John Leslie

[flip_flop]

I for one feel sorry for this bloke.

Since the debacle of a few years ago, where no charges were proven, he has carved out a successful property development business and has shunned the limelight.

Now, some charlatan, with the guarantee of anonimity, accuses him of a rape in 1995.

The allegation is completely unprovable - even if this woman has done a Lewinsky and saved a jizzed covered dress, it proves nothing.

Surely the time has come where the accused deserves anonimity, or if not, the accuser doesn't get anonmity.

Who believes he is right that "this is the mother of all stitch ups"?

[stonekicker]

don't get me wrong, i do feel for the guy because he does seem to attract trouble and there is a chance this could be an unfounded allegation - i like to give some people the benefit of the doubt. but, then his champagne and coke induced lifestyle and fondness for slappers was bound to come back and bite him in the @rse. another sterling example of what goes around comes around, i think...

[terambulan]

I believe him INNOCENT!

The accuser is now 13years older......plenty old enuf to take revenge out of court!

Perhaps JL has a stalker whom he re-buffed?

OK.....it's me! He's so gorgeous and wont be my toy-boy!

[Postdog]

I agree - if the cap fits - and it does with him - you have to live with any consequences.

That said, I don't agree in general with anonmity for one and not the other - I have known someone who was totally innocent of (an unlikely anyway) accusation but had to suffer mud sticking even when it was known by those that matter there was no truth in it.

[Lakitu]

I agree with you in the anonyminity part while it's under investigation and no charges have been brought but I completely disagree with the rest.

I am a rape victim and I never told the police nor brought charges against him. I spent a long time in counselling and one of the reasons for it was that incident.

You have absolutely NO idea how it affects a woman, you don't know that this hasn't been eating her up for all these years.

If he did do anything, then he deserves to be punished, even 13 years later.

[sara3]

Lakitu, I'm shocked.. how horrible for you.

for any rape case, including John Leslie, if you weren't there and there is no evidence.. you just don't know.

trial by media, and all that...

[sara3]

fa_r po_nt

[RevFunk]

Regardless of his lifestyle and his abilities to work wonders with a pair of round tipped scissors and some glitter dust, I think it is appalling.

Someone anonymously makes an allegation from 13 years ago?


4745 days ago

Obviously they were deeply traumatised by it

I think it's shocking how it has been leaked to the press

[flip_flop]

So deeply traumatised that they (1) didn't accuse him at the time when there may have been forensic evidence to convict, or (2) when the whole Ulrika thing happened a few years ago.

Why now?

[Lakitu]

flip_flop, you do know the circumstances of the girl. Why not now?

[Jillius]

As I said in another post, I certainly believe he has been set up by some trollop who will probably be posing naked in the News of The World next week while selling her traumatic story !! How disgusting that he has been named and she hasn't. Time and time again this happens to men who are innocent and even though John was found not guilty last time his career and life were still ruined. If this woman is found to be lying she should be named and shamed and made to pay all the legal fees.

[Lakitu]

I completely agree with the naming and shaming if she's lying, Jillius.

[Ethel]

Rape is traumatic and the thought of a court case can be too much to bear.

Who knows if it happened. As to 'why now' maybe after all this time she has bumped in to a third person quite by chance who can back her story up - an unknown at the party, perhaps.

The police have been investigating her claims for over six months. Somebody who works at the police station Leslie had to report to may have sold the information to the press.

We don't know - we can only speculate. But I wouldn't dismiss it simply on the fact she has reported the event so many years later.

[flip_flop]

Why not now?

Because it is 13 years later when there's not the blindest hope in hell of a conviction for something I believe - I don't have any proof, obviously, I just don't believe - he didn't do.

Rape is an utterly heinous crime, one of the worst there is, and therefore women who cries wolf should be hounded because they are doing a massive disservice to genuine rape victims.

[Lakitu]

But you're assuming she's crying wolf, flip_flop.

[flip_flop]

Yes, It is an assumption.

[ruby27]

I have no way of knowing whether he is guilty or not.

My own prejudices as a female, and knowledge of the massive under reporting of rape lead me to consider not reporting it for 13 years seems perfectly possible and plausible.

Predatory sexual abusers don't just commit the offence one time only , they may face being accused more than once.

[888sally888]

I just hope she is not lying for the sake of all the real victims out there. Lakitu I am very sorry to hear what happened to you x

[Lakitu]

I think your strong views of her are pretty harsh based on your assumption she's lying.

If she is, then I completely agree she needs to be exposed to us as he has been, but at the moment you do not know the circumstances. The girl was in her early 20's when it happened, if it did, that is.

I should imagine that grassing up a very well known and loved (at the time) TV personality would have been a daunting task and her anonyminity may not have been assured, just to add to the stress.

I don't think his name should be mentioned by the media either until charges, if any, are brought upon him.

[Lakitu]

Thanks Sara and Sally, I'm fine though - and happy :o)