Kassia♀️

1/ The prick she is defending told police he couldn't remember the woman, while her number sat in his iPhone as "T AP **", and he told the jury the two asterisks meant "Never, ever forget this individual, this is a memorable encounter". Now, let's talk evidence: Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, rape consists of three elements: that he penetrated her, that she did not consent, and that he did not reasonably believe that she consented. Whether that belief was reasonable is assessed by considering all the circumstances, "including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents". The first element was never in dispute. Brand himself told the jury that anal sex had taken place and that he carried on without a condom. The trial therefore boiled down to the issue of consent and what Brand had done to find out whether he had it. The jury heard the woman herself. Her police interview was played in court, and Brand's barrister cross-examined her. A statement made under oath and tested by the opposing side is evidence, and that is precisely what a trial is for. She told the court: "We never had a conversation about anal sex". She said that, following consensual vaginal sex, Brand turned her over and penetrated her anally, that he had removed the condom without telling her, and that she kept saying "Can you stop, can you stop, can you stop?" while Brand carried on. The jury heard from the people she told in the days, weeks and months following the incident in 2009. A friend she phoned soon afterwards said she was "very shocked", "in a lot of pain" and had asked him to stop. Another friend said she "couldn't sit down" for days. A third witness saw her lying "all scrunched up" in pain. A fourth saw her "ashen", told her she had been raped and urged her to go to the police. A nurse at the sexual health clinic where she went for tests stated that the woman had told her Brand "had anal sex without a condom and she didn't want that and didn't consent to that". The law does not regard a victim's complaint at the time as mere gossip. Section 120 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 makes it evidence of what it says, once she has given evidence herself. Furthermore, she had been telling people about this since 2009, 14 years before the bloody Dispatches documentary that Brand, and his stupid cheerleaders, blamed for the allegations. Then there is Brand's own testimony. He told the jury that the "T" stood for "tart" and the "AP" for "anal play". By the time he took the witness stand, the woman he had told police he could not remember had become someone he recalled as "coquettish", who had never once said stop nor complained of pain. When asked what happened immediately afterwards, he said he could not remember. When asked whether he had left her bleeding, he replied: "Well I can't remember".