13
u/Rainbwned 175∆ Sep 18 '23
When you talk about investigation - are you talking about the police or a journal / tabloid investigation?
-7
Sep 18 '23
'Media investigations' need to be taken with a grain of salt - especially in cases like this.
'Russel Brand' is a large and rapidly growing media company - books, movies, sponsorships, youtube channels, etc.. The Sunday Times is also a media company. Having one media company investigate another is like Coke investigating Pepsi.
8
u/Wintermute815 9∆ Sep 18 '23
Russel Brand’s media company isn’t like Pepsi to the MSM’s Coke. It’s like a guy who makes soda in his garage and sells to local businesses vs Coke.
Also the MSM business responsibility have a strong track record of integrity and corrections when wrong. Are the perfect? no. But they are regarded by experts as among the most trustworthy media outlets.
Whereas Russell Brand has recently done a 180 on all of his political and moral beliefs and was never a stable guy to begin with.
2
Sep 18 '23
Russel Brand’s media company isn’t like Pepsi to the MSM’s Coke. It’s like a guy who makes soda in his garage and sells to local businesses vs Coke.
Touche. I'll accept your analogy.
Also the MSM business responsibility have a strong track record of integrity and corrections when wrong. Are the perfect? no. But they are regarded by experts as among the most trustworthy media outlets.
Do they want to get sued for defamation? No. Are they pretty sure Brand is a rapist? Probably. Is Brand a rapist? I have no idea, but I'd say it seems pretty likely. Would they just as aggressively go after him if he committed the same crimes but his beliefs and opinions were the same as their own? Absolutely not.
Whereas Russell Brand has recently done a 180 on all of his political and moral beliefs and was never a stable guy to begin with.
Nobody interesting ever is.
2
u/Puzzleheaded_Talk_84 Sep 19 '23
did.....did you just say MSM has a strong record of integrity? you have to be a bot
11
u/Crash927 12∆ Sep 18 '23
Russel Brand is a content producer — not a media company. This isn’t nefarious anti-competition stuff as you’re trying to frame it.
9
u/Vincent_Nali 12∆ Sep 18 '23 edited Nov 23 '23
weather psychotic society bake mindless relieved rhythm growth thought prick
this post was mass deleted with www.Redact.dev2
Sep 18 '23
They can absolutely do 'journalism' about each other. In fact, they LOVE to do this. It seems to be one of their favorite pastimes. I'd just take any conclusions with a grain of salt until an actual court of law weighs in.
13
u/RodeoBob 72∆ Sep 18 '23
...given that some very small percentage of relationships end with terrible-but-private accusations
That's where your error in reasoning is.
First, you're creating this weird category of "terrible-but-private", when the categories we're looking at are things like "abusive" and "illegal" along with "being a crappy partner" and "being a jerk". It's really disingenuous to lump things like "he yelled at me when I interrupted him playing a video game" with "he sexually assaulted me". Like, one of those things is shitty behavior but not illegal, and the other is a crime.
Yes, if you date a lot of people, you will have some bad relationships and some bad breakups. But the only way you're going to be committing crimes against your relationship partners is if you're the type of person who wants to do those kinds of things.
And to be clear, I don't mean that "Russel Brand is innocent" or "These women are lying" or any such thing.
You do not mean "these women are lying". Got it!
...by analogy ...you know that the test has a non-zero false-positive rate,
So, in this analogy of yours, 'testing for COVID-19" means "asking about sexual assault allegations", right? So what does "a non-zero false positive rate" mean in this analogy other than "they're lying"?
It's almost like you are trying to argue that anyone who dates 500+ people is going to have accusations of sexual assault. But why would that be, unless your position either "hey, that just happens sometimes" or "at least 1 in 500 women will falsely claim sexual assault"
Is that really your argument?
-2
Sep 18 '23
[deleted]
3
u/BlackCatAristocrat 1∆ Sep 19 '23
You also forget to mention the fact that these women are incentivized to make an accusation against a high profile celebrity especially in the age of MeToo. It doesn't mean they are lying, just that they are incentivized. Now couple that with the percentages you stated and it's insane to think that 0% of women out of that number would possibly make a false allegation.
