Ads skipped

Russell Brand BOMBSHELL VERDICT: Mark Geragos Weighs In on the Explosive Case

19K views · 8 Nov 2026

Reasonable Doubt

20K subscribers

Comments · 247

@ebyd2756 · 1 day ago
This is deeply disappointing and irresponsible. Not because Mark Geragos questions the verdict, but because so many claims were made without checking the facts. The facts: • The texts read out ("crazy and selfish" / "when a girl says no it means no") were not part of this trial. They're from "Nadia" in the 2023 Dispatches programme, about an alleged incident in LA in 2012. The charges were UK allegations from 1999–2009. • The woman Brand was convicted of raping is someone else. Her friends and family told the court what she said to them at the time. Not going to the police is not the same as telling no one. • England and Wales have no general time limit for prosecuting rape. Statutes of limitation are not a principle "imported from the UK". The incorrect arguments both of you made: • A late report doesn't make an allegation untrue. There's substantial peer-reviewed research on why survivors delay disclosure. • Each charge is considered separately; jurors convict only if sure. That's not "Alice in Wonderland", it's the burden of proof working. • Rape and indecent assault were crimes then. The question is the law at the time, not changing attitudes. • The judge corrected a misstatement of a complainant's police interview and stopped the defence asking Brand's wife if she believed the allegations. He also told jurors the Dispatches claims were untested, kept the programme from them, and set out the defence's argument that it may have shaped memories. That's not favouring the prosecution. People trust experienced lawyers and journalists to get this right. Laughing through unchecked claims about women who gave evidence of sexual violence falls far short of that.
23
@terri4337 · 1 day ago
That text message is NOT from the rape victim in the trial. It’s from one of the accusers in the documentary. Facts completely wrong. They had no digital evidence of the text message in the trial
19
@hanranstan · 1 day ago
Are we going to get a correction as during this show they completely messed up and attributed text messages from a US victim to a different accuser from the UK? This is really painful to watch and what happens when you come in with bias and a case to make dictated by your boss, you pull together pieces of evidence to make your case however you can and get it wrong. Megyn Kelly’s staff need to revolt against her dragging them into this narrative, they’re all being discredited.
14
@smink8 · 1 day ago
The hypocrisy of Mark Galegos saying you shouldn't comment unless you've read the testimony is next level. It's clearly something that these two didn't do.
16
@hanranstan · 1 day ago (edited)
⁠I would say that this is actually the Megyn Kelly media reporters having such a bad case defending Russell Brand that they use talking points like this about the judge “inserting himself” - not the other way around, that the judge has to insert himself because he has an agenda and this is a weak case. They keep making this point with 0 detail of the interaction because if people understood what actually happened in the questioning and why the judge said what he said they would agree with the judge. Why are US journalists so busy criticizing and not educating themselves on UK law so they can do decent reporting, not just spout opinions? I’m seeing this within all Megyn Kelly affiliations and it’s so transparent and annoying. Viewers aren’t stupid, many actually made far more effort to follow this case than they did. My head nearly exploded when Matt Murphy the other day was empathizing about the fact that he has a family. Does that consideration apply only because he is famous? I’m really disappointed in this constant bias. There’s tons of evidence against him. I used to be a fan of his but due to everything that has been legitimately documented I no longer am. These journalists well know that not enough evidence to convict on a count does not mean the jury didn’t believe the accuser. This is just awful and biased reporting.
8
@LolaBroadhead · 1 day ago
In the UK a witness is prohibited from offering a personal opinion that is why the judge had to intervene due to the defence Barrister behaviour. It was all proper. The UK system is very different to the US system the defence were putting their thumb in the scale not the Judge.
8
@Bellah3 · 1 day ago
So, it is ok to not have a statute on murder but a statute on rape? Ask the women who have had that experience. They will tell you the person they once were died and the person they are they wish would die. Your theory is invalid and a masculine perspective. You probably think it all ended at the end of the ejaculation. Because he forgot it does not mean she could forget it.
11
@patriciab-h5e · 1 day ago (edited)
Wondering why Russell didn’t sue the makers of the documentary if the content was untrue.
21
@KimThomas-vp4vm · 1 day ago (edited)
CH4 haven't finished with him either, they're working on another documentary, they're even cutting people out of the next documentary, if someone interviewed called them out on certain things. The Daily Mail today think the home of his wife and children should be taken from them. Don't they think his loved ones are being punished enough?
7
@isabei-g5p6g · 1 day ago
Brit here - Mark was not in court. What happened in court was not televised. His opinion is shadowed by assumptions and biases of his own (american) judicial system
33
@lizz9840 · 1 day ago
that interview with Piers was painful to watch.  There was no logic on anything Russell was saying, he seems to have lost it.
6
@ryanfraser167 · 1 day ago (edited)
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ao6a9T5SBw&t=76">1:16</a> Wandsworth prison is a major but very old prison in London. In uk there are not separate "jails" and prisons, all prisoners held on remand and sentenced get held in prisons. Remand prisoners can be held in different wings and away from the way sentenced prisoners are held but it is basically the same prison. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ao6a9T5SBw&t=426">7:06</a> it isn't similar as the right to silence is diminished, anything not said and relied on later can be used to infer guilt
7