However some people are quick to brand her a liar and unreliable. Despite never being arrested or convicted of falsely accusing someone.
It seems innocent till proven guilty only ever applies to the the man charged of rape never the accusers who always seem to be found guilty of lying by default if rape or assault charges fall through.
And you wonder why women don't report?
These cases are horrible for all parties I suppose because nobody will ever know what happened and everybody is always tarred.
However some people are quick to brand her a liar and unreliable. Despite never being arrested or convicted of falsely accusing someone.
It seems innocent till proven guilty only ever applies to the the man charged of rape never the accusers who always seem to be found guilty of lying by default if rape or assault charges fall through.
And you wonder why women don't report?
These cases are horrible for all parties I suppose because nobody will ever know what happened and everybody is always tarred.
I think the reason his career died is because mud sticks....simple as that. Nobody would touch him 'just in case'. Ulrika should have cleared his name if he did not commit that crime. But Ulrika has had the hump with TV folk in general since she herself has been out of work for ten years now. Maybe she just thought 'I'm not doing anyone any favours'...? whatever it is with Ulrika she sure looks terrible these days...wasted away to skin and bone. Deep-seated problems that go further than 'back pain' methinks....
I think the reason his career died is because mud sticks....simple as that. Nobody would touch him 'just in case'. Ulrika should have cleared his name if he did not commit that crime. But Ulrika has had the hump with TV folk in general since she herself has been out of work for ten years now. Maybe she just thought 'I'm not doing anyone any favours'...? whatever it is with Ulrika she sure looks terrible these days...wasted away to skin and bone. Deep-seated problems that go further than 'back pain' methinks....
So you think she didn't clear his name cos she had the hump with TV folk as her career had dried up?
You really and truly believe that she thought 'I'm not doing anyone any favours'.?
After the "Matthew Wright" incident, two women came forward and reported him for assault.
I don't believe the exact reasons Leslie was not brought to court were ever placed in the public domain. Although anyone involved in the preparation of the case or anything related knows the details.
Lack of evidence to bring a case does not automatically mean a crime was not committed.
Both Matthew Kelly and Craig Charles continued with their careers after similar serious allegations were made - Charles actually went to court. Mud didn't stick to them...
She says she suffered internal bruising so severe that she spent four days in hospital.....
'She didn't do it at the time (report the rape) because it would have been her word against his. She never planned to name him in the book, and won't do it now.'
So, you're not the man who raped Ulrika in hotel in Swiss Cottage?
No. Without a shadow of a doubt.
Were you ever in a Swiss Cottage hotel room with her?
Yes, because that's where she was staying at the time. I went out with her for two or three months and was there one afternoon. I came up and brought flowers and then left because she was ill and had cancelled the date. But there was no sex.
Well ..........like I believe the victims of Jimmy Savile I also believe Ulrika Johnson. He was never found 'not gulty' .......charges against him were dropped - the alleged victim was a chronic alcoholic (apparently starting after the attack) - it never went to court because it wouldn't have stood up.
Ulrika never pressed charges.
I didn't see it as trial by media - he was lucky to get away with it. Do you honestly think if he's as saintly and innocent as some of you are protesting he wouldn't have been re instated and welcomed back on National TV?
He never found work again - this is unpaid ^^^^ Doesn't that speak volumes. - Personally - I think he's not a nice man.
Lets get to the nitty gritty, he liked drink, he liked coke and he liked rough sex. Ulrika, well we will never know as she has never denied or confirmed, but the other ladies who came forward seemd to do so to The Sun before the Police
One woman met him in a club , went out side for a cigarette , then got in a cab with him, left her handbag and friends inside, went back to a hotel and had sex, years later she goes to The Sun and claims he was rough and she did not want sex and thought they would just be going for coffee ? Now whilst no means no I am sorry but that scenario did not and still does not ring true to me.
His repuation was destroyed , he lost his job with ITV due to the coke.