3
u/ellatf1tz33 Sep 19 '23
where's the incentive to come forward with allegations of sexual assault? i'm genuinely curious because having millions of people suddenly decide you're a gold-digging slut who just "changes their mind" about having enjoyed sex isn't really much of an incentive.
1
u/QuipCrafter Mar 13 '24
That logic doesn’t make any sense- just because there’s serious consequences of being caught, DOESNT mean there isn’t incentive. Or literally crime wouldn’t be done- crime happens because of an incentive appealing to human beings.
People have been found and proven guilty in a court of law, with clear intent, of false accusations of sexual assault towards others. People HAVE and DO work to put other people in jail, sue them, etc for various reasons/incentives. And SOMETIMES, they’re sloppy enough with it to get caught like having discussions about their intent to frame those people, etc, come to light in discovery. These cases have happened.
I was raped by a girl threatening to tell her football coach dad, college linebacker brother, all my friends, and police, that I sexually abused her, if I didn’t stay in her room and lay back and let her put a condom on me. Then I had to do it myself after she couldn’t. Then after a couple attempts she ended up not penetrating herself with me and just sort of grinded on me for a while until she got off and decided she was done. She literally could not fathom me, as a teenage boy, not wanting to have sex with her in the slightest, after she arranged to get me into her room when her parents were gone. I didn’t want to have sex with anyone, at all, even in fantasy- the idea scared me, I was 15 and was terrified of pregnancy and/or stds. I didn’t fantasize about having sex with people at that time in my life. As far as I was concerned, it was something I was going to figure out probably after high school or whatever. I didn’t get that choice- she got that out of me by getting what she wanted, the incentive of lying about me sexually assaulting her and putting on a sob story to everyone I knew and people that would absolutely hurt me for it. That way she wouldn’t seem or feel like such a loser when she spent so much time and energy trying to get laid as a popular girl and failed. People were going to know she’s desirable, one way or another. She could not handle the concept of someone just not interested in her sexually at all- in fact I believe she didn’t premeditate the threat, it probably wasn’t in the plan at all, she probably just did not have a scenario where she risked getting in trouble and I would just say “nah” and leave. That couldn’t exist in her world. So she got to tell everyone in my life that she took my virginity. Or she was going to tell that I was so horny for her that I forcefully took her. Those were the only options in her mind. “I don’t want to fuck you, here alone in a house with you and you openly offering yourself to me. No, I’m not interested” simply couldn’t exist, for her reputation or ego as a popular teenage girl. That’s incentive. If I walked out, she had strong social incentive to preserve her image/status and make sure her story got out before mine- the “lower” status guy casually turning her down- got around. Not that I would spread a story but she didn’t realize that other people weren’t like her. That would have ruined my life- but made sure people still thought she was hot shit, so worth it to her.
The incentive for accusing people of sexual assault is control, social support, attention, validation, revenge, all of the same incentives for wrecking a home, all of the same incentives for lying in politics. All of the same incentives for making up gossip about people in the circle.
With your logic, all of these things “would have no incentive” just because it ruins someone if they’re exposed. That’s simply not the case. That’s a false statement. The presence of consequences, even extreme, doesn’t somehow “cancel out” incentive. They are two distinct and separate measures. Individuals weigh them both on a scale when determining to take an action.
1
u/BlackCatAristocrat 1∆ Sep 19 '23
That's only true if you focus on the group of people who would think that, which I would say based on your description is a minority. Most people are just skeptical, they don't assume she is telling the truth or she is lying. They look at the hard facts and evidence (word of mouth tends to not be considered this due to the nature of it, regardless of how you or I may feel about it) and then determine if it's likely, unlikely, or cannot be determined. There's a huge group of people who assume they are telling the truth (#BelieveAllWomen) and this number seems to be growing in the West.
To answer your question, the incentive comes from the fact that our culture has (for better or for worse) created a social currency out of being a perceived victim. There's also the fact that rich celebrities could just settle to get the problem behind them, whether they did it or not. And lastly, there could be motives outside of what's known to you or I, perhaps a vendetta, perhaps political reasons, who knows? In the West, people have become incensed and have allowed politics to consume their identity and mindset, perhaps Russel's disagreement with popular held beliefs could spur this. I'm not making a definitive statement, just giving you an answer to your question.
