Seems a reasonable summary to me:

“What evidence was presented during the Russell Brand trial that was any better than he said/she said?

Unfortunately for Brand, not only were there he said she said testimonies in court, there is also considerable recorded televisual evidence of Brand behaving in a very sexually predatory way, and evidence from many people who knew him at the time, who confirmed that he was like that all the time, not just for effect on camera. His own written words from that period, including evidence about the amount of drugs he ingested, which would undoubtedly impair his recollection of the events of the time, won’t have helped his case.

All of this will have added credibility to the several witnesses in court who gave consistent “she said” accounts of what happened to them, and reduced his credibility in his “he said” defence. The counsels for the prosecution and for the defence will have dissected all of this evidence in front of the judge and the jury, and the jury have decided that in some cases at least, the case against Brand was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Listening to the Judges comments it is clear that having heard all the evidence, he too was convinced. I wasn’t there of course but I am quite prepared to take their word for it.

I am sure that in his later years as his hormone levels have fallen, his ego inflating fame has died back and he has stopped ingesting wagon loads of mind altering substances (his claims not mine) he has stopped being a sex predator, but the extent to which he now seeks to deny that he ever was such a person doen’t say much good about his alleged conversion.”