Whilst genuine victims should always be encouraged to come forward , lets not forget not everyone who goes to The Sun and Max Clifford before their police station is a genuine victim.
As for lucky to get away with it, the case was dropped at the last minute when the prosecutors told the court
" they would be offering no evidence after receiving 'new information' about his accuser"
We were never really told what that was , so mud sticks with him and his accusers details remained private
And we cannot compare this in any way to Jimmy bloody Saville.
I also remember Catherine Zeta Jones stuck her neck out and defended him, she was by then very happy in the USA with her new life and had no reason to but she did , she had more to lose than gain so I did believe what she had to say.
Lets get to the nitty gritty, he liked drink, he liked coke and he liked rough sex. Ulrika, well we will never know as she has never denied or confirmed, but the other ladies who came forward seemd to do so to The Sun before the Police
One woman met him in a club , went out side for a cigarette , then got in a cab with him, left her handbag and friends inside, went back to a hotel and had sex, years later she goes to The Sun and claims he was rough and she did not want sex and thought they would just be going for coffee ? Now whilst no means no I am sorry but that scenario did not and still does not ring true to me.
His repuation was destroyed , he lost his job with ITV due to the coke.
Whilst genuine victims should always be encouraged to come forward , lets not forget not everyone who goes to The Sun and Max Clifford before their police station is a genuine victim.
As for lucky to get away with it, the case was dropped at the last minute when the prosecutors told the court
" they would be offering no evidence after receiving 'new information' about his accuser"
We were never really told what that was , so mud sticks with him and his accusers details remained private
And we cannot compare this in any way to Jimmy bloody Saville.
I also remember Catherine Zeta Jones stuck her neck out and defended him, she was by then very happy in the USA with her new life and had no reason to but she did , she had more to lose than gain so I did believe what she had to say.
I'm sure what she had to say was truthful - she had no reason to lie - how though can she speak about something that didn't concern her? Was she in the room with Leslie and Ulrika? Personally I think it's ridiculous to take her word over Ulrikas.
As for the interview above ^^^^ does no one find it odd that friends warned him about his behaviour? He says himself he can't see what he was doing was wrong .........that's the problem isn't it?
John Leslie was shown to via the press scoops to be promiscious & importantly a drug user. He was presenter - B grade on day time tv. This character did not fit with the profile that had been created for him via PR & not suitable for the job. The allegations made meant he had been off screen for a while & there was no way back for him. His loss of job was due to this not specifically to the Ulrika incident but as we all know it was her auto biography & Matthew Wright that triggered it. Having said that I suspect a paper like News of the World had the low down on him anyway & it was only a matter of time before it all came out.
As for Ulrika her shameful handling of all this did in fact put an end to her career in mainstream tv as well. Ulrika to make her autobiography a best seller decided to add the rape chapter. Completely within her rights - but to do so as a bit of titilation & headline grabbing is not something that anyone should be proud of. She did it without naming anyone but it didn't take a genius to realise that it would send the tabloids into a guessing game. We had Matthew Wright naming John Leslie but to this day she has never confirmed this allegation.
As for the alleged rape. She says that she was so badly injured that she had 4 days in hospital. In which case she will have had full medical care/advice & the opportunity to report the crime at the time. The physical injuries were all there to be recorded. She made a decision at the time to not proceed with any allegation of rape. We can & it has been speculated as to why she said nothing at the time ranging from the usual fear to not wanting to damage her showbiz career. Only Ulrika knows the reason - none of us. Whatever it was to then to use it for financial gain via an autobiography & set off a guessing game is poor. If folks seriously believe Ulrika did anything worthy in terms of rape victims then I believe they are very much mistaken. She trivialised it.
I heard that he was into kinky stuff and a leech and women thought he was a pest.
He never got back on TV there is no smoke without fire.
I saw him around in bars he looked like a womaniser.