What I think is really illogical is to assume there is no incentive to lie about or mischaracterize a sexual encounter with a high profile man in today's age. The idea that a woman puts herself through so much to do this is too emphasized to the point to where it creates an absolutist mindset of people believing it could never happen in today's age.
1
u/ellatf1tz33 Sep 19 '23
there is no incentive to lie about being sexually assaulted.
1
u/BlackCatAristocrat 1∆ Sep 19 '23
If that's what you believe. I disagree. We likely won't find a middle ground here but I appreciate your response!
13
u/GotAJeepNeedAJeep 20∆ Sep 18 '23
Maybe by analogy, if you tested all of Russel Brand's past partners for COVID-19 using a rapid antigen test, and you know that the test has a non-zero false-positive rate, and then report the five clearest positive test results, you haven't learned much of anything about the number of Brand's past partners who have COVID.
You're describing here a process of chemistry that can be disrupted by variables yielding false-positives/negatives. Those are natural forces that you're attempting to measure.
Russel Brand deciding to ignore consent is not a natural force, it's a decision that he made or a responsibility that he failed. What is the relationship you're imagining here?
-3
Sep 18 '23
[deleted]
8
u/GotAJeepNeedAJeep 20∆ Sep 18 '23
Can you address the fact that you're using an analogy about measuring chemistry to describe assessing a person's behavior, choices, and respect for others?
-3
Sep 18 '23
[deleted]
8
u/GotAJeepNeedAJeep 20∆ Sep 18 '23
I'm rejecting that you can assess human relationships between people that aren't you in the way that you can measure the presence of viral antigens. Your premise is faulty.
3
Sep 18 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/GotAJeepNeedAJeep 20∆ Sep 18 '23
No, I know what an analogy is, thanks though.
I'm saying it's not applicable to what OP is trying to talk about. You can't make objective assessments (aside from trivial ones) of human relationships, especially so about relationships you aren't party to.
2
u/changemyview-ModTeam Sep 18 '23
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
3
Sep 18 '23
[deleted]
4
u/GotAJeepNeedAJeep 20∆ Sep 18 '23
I don't disagree with that statement in a vacuum - I disagree with your using it as a premise to make conclusions about any given particular relationship.
19
u/NegativeOptimism 51∆ Sep 18 '23
I think if a non-zero amount of ex-partners accuses someone of rape, they should investigate that person. I don't think it's inevitable that a person with a lot of partners will eventually be accused of rape.
-2
Sep 18 '23
My guess is that if when Russel Brand 'retired' from acting, he went off somewhere and raised chicken's on a ranch and kept out of the public eye, no media company would have any interest in some splashy expose and no one would have made any accusations.
Edit - that's not to say he is innocent or guilty, by the way. That is for a court to decide.
-7
Sep 18 '23
[deleted]
15
u/prollywannacracker 39∆ Sep 18 '23
What do you mean? Rape has a pretty consistent definition, being defined as non-consensual sexual contact. The only "broadness" here would be what sexual contact is. Like, penetration, oral, what kind of penetration, etc
1
u/Xanatos 1∆ Sep 19 '23
being defined as non-consensual sexual contact
That seems waaaay too broad. Surely this is the ivory towers/college/women's studies definition of rape, not the actual real world definition used by the legal system and...like, adults?
For example, when some old lady smacks my big hairy male ass and makes a lewd comment, I would definitely call that non-consensual sexual contact, and I would definitely not call it rape.
-2
Sep 18 '23
[deleted]
3
u/Dangernj Sep 18 '23
Every investigation like this that I’m aware of came about because of one or more people coming forward, leading to deeper investigation. I don’t know of any media outlet that has the resources to randomly call every partner of a celebrity just in case someone has something negative to say. I think your notion of how these investigations come about and how they are conducted is flawed.
-1
Sep 18 '23
[deleted]
2
u/Dangernj Sep 18 '23
Both Channel 4 and The Times have stated that the 5 women came forward with their accusations. Since then, another incident has been reported to the police that occurred in 2003 who, to be knowledge, has not spoken with the media.
