.
Posts