I don't think the fact that he was/is sleazy, didn't really know how to treat a woman and was rather neanderthal in his ways regarding sex but none of these things are illegal.
John Leslie was shown to via the press scoops to be promiscious & importantly a drug user. He was presenter - B grade on day time tv. This character did not fit with the profile that had been created for him via PR & not suitable for the job. The allegations made meant he had been off screen for a while & there was no way back for him. His loss of job was due to this not specifically to the Ulrika incident but as we all know it was her auto biography & Matthew Wright that triggered it. Having said that I suspect a paper like News of the World had the low down on him anyway & it was only a matter of time before it all came out.
As for Ulrika her shameful handling of all this did in fact put an end to her career in mainstream tv as well. Ulrika to make her autobiography a best seller decided to add the rape chapter. Completely within her rights - but to do so as a bit of titilation & headline grabbing is not something that anyone should be proud of. She did it without naming anyone but it didn't take a genius to realise that it would send the tabloids into a guessing game. We had Matthew Wright naming John Leslie but to this day she has never confirmed this allegation.
As for the alleged rape. She says that she was so badly injured that she had 4 days in hospital. In which case she will have had full medical care/advice & the opportunity to report the crime at the time. The physical injuries were all there to be recorded. She made a decision at the time to not proceed with any allegation of rape. We can & it has been speculated as to why she said nothing at the time ranging from the usual fear to not wanting to damage her showbiz career. Only Ulrika knows the reason - none of us. Whatever it was to then to use it for financial gain via an autobiography & set off a guessing game is poor. If folks seriously believe Ulrika did anything worthy in terms of rape victims then I believe they are very much mistaken. She trivialised it.
BIB - shocking and pretty disgraceful thing to say IMO. You have no proof of that whatsoever. If people write their autobiography it's pretty inevitable that they'll include something important like that - it would have had a lasting impact on her,
She didn't need something like that to sell her book - she has plenty of other :eek:shocking stuff that people would have wanted to read.
Is it known how the media knew she was refering to John Leslie?
Well being that he's openly said friends 'warned' him about his behaviour with the ladies I guess maybe his colleagues had heard 'rumors' rather like JS - people don't see or don't want to see what's under their nose.
OK then - if that's how you really see it then there really is no point in discussing it with you.
It must have been someone else she was talking about
Oh dear.
What evidence is there that she was talking about him specifically? You have failed to give examples so far and I suspect that will continue to be the case. You have your own agenda with no basis in reality.
However some people are quick to brand her a liar and unreliable. Despite never being arrested or convicted of falsely accusing someone.
It seems innocent till proven guilty only ever applies to the the man charged of rape never the accusers who always seem to be found guilty of lying by default if rape or assault charges fall through.
And you wonder why women don't report?
These cases are horrible for all parties I suppose because nobody will ever know what happened and everybody is always tarred.
Um, except the subject of this thread.
& it should be innocent until proven guilty. Until they are proven guilty. Which Leslie hasn't been. But apparently, it's 'obvious' whom Ulrika was talking about with seemingly no evidence or examples whatsoever. But that's fine; he's only a bloke after all...
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.
Didn't JL make a mint in property after being axed? Maybe he chose to stay away from the limelight and had enough money that he was able to.
I recall reading he had become very wealthy through accumulating property in Scotland. Perhaps that's enough for him, a hefty pay packet is very attractive in a man for certain women.
The fact he's endeavouring to get back into the entertainment business though, is indicative that he needs the fame as well as the fortune.
I like the guy. But then again, I have never met him, thus am not qualified to pass judgement on his character.:o
However some people are quick to brand her a liar and unreliable. Despite never being arrested or convicted of falsely accusing someone.
It seems innocent till proven guilty only ever applies to the the man charged of rape never the accusers who always seem to be found guilty of lying by default if rape or assault charges fall through.
And you wonder why women don't report?
These cases are horrible for all parties I suppose because nobody will ever know what happened and everybody is always tarred.
