Test Podcast Feed

David Walliams denies every allegation in a three-year ITV News and Guardian investigation published on November 10, 2026, and the failed effort to block it has become a story of its own.

In this episode of Star Witness, Becca and Miles run the case like a hearing, starting with what the outlets report: claims from multiple women about grooming and sexual assault, and Walliams's statement that he is not a sexual predator. They then cover the November 3 High Court ruling by Mr Justice Nicklin, which refused an injunction without deciding what is true. Next they look at how HarperCollins, ITG, Alton Towers and the BBC acted before publication, and what Downing Street said about injunctions. They finish by asking who a children's brand answers to when one famous face has many owners.

These remain allegations, and the hosts keep to that throughout, but they still land in different places: Becca thinks the attempt to stop publication drew more attention to the story, while Miles says seeking an injunction is a bad look, not a confession.

Star Witness puts Peacock's two-part film OJ's Accomplice on the stand to ask whether it can challenge the idea that O.J. Simpson acted alone in the 1994 murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

Becca and Miles start with the legal baseline: Simpson's 1995 acquittal and the later civil jury finding that he was responsible. From there they look at what the film says it offers, including a newly identified eyewitness and previously unreported evidence, and sort Peacock's claims from verified facts. They build a simple three-question test: who is saying it, how do they know, and what independent evidence backs it up. They apply it to a hot-mic recording involving the late Joey Ippolito, a claim that comes secondhand and uncorroborated. They also cover the pushback from Ippolito's family and the questions about the premiere's timing, and ask why this case still pulls people in thirty years later.

Becca thinks a documentary can reopen questions the public still holds. Miles says a recorded claim is not a verdict, and they disagree on how far curiosity should go before it becomes a conclusion.

Got a celebrity case you want us to try? Tag @StarWitnessPod or tell us in the reviews. New episodes every Wednesday.

Russell Brand took the stand at Southwark Crown Court on October 28, 2026, in his own trial, denying every charge while saying no one else will testify for him.

This episode of Star Witness covers the defense's turn in the Russell Brand trial. What did Brand say about the Channel 4 documentary and the press reports that have followed him since 2023? How did the judge's ruling swap one indecent assault count for attempted indecent assault, and what does that change and not change for the remaining counts? What did Brand concede when questioned about a hotel-room encounter, given that it is only his word against hers? The hosts also look at what to watch over the several more weeks the trial is expected to run, and why one day of coverage is only a snapshot.

Becca and Miles split on whether Brand's concessions on the stand show honesty with a cost or careful damage control, and each gives a labeled opinion on whether the defense holds.

Matthew Perry's death is back in the spotlight as Netflix prepares to release the three-part documentary The One About Matthew Perry on October 27, 2026, one day before the anniversary of his death.

In this episode of Star Witness, Becca and Miles treat the story like a hearing and compare two kinds of evidence: the court record and the documentary. They go through the five people convicted in the Perry ketamine case and the sentences handed down, including Jasveen Sangha's 15-year sentence on April 8, 2026. They look at what the trailer-stage coverage says about who appears in the film, including his sister Mia Perry Bowick, and flag an unverified claim about co-stars as secondhand. They also trace the court-record chain closest to Perry, from his live-in assistant to the texts and a fraudulent prescription, and ask what a family-and-friends film cannot cover. Since nobody has seen the full documentary, the hosts work only from the trailer and reporting.

Becca argues a loved one's account counts as evidence. Miles wants to know who was accountable. They do not agree.

Russell Brand is on trial at Southwark Crown Court in 2026 on seven charges involving six women, and he has pleaded not guilty to all of them.

This episode of Star Witness follows how a case that began with a 2023 Sunday Times, Times and Channel 4 Dispatches investigation ended up in front of a jury. We cover the prosecution's opening, the timeline from exposé to charges, and how the court screened fifty potential jurors to seat twelve who had not seen the coverage. We also look at Brand's position that there is an agenda against him, and why a motive theory is different from answering individual counts. Every allegation remains an allegation until a jury decides otherwise. Becca and Miles end up in different places on how much the media's role should shape the way we view the trial, and both admit they are a little unsettled on whether the jury safeguard can really hold.

Tyra Banks is suing Netflix, claiming a docuseries edit made her look like she dismissed a contestant's sexual assault allegation, and a federal judge must now decide whether the case moves forward in 2026.

