[i4u]

There's a clip here from October 2002 of Matthew Wright casually naming John Leslie with the words....

Three women we know of have pointed the finger at John Leslie...

Didn't Ulrika state as a result of the alledged attack she spent 3-4 days in hospital?

If John Leslie was not the person responsible then Ulrika has allowed a violent rapist to escape justice?

In light of the Saville situation wonder if she will have a change of mind reporting it to the police?

[kaybee15]

Originally Posted by i4u

There's a clip here from October 2002 of Matthew Wright casually naming John Leslie with the words....



Didn't Ulrika state as a result of the alledged attack she spent 3-4 days in hospital?

If John Leslie was not the person responsible then Ulrika has allowed a violent rapist to escape justice?

In light of the Saville situation wonder if she will have a change of mind reporting it to the police?

I'm not sure if I'm inferring your post correctly, but if I am, we are singing from a similar hymn sheet. When the UJ rape took place, she was a young looking girl, attempting to get into showbiz, and may have been intrigued by the opportunities offered by a friendship with one of the best-loved entertainers in the nation. She would not have been aware of any dangers. If it was Savile, that would explain the odd reluctance of the police to investigate a violent sexual assault that hospitalised a woman for four days. His influence could also partially explain her refusal to confirm or deny Leslie's involvement, as if she categorically denied it, then thoughts may have turned to Savile, which obviously couldn't be tolerated. All speculation of course, and I doubt we'll ever find out given the vilification she would receive for not clearing Leslie's name, but its not beyond the realms of possibility...

[Betty Britain]

The media went into a frenzy about the name of the person she had written about in her book.. She didn't make a big deal of what happened it was a few lines in her book... And she didn't want the person named

[fruitloop27]

Originally Posted by Betty Britain

The media went into a frenzy about the name of the person she had written about in her book.. She didn't make a big deal of what happened it was a few lines in her book... And she didn't want the person named

Maybe so, but she must have been stupid if she thought telling the world that she was raped by a "well-known TV presenter" was going to go unnoticed, especially as she is/was tabloid fodder at the time regarding her love life.

My guess is that she was not that stupid...

[Betty Britain]

Fruitloop27
But she wasn't to blame for his name being made public .. Yet she was slated in the media

[RubyVickster]

She should either have reported it to the police and named him, or not mentioned it at all in her book.

[fruitloop27]

Originally Posted by Betty Britain

Fruitloop27
But she wasn't to blame for his name being made public .. Yet she was slated in the media

But (and ok, maybe this is a bit far-fetched) she could've come out & said something. As she didn't refuse or deny when Leslie's name was mentioned, it all spiralled out of control. She mentioned it in her book & the media picked it up & ran with it. Yes, Matthew Wright blurted it out live on air which he shouldn't have but (& I'm in no way blaming her for mentioning this) she couldn't expect something like that to go unnoticed.

[Betty Britain]

Originally Posted by RubyVickster

She should either have reported it to the police and named him, or not mentioned it at all in her book.

Your first point maybe right but it's very hard to prove an attack ..especially when it's a date rape and secondly she has every right to mention it in her book..it's an event that happened to her .the media went nuts over getting the name..they where in the wrong here

[dickronson]

Originally Posted by Betty Britain

Your first point maybe right but it's very hard to prove an attack ..especially when it's a date rape

Er, not if she was hospitalised it wouldn't be?!

[RubyVickster]

Originally Posted by Betty Britain

Your first point maybe right but it's very hard to prove an attack ..especially when it's a date rape and secondly she has every right to mention it in her book..it's an event that happened to her .the media went nuts over getting the name..they where in the wrong here

But she must have known that by putting it in her book the media would be wanting to 'name thats man'. She is savvy enough to know how the media works and what would happen with its inclusion

[smudges dad]

Originally Posted by paralax

What Ulrika did to John Leslie was dispicable, she waited until she had a book to sell before she mentioned rape and then let people make assumptions, she could have said whether it was him or not, she wasted god knows how much police time and the taxpayer paid for it, John Leslie was destroyed, no wonder he ended up on drugs.

These women who cry rape to the media for attention, money or whatever are an insult to genuine victims. If they were raped either report it, or not, that is the woman's decision and they must struggle with it, but when it is thrown out there to the tabloids it just sounds like they are lying.

Originally Posted by Simi89

Completely agree with your post.

Nice to know that it's the rape victim who is despicable, not the rapist.

[Betty Britain]

Paralax how did Ulrika waste police time? She never made a complaint against John Lesley and he was doing drugs before he was named ... She didn't throw his name out to papers and never did a story about him..

[skp20040]

Originally Posted by Betty Britain

Fruitloop27
But she wasn't to blame for his name being made public .. Yet she was slated in the media

Whilst she did not name him she could have put a stop to the witch hunt by either confriming or denying it, she chose to say silent

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...te-467496.html


There are three or four people who it could have been - basically all the people who were going around with her at that time. The problem with Ulrika is that at any point she could have come out and said, "John is not the guy." That would have stopped a whole lot of damage. But she didn't. She just sat on the fence and took the money. Whether you like me or hate me, that's not right.

And before people say her silence must have indicated something, Ulrikas rape allegedly took place in 1987, this is a pic from 1993 does this pic look like a woman sitting with the person who had raped her just over five years earlier ?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/...36_468x359.jpg

[Betty Britain]

Look at the pictures of the kids alleged to f been attacked by Jimmy Savile... They are smiling.. Pictures prove nothing

[JELLIES0]

Originally Posted by smudges dad

Nice to know that it's the rape victim who is despicable, not the rapist.