It is made more difficult when you get cases like the Leslie one where the tabloids paid women for stories about him and then some of them went to the police , thats not the right way to do things if you are telling the truth.
Photographs of him taking cocaine appeared in a Sunday paper, and more than 30 women came forward to accuse him of sexual assault. Columnists declared the former Blue Peter presenter a monster - a dangerous pervert who exploited his fame to lure women home and attack them. Following legal advice, Leslie said nothing, promptly got sacked by ITV's This Morning, and fled into hiding.
After 10 months, of all the lurid accusations reported by a feverish press, only one - for minor sexual assault - ever came to trial. It was thrown out when the credibility of the prosecution witness collapsed. Leslie, the judge told him, could leave the court "without a stain on your character".
Comments
However some people are quick to brand her a liar and unreliable. Despite never being arrested or convicted of falsely accusing someone.
It seems innocent till proven guilty only ever applies to the the man charged of rape never the accusers who always seem to be found guilty of lying by default if rape or assault charges fall through.
And you wonder why women don't report?
These cases are horrible for all parties I suppose because nobody will ever know what happened and everybody is always tarred.
Very well said.
He never got back on TV there is no smoke without fire.
I saw him around in bars he looked like a womaniser.
Yes he was & it was out of order.:mad:
But he still never got his job back even thou he won his case.
His sex obsession and kinkiness the media were aware of.
So you think she didn't clear his name cos she had the hump with TV folk as her career had dried up?
You really and truly believe that she thought 'I'm not doing anyone any favours'.?
WOW - you really do have a low opinion of her.:(
I think I preferred his brother
I don't recall Ulrika ever confirming it was John though
I don't believe the exact reasons Leslie was not brought to court were ever placed in the public domain. Although anyone involved in the preparation of the case or anything related knows the details.
Lack of evidence to bring a case does not automatically mean a crime was not committed.
Both Matthew Kelly and Craig Charles continued with their careers after similar serious allegations were made - Charles actually went to court. Mud didn't stick to them...
In 2006 John Leslie gave an interview....
Lets get to the nitty gritty, he liked drink, he liked coke and he liked rough sex. Ulrika, well we will never know as she has never denied or confirmed, but the other ladies who came forward seemd to do so to The Sun before the Police
One woman met him in a club , went out side for a cigarette , then got in a cab with him, left her handbag and friends inside, went back to a hotel and had sex, years later she goes to The Sun and claims he was rough and she did not want sex and thought they would just be going for coffee ? Now whilst no means no I am sorry but that scenario did not and still does not ring true to me.
His repuation was destroyed , he lost his job with ITV due to the coke.
Whilst genuine victims should always be encouraged to come forward , lets not forget not everyone who goes to The Sun and Max Clifford before their police station is a genuine victim.
As for lucky to get away with it, the case was dropped at the last minute when the prosecutors told the court
" they would be offering no evidence after receiving 'new information' about his accuser"
We were never really told what that was , so mud sticks with him and his accusers details remained private
And we cannot compare this in any way to Jimmy bloody Saville.
I also remember Catherine Zeta Jones stuck her neck out and defended him, she was by then very happy in the USA with her new life and had no reason to but she did , she had more to lose than gain so I did believe what she had to say.
I'm sure what she had to say was truthful - she had no reason to lie - how though can she speak about something that didn't concern her? Was she in the room with Leslie and Ulrika? Personally I think it's ridiculous to take her word over Ulrikas.
As for the interview above ^^^^ does no one find it odd that friends warned him about his behaviour? He says himself he can't see what he was doing was wrong .........that's the problem isn't it?
Ageed, and he was far more likeable than smarmy Schofield who replaced him on This Morning.
As for Ulrika her shameful handling of all this did in fact put an end to her career in mainstream tv as well. Ulrika to make her autobiography a best seller decided to add the rape chapter. Completely within her rights - but to do so as a bit of titilation & headline grabbing is not