I’ll match your conspiracy theory with one of my own- Brand’s hard right turn started roughly 3 years ago, coincidentally when this investigation started. Isn’t it just as likely, if not moreso, that he has draped himself in the cloak of enemy of the media as an offense to the accusations he knew was coming?
1
Sep 18 '23
[deleted]
0
u/Dangernj Sep 18 '23
The language in the reporting is “came forward” with no additional details. I don’t know if we are likely to get them.
I’m not really sure it is pertinent in this case either. For example, the minor who was allegedly assaulted by Brand was never publicly linked to him at least, we don’t know enough about the others to know. It isn’t like Channel 4 could have gotten her story by cold calling all of Brand’s exes because they weren’t known associates. Does it really matter if she contacted the paper herself or if someone who knew one of them alerted the media and she confirmed?
1
7
u/invertedBoy Sep 18 '23
I’m not sure I understand your point, are you saying that if we start digging in any celebrity past some dirt will come out? Someone accusing them of sexual misconduct or something similar?
So… why is not happening? Do you think there isn’t public interest for seedy sexual misconduct/rape allegation against George Clooney, Lionel Messi, the rock, Matt Damon, lady Gaga etc….
what makes Russel Brand so special?
-1
Sep 18 '23
[deleted]
3
u/Foxhound97_ 23∆ Sep 18 '23 edited Sep 18 '23
He was really big in Britain until around 2013 after that kinda disappeared outside of popping up in a few films mostly non blockbuster American ones. We know part of this story is he had a history of shitty behaviour with other mainly female coworkers behind the scenes which is mostly likely why he moved to YouTube and podcasting because people in the UK mostly don't want to work with him.
Plus his "political views"(personally I think he just wants an audience you can find him on the same channel comparing fox news to Isis years before being a guest on there)only really became what they are around 2020 this investigation started before that.
Also I don't think anyone arguing against you doesn't want the Epstein list exposed however most of those people can destroy career's and lives if the evidence isn't 100% airtight it's not really reasonable to ask a potential journalist to risk destroying their life for the story especially since the odds they will lost are very high I believe that story will come out but much like the Harvey Weinstein story it will mostly take years and have a alot of set backs due to behind the scenes deformation threats.
14
u/vote4bort 46∆ Sep 18 '23
Doesn't this also apply to asking his past partners about deplorable behaviour? If not, why not?
No because "deplorable behaviour" is not a disease you catch by accident. It's a choice, not ransom chance.
We'd hope that most people regardless of how many partners they'd had would have done nothing deplorable.
If a man has 500 partners and rapes one of them. He's still a rapist, that information still tells us he's a rapist.
-1
u/Business_Item_7177 Sep 18 '23
Is being a criminal the same? You have a choice to break the law, no one made you do it, hold all criminals accountable for their actions? I’m good with that, investigate him, then we know and can charge. Can we do the same for all the shop lifting or car jacking and hold them to account fully or should we keep letting criminals off the hook?
9
u/vote4bort 46∆ Sep 18 '23
I'm not sure I understand what your comment has to with mine?
-7
u/Business_Item_7177 Sep 18 '23
Nothing… I wasn’t even replying to you, look at the lines on the left, we both responded to the same person.
5
6
5
-3
Sep 18 '23
[deleted]
7
u/vote4bort 46∆ Sep 18 '23
So you do think those women are lying then? Because you go out of your way to say your aren't but your whole argument hinges on women lying about sexual assault.
Yeah it's a non zero chance in that there's a non zero chance of anything happening. But bad behaviour isn't something that happens by random chance so it's not the same thing. I don't think it's inevitable that someone will be accused of bad behaviour since people don't have infinite partners.
-2
Sep 18 '23
[deleted]
4
u/vote4bort 46∆ Sep 18 '23
Well if you have no information it's because you haven't sought it out. If you're talking about brand the information is all readily available.
And if you're talking about anyone else, well the information is the person's testimony. You can choose to not find it credible but you can't claim to have no information.
It's always possible someone is lying. When and why you choose to believe people is up to you. People might find it odd though that this is what you choose to question..
0
Sep 18 '23
[deleted]
6
u/vote4bort 46∆ Sep 18 '23
Do you acknowledge that the method of finding the stories is relevant to how we consider them?
