Garf Lewis

For everyone still defending Russell Brand and claiming there was no evidence against him, you might want to actually look at what was presented in court. Russell Brand wasn’t convicted because of his political opinions, his religious beliefs, or because someone simply accused him of something. He was convicted after a four-week trial involving substantial evidence, including: • More than 100 witnesses interviewed and over 400 witness statements collected during the investigation. • More than 1,400 documents examined, including historical records and photographs used to reconstruct events. • Six women who testified under oath, describing separate incidents of alleged sexual misconduct. The women came forward independently and did not know one another. • Text messages from 2009, in which one woman confronted Brand after an alleged rape and he responded, “I’m sorry.” • Corroborating witness testimony, including testimony about Brand’s behavior toward women and his approach to pursuing sexual encounters. • Brand’s own statements, which prosecutors challenged during the investigation and trial. Was there DNA evidence or video footage of the assaults? No. These incidents happened roughly two decades ago. But physical evidence isn’t the only evidence that exists, and pretending otherwise is ridiculous. The jury also acquitted Brand of three charges, which is worth mentioning because it shows they didn’t simply find him guilty of everything he was accused of. The result? Four convictions, including rape and three sexual assaults, and a sentence of 10 years and six months in prison. At some point, defending the truth has to matter more than defending a personality.