Viewing Thread:
"John Leslie: Innocent or guilty - let the Daily Mail make up your mind for you!"

I feel pretty bad about this one. I usually reserve my judgement on these sort of cases, but this time I was convinced he was guilty. I feel manipulated by the media. I feel dirty.

Whilst I see Light's point, I don't see how Ulrika and various other women crying 'rape' then being proven liars does anything other than harm the case of genuine rape victims. Despite Light's insistence, I say it was a publicity scam combined with a cruel attempt to blight Leslie's name.

I hope he sues everyone involved for as much as possible.

With the conviction rates for rape falling all the time, and with sentences getting lower, can anyone actually blame Ulrika for screwing him over via the media?

I mean, I don't buy the "It was publicity for her book" angle; she'd just shagged Sven for Gods sake! And she'd not exactly short of an anecdote or two about lord knows which other celebs. Also, she never actually named him; blame Matthew Wright for that one. I'm also inclined to think he did it based on something (admittedly hearsay) that a friend of mine who ended up in a bedroom with him told me.

But that said, he shouldn't have had to have a trial by media. We should have a system that allows rape cases to be dealt with fairly so that women don't feel so powerless as to make media trial an attractive option. And of course, we should have flying pigs...

On the radio the other day it was summed up perfectly for me.
He sold his story to one newspaper and this guy (forget his name) said "Now watch while all the other newspapers go against him because he isn't doing the story for them"

For many years I have realised that what appears in the papers is generally a load of balls.

How do I know that - it's the Internet. You could be an oil rig worker from the Shetney's.

But I'm not

You would if you were John Leslie.

I don't really care

" Celebrity A accused of raping Celebrity B BLAH BLAH BLAH "
" Meanwhile Celebrity B has a new book out BLAH BLAH BLAH "
" TITSS BLAH BLAH HOUSE VALUE BLAH BLAH ENG-ER-LAND IMMIGRANTS BLAH BLAH "

Rosalind wrote:
> just as I am still not 100% convinced of his innocence. I don't know
> the man


That's the problem he will have to live with for the rest of his life. Ulrika Johnnson never named John Leslie, but it's almost certain that she meant him, and that allegation has never been cleared up.

At the end of the day it's not proper journalism. They've distorted words to sensationalise the story. Remember, this all came from one stupid woman (Ulrika Johnson) using the most underhanded of methods to promote her autobiography.

Also, note the even bigger text below the headline that reads:

"Leslie vows to take revenge"

That coupled with the picture of him baring his teeth shows him in a very negative light - almost as if the Daily Mail are still trying to destroy him even though the charges were dropped. Even if he was guilty, he's still at the mercy of the criminal justice system. If that's failed, then surely the papers should be asking why he, and other criminals are allowed to walk the streets.

That's my outlook as well.
No evidence offered, a witch-hunt in the media and then, all of a sudden?
"Er...actually we dont have enough evidence to prosecute"

He might have done it, he might not have.