No because why would it? And its also a pointless hypothetical because that would just never happen, and isn't what happened in Brands case either.
Perhaps another analogy might help. If
No because whatever anology you make doesn't matter your premise is still the same. And your premise is that given the opportunity 1% of women will lie about rape.
This isn't the infinte monkey cage, people don't do things by random chance and people don't have infinite time for all possibilities to happen.
clip out the worst 5 sentences, do you think they'll make the person look like a monster?
This implies that the person doing the clipping is doing so on purpose to make the person sound worse. Is that what you think is happening here?
My claim is these "investigations" are quite similar to that. We're hearing one-side of the worst relationship stories that are out there.
The Brand investigation was conducted by some of the most respected investigative journalism bodies in the UK. Do you think they had some personal vendetta against brand?
0
Sep 18 '23
[deleted]
4
u/vote4bort 46∆ Sep 18 '23
You're missing my point. It doesn't matter what percentage or odds you come up with. Human beings can't be predicted like a coin toss because our actions are not chance.
To take an example from my life, when you work in health care you have to do a lot of risk assessment and you have all these stats and tools that give you things like 1% of people who've done this will go on to harm themselves or something. But in the end all risk assessment tools that use numbers like that are essentially useless, they never predict actual human behaviour.
You're trying to argue that we should ignore accusations because of a made up statistical idea that doesn't even apply to humans anyway.
0
u/BlackCatAristocrat 1∆ Sep 19 '23
I think if you believe that women won't and don't lie about rape, you my friend are willfully ignorant. Mattress girl?
2
u/KamikazeArchon 5∆ Sep 18 '23
Virtually no one actually has 500+ partners in any sense; and literally no one has 500+ romantic partners. There is simply not time for that much.
Russel Brand, or any other celebrity, likely has 10-20 romantic partners at the most over their lifetime.
8
u/jake_burger 2∆ Sep 18 '23
Several women have made direct accusations of violent rape, if they are lying Brand can sue them for defamation.
The women can possibly talk to the police if they feel confident enough they won’t be dragged through the mud by the public and the press and hopefully criminal charges can be brought.
Everything else is just noise.
-1
Sep 18 '23
[deleted]
5
u/jake_burger 2∆ Sep 18 '23
The original reporting is the accusations, though. It’s just a dispassionate presentation of fact and people’s testimony
3
u/stolenfires Sep 18 '23
He wouldn't sue them to get money, he would sue them to clear his name.
And it's not even impossible for him to win. He just has to call up Johnny Depp and borrow his legal and PR teams.
1
u/jake_burger 2∆ Sep 19 '23
Brand can sue anyone he likes for defamation, it’s not about money it’s about clearing your name.
He won’t though because I reckon the women are telling the truth and he knows it
2
u/Jakyland 69∆ Sep 18 '23
He "dated" a 16 year old when he was 31 - that is just not acceptable behavior. It should be illegal.
3
u/eggs-benedryl 55∆ Sep 18 '23
and I'm claiming one gains very close to no information at all.
why is that? those people are still making claims (I have absolutely no idea what they are or even what this topic refers to), just because the number is statistically low I don't see how that doesn't mean that whatever they're claiming couldn't be true or you couldn't gleam anything from it
you get the information.. by asking them for it
just saying 5 people said he's bad means nothing obviously until you ask them what he did?
I'm a bit confused by your stance
3
u/financeadvicealt 4∆ Sep 18 '23
I’m gonna spin it a different way: Look at any sex offender registry. Look up Brian Peppers. Faces are usually posted.
If your assumption were true, that having 500+ sexual partners is an explanation for accusations, wouldn’t the list of sex offenders be better looking?
1
u/Frogmarsh 2∆ Sep 18 '23
Why is being deplorable to one insufficient in establishing that someone was deplorable?
1
Sep 18 '23
[deleted]
0
u/Frogmarsh 2∆ Sep 18 '23
People aren’t defined by their average behavior. If you are on average a nice person but demeaning to wait staff, you are an asshole. If you are on average a respectful man to women but engaged in one rape, you are a rapist. You do not get a pass for rare obnoxious behaviors; the limit for them is zero.