ALLEGED rape victim.

[Saltydog1955]

Originally Posted by Betty Britain

Look at the pictures of the kids alleged to f been attacked by Jimmy Savile... They are smiling.. Pictures prove nothing

Kids posing with Savile probably had no choice. Ulrika did, and could have turned down the opportunity to appear with him. Most women wouldn't want to be in the same country as a man who'd raped them, never mind two feet apart on a sofa.

If he raped her, why does she look so cosy with him? Their body language certainly doesn't scream 'rapist and victim'.

[Dancing Girl]

At the time I thought it was dreadful that Ulrika could publicise her book, discussing the "rape" but refusing to name the person involved. She could clearly see what John Leslie was going through yet refused to deny it was him. She would not discuss it but was more than happy to promote her autobiography and no doubt made a fortune out of the whole media circus, while John Leslie was destroyed. To be fair, John Leslie's behaviour with women was pretty wild and he was very much a party animal so this did not help him prove his case against the media coverage from former "girlfriends" who came forward with unsubstantiated stories of his behaviour.

Somehow Ulrika came out of the whole situation blame-free although she admitted she had not gone to the police after the date rape or after the media blitz!

[Dancing Girl]

Originally Posted by Betty Britain

Fruitloop27
But she wasn't to blame for his name being made public .. Yet she was slated in the media

I clearly remember this and Ulrika went on interview show after interview show plugging her book but refusing to say anything about the date rape, she never denied it was John Leslie and it would have stopped the whole media frenzy if she had said simply it was not him! She appeared on a TV programme with him after the date rape, looked very comfortable with him.

Ulrika is an intelligent woman and she knew clearly that the media would go mad and obviously wanted something sensational in her autobiography to sell it. How often has she mentioned her few dates with Prince Edward!!!!!

[Betty Britain]

Dancing Girl ... Blame free??. I don't think so..she has had a lot of abuse about not going the police ,not naming the man etc.
Spending a few mins on a tv show with loads of people around them would of been a lot easier than being alone with him in a room and I'm sure she made sure she was with others at all times?
Sadly most women. DON'T go to the police when raped.. So should we attack them too?

[Dancing Girl]

Originally Posted by dickronson

Er, not if she was hospitalised it wouldn't be?!

If the date rape was so dreadful she had to go to hospital for treatment, why did Ulrika NOT report this violent rape to the police. She would have had all the evidence she needed for the police to arrest and prosecute the rapist. Surely she must have realised if this happened to her, her could easily rape again. Nope, more financially rewarding to mention it in a book and start a media frenzy!!

[Saltydog1955]

Originally Posted by Betty Britain

Dancing Girl ... Blame free??. I don't think so..she has had a lot of abuse about not going the police ,not naming the man etc.
Spending a few mins on a tv show with loads of people around them would of been a lot easier than being alone with him in a room and I'm sure she made sure she was with others at all times?
Sadly most women. DON'T go to the police when raped.. So should we attack them too?

We don't attack them because these hypothetical women aren't in the public eye.

UJ stood back and watched while a man was dragged through the courts - a man she could either have damned if he was guilty or if he was innocent she could have saved his name and a lot of heartache for him by saying he didn't do it.

[Dancing Girl]

Originally Posted by Betty Britain

Dancing Girl ... Blame free??. I don't think so..she has had a lot of abuse about not going the police ,not naming the man etc.
Spending a few mins on a tv show with loads of people around them would of been a lot easier than being alone with him in a room and I'm sure she made sure she was with others at all times?
Sadly most women. DON'T go to the police when raped.. So should we attack them too?

I can well understand why some women cannot go to the police, especially if it was not a violent rape and they have no proof of the attack. Sadly, women are often date raped, rather than raped by a total stranger. What I dislike about Ulrika is that she used this awful experience to publicise her book and make money. She made a fortune from her autobiography although it was at the cost of destroying Leslie's career. She still has a career, Leslie does not.

[Eurostar]

Weren't there claims Ulrika went on a date with Leslie around six months after the incident? I'm sure I remember reading that at the time.

[Betty Britain]

Originally Posted by Dancing Girl

I can well understand why some women cannot go to the police, especially if it was not a violent rape and they have no proof of the attack. Sadly, women are often date raped, rather than raped by a total stranger. What I dislike about Ulrika is that she used this awful experience to publicise her book and make money. She made a fortune from her autobiography although it was at the cost of destroying Leslie's career. She still has a career, Leslie does not.

She didn't use the date rape to publicise her book.. Book tours are booked months in advance to coincide with the book release ...She was on her book tour when that was picked up by the media and THEY made a massive deal about it.. Have you read her book? It's not as big a part of the book as people think

[kaybee15]

Originally Posted by Dancing Girl

If the date rape was so dreadful she had to go to hospital for treatment, why did Ulrika NOT report this violent rape to the police. She would have had all the evidence she needed for the police to arrest and prosecute the rapist. Surely she must have realised if this happened to her, her could easily rape again. Nope, more financially rewarding to mention it in a book and start a media frenzy!!

It is very strange that a violent sexual assault causing the victim to be hospitalised for four days was not fully investigated, complaint made by the victim or not...