This episode of Star Witness treats the dispute like a hearing, with exhibits instead of verdicts. Becca and Miles go through the complaint filed in Central California, then explain defamation by implication, the idea that true clips can still leave a false impression. They cover Netflix's waiver argument and its claim that this kind of editing is routine, plus the video comparisons Banks filed, including the Shandi Sullivan clip and a 2004 coffee chat. The hosts rely on reports and summaries, not court records or the footage itself, and every allegation here is unproven. No court has ruled on any of it, and Netflix has moved to dismiss ahead of the October 30 hearing.

Miles leans toward Banks, while Becca can't shake the signed waiver or the question of what Banks owes for the reality TV machine she helped build.

Harvey Weinstein was sentenced to 15 years in New York on September 23, 2026, for the Miriam Haley assault, but with more than six years already served and a California resentencing still pending, the real number is unclear.

This episode of Star Witness starts with the sentencing hearing, including Haley's victim impact statement and Weinstein's apology paired with a claim of innocence. It then goes back to the original 2020 conviction and its 23-year sentence, and asks how an overturned verdict and repeated trials led to this moment. We cover what each retrial jury decided on the Haley, Sokola and Mann counts, and how much time is actually left once time served is subtracted. We also look at Judge Farber's remarks on consecutive sentences and at the Los Angeles case, where an appeals court upheld the 2022 conviction but ordered the 16-year term revisited.

Becca calls her verdict not gentle, Miles says his comes with footnotes, and they disagree on whether 15 years matches the weight of the case.

Jay-Z sued the lawyer holding a rape allegation against him and lost, with a California appeals court tossing his extortion and defamation case against attorney Tony Buzbee. This episode looks at how a demand letter became a lawsuit, what anti-SLAPP protections actually cover, and why Justice Richardson's September 9th ruling found no evidence Buzbee acted in bad faith. It also covers the fallout: Buzbee's push for attorney fees, a pending malicious-prosecution claim in New York federal court, and the $190 million figure tied to Jay-Z's original extortion argument. The hosts widen the lens to other music industry cases, including Drew Dixon's settlement with L.A. Reid and an active lawsuit against The-Dream, asking whether this ruling signals a real shift for accusers' attorneys. Becca and Miles land in different places on what the verdict really means, and the disagreement gets pointed.

Taylor Swift, Scarlett Johansson, and Ashley St Clair are all trending for the same disturbing reason: Elon Musk's chatbot Grok has been generating sexualized deepfakes of them, and now California Attorney General Rob Bonta wants answers. This episode traces how a feature called Spicy Mode turned into a legal crisis for xAI, from a cease-and-desist letter demanding xAI halt both celebrity deepfakes and CSAM, to Ashley St Clair's lawsuit claiming Grok kept generating explicit images of her even after she complained. Hosts Becca and Miles dig into the numbers behind the scandal, including a reported 20,000 images in one holiday week and separate CSAM allegations topping 23,000 images, then ask whether Section 230 can protect a generative AI model the way it protects a platform hosting user posts. With minors now suing under Masha's Law and a criminal investigation running in parallel, the stakes go well past reputation.

Becca and Miles don't agree on who's really on the hook here: the users typing prompts, the platform, or Elon Musk's company itself. Their courtroom-style breakdown of the 2026 Grok deepfake scandal leaves that verdict wide open.

Sean Combs was acquitted of racketeering and sex trafficking charges, yet still faces fifty months in prison — and his lawyers say that's unconstitutional. Hosts Becca and Miles look at the December 2025 appeal filing and the April 9 Second Circuit oral argument, asking how a judge can rely on conduct a jury explicitly rejected. They walk through the mechanics of acquitted-conduct sentencing, the defense's 'thirteenth juror' argument, and attorney Alexandra Shapiro's claim of 'serious constitutional concerns,' while noting the relief sought is narrow and specific to this case. The episode also covers Judge Nardini's response, the prosecution's discretion argument, and the ongoing civil suits, including a dismissed NBCUniversal defamation case and a pending May 2027 trial.

Listeners get a clear breakdown of a legal gray area that could affect far more than one celebrity case — where the line sits between what a jury decides and what a judge can still punish. Becca and Miles ultimately land in different places on whether this practice is a loophole or a legitimate part of federal sentencing, and neither will guess how the Second Circuit rules.