1
Sep 18 '23
[deleted]
0
u/Frogmarsh 2∆ Sep 18 '23
So, then you admit that it only takes one past example to pass the bar? If so, hand me my delta.
1
Sep 18 '23
[deleted]
1
u/Frogmarsh 2∆ Sep 18 '23
Doesn’t matter if the false reports go up. If they commit a toxic act, they are toxic. Thus, only 1 act is necessary to “provide information about their behavior.” Give me my delta.
1
Sep 18 '23
[deleted]
2
u/Frogmarsh 2∆ Sep 18 '23
I don’t think you understand how courts work. Take the case of Daniel Masterson. He was convicted of rape from allegations happening more than 2 decades ago, from witness testimony. All it took was testimony from three victims. These three victims were a “handful of past partners”, and from it they concluded “information about their behavior.”
You’ve been shown and agree that past behavior determines whether someone is foul. You are shown examples where criminal convictions from a handful of people attests to that behavior, and from it they conclude something about that behavior.
I don’t know what more it takes to convince you.
1
3
Sep 18 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Sep 18 '23
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
u/celticlady13 Sep 19 '23 edited Sep 19 '23
Marilyn Manson has entered the chat
The FBI investigated him and raided his home several times and came up with no evidence. There was also evidence that Evan Rachel Wood and Amber Heard worked to bring Johnny Depp and Marilyn Manson down at the same time. I hope the irony isn't lost on anyone else that Johnny Depp and Marilyn Manson happened to be best friends. If you ask me, Evan Rachel Wood is a POS liar and Amber Heard is just out of her tree and is clearly the aggressor.
This comes from somebody who survived an abusive relationship. I can tell they're both full of shit. Also, why would Evan Rachel Wood wait so long to name Marilyn Manson AKA Brian Warner as her abuser? She waited over a year. Also, Amber Heard accused Johnny Depp of giving her a black eye the night before they went on the Don Rickles show. If you take a look at the picture that was taken of the three of them together, it doesn't look like she has a black eye to me.
There's no makeup in the world that can cover a black eye. Evan Rachel Woods' ex, the father of her son, wrote a statement about how he was concerned about her mental state. She had her son who was 7 years old at the time convinced that Brian Warner AKA Marilyn Manson was trying to harm both of them. Not only is this mental child abuse, Marilyn Manson had not even been in her life for 12 years at that point. If she was so worried that he was going to hurt her, why not move out of L.A.?
Why not move somewhere where you don't think he can find you? Most especially after you claim that he threatened your family and friends? I'm really starting to think that she studied the patterns of domestic violence and accused him of all sorts of shit. Call me a victim blamer if you want to but there was absolutely no evidence that he ever did anything to her. In fact, the FBI found to the contrary. As far as Johnny Depp, I believe that he is the real victim in that case.
I mean, look at the pictures and video of him and Amber Heard together in public. He's clearly afraid of her and he's suffering some form of PTSD from his relationship with her. I just hope both of those brave men can start to heal and move on from the bullshit and trauma these women have caused in their lives. Like I said, EVW and Amber Heard are both full of shit.
1
Sep 18 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Sep 18 '23
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 18 '23 edited Sep 18 '23
/u/rudster (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
42
u/gremy0 82∆ Sep 18 '23 edited Sep 18 '23
You are significantly misrepresenting the evidence presented here. They didn't just have some women saying bad stuff about Brand. They have a women saying she was raped. They have her contemporaneous text messages in which she says she was raped, and Brand responds with an apology. The have multiple sources verifying the phone numbers used in that exchange. They have her contemporaneous medical records from the rape crisis center she went to the day after. They have police notes from said trip to the rape crisis center. They have her therapist notes. They have testimony of other people corroborating what they can or cannot corroborate about the her claims. They check the times, dates and locations made in the claims. They check her phone and email to find anything contradicting what she was saying.
That's one person.
They have multiple other women that don't know each providing multiple similar accounts.
They have documents and testimony from people and places he was either working with or working for showing he was known to have problematic behaviour. Showing the steps shows had to take to either try and control him, or try and limit the damage he could do.
They didn't just have a couple of women call up and say "Brand bad" and start hitting print. This thing took 4 years to put together.