John Leslie

[flip_flop]

Police have dropped the investigation in to John Leslie's alleged rape of a woman in 1995.

Surprise Surprise - this investigation never had the blindest hope in hell of getting anywhere.

Should the accuser now lose her anonimity and be paraded in front of the medya the way Leslie has been?

[Myriad2112]

With Ronaldo on his way to Madrid, Sir Alex Ferguson has announced that he's looking for somebody to replace him. At a press conference he said, "I'm looking for an experienced attacker, someone who doesn't let stubborn defences stop him getting into the box".

Top of his list at the moment is John Leslie

[flip_flop]

I referred to it as spurious because reporting a 'rape' 13 years after it didn't happen sounds pretty bloody spurious to me.

[Oneeyedvic]

Ah, so it can't possibly be true.

Presumably you have never spoken to anyone who has been abused.

Do you think adults that report that they were molested as children are also lying, or is your scorn only for women.

[tranmerekid]

"The law confers a blanket of anonymity on complainants but the accused enjoys no such protection.

"Instead his reputation, his character, his career and his family are regarded as fair game by the media.

"There is little justice and no fairness in what our client and his family have been put through."

nice law this

[flip_flop]

Yep vic, 'tis my rampant misogyny.

Look, I accept crimes are reported years after the event, and indeed crimes are solved years after the event - lady in the lake et al, but, but, there's something about this case that just isn't 'right'.

If, and it is a bloody big if, this lady was raped by Leslie, then she deserves our sympathy and support, but come on, why wait until 13 years later when there's not a hope in hell of getting a conviction.

[Oneeyedvic]

I honestly don't know why she waited 13 years - but that is not a reason to say that she is lying.

She may have just finished a relationship, she may have had counselling, she may have a friend who has been raped and was finally persuaded to tell the police.

I agree that she may be lying in order to gain herself publicity or a multitude of other reasons - which is why I believe that a suspect should not be named until after a successful conviction has taken place (and if any paper prints gets wind of it and prints it, the proprietor and editor should be held in contempt of court and jailed).

[socket2008]

Unless two people are forced to sign a declaration saying they agree to sex first, the whole being able to prove rape issue will still exist.

A lot of women lie in rape cases. Some are after revenge, others have the hump with a partner or simply want to make him jealous. Then when the statistics come out that show there is a low conviction rate, the government get on the band wagon saying they will try to increase it.

Caes where the girl is say 16 and the guy 70 and she says she was raped in an alley is much easier to prove than a couple both 25 and living together.

Rape is hard to prove because the act leads to it is legal.