Highly Questionable Conviction of Russell Brand
The comedian and outspoken critic of official COVID-19 policies was found guilty of four grave offenses. An evaluation of what passed for evidence at his trial.
John Leake
22 hours ago << EDITOR ADDED DATE 2026-11-09>>
*** begin quote ***
I’m sure that Russell Brand was an aggressively promiscuous man during the period in question. He himself has admitted it. Thus, if he had been tried for being—at this earlier stage in his life—a selfish, sleazy, and arrogant jerk, it would probably be easy to adduce sufficient evidence to find him guilty as charged.
However, it strikes me as impossible to draw conclusions—beyond a reasonable doubt—about allegedly criminal sexual behavior that took place decades ago, with no supporting physical evidence such as medically documented injuries, no eyewitness testimony of the alleged acts, and only hearsay testimony from the victims’ friends and colleagues that is ambiguous and fragmentary.
Regarding the accusation of rape—by far the most serious charge for which Brand was convicted—the “reported” text message from his accuser in which she stated, “you treated me like an animal” may be plausibly evaluated as evidence that Brand made her feel like a cheap article of consumption and discarded as soon as his lust was sated. However, this is not evidence that he raped her. If he did rape her, she missed an opportunity to document it by not stating it in the text, not reporting it to the police, and not having a medical professional document her injury. No medical documentation of the alleged injury was presented at trial.
*** and ***
If accusations and denunciations—with little to no supporting evidence—are deemed sufficient for sending a man to prison, then any man may be subjected to such accusations, even if they are baseless.
*** end quote ***
The lack of “evidence” is shocking.
I’m all for punishing criminal behavior, but like the article says:
In Book IV, Chapter 27, “Of Trial, and Conviction,” Blackstone wrote:
For the law holds, that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.
It certainly seems that this was a politically biased conviction. Given that the Police don’t investigate rape gangs, perhaps this was an attempt to change the appearance of lax and prejudicial enforcement?
Given the media and police attention, it appears that this is a miscarriage of justice.
What is the English “statute of limitation”?
17 years is a long time to delay “justice”.
— 30 —
Posted by reinkefj 









You must be logged in to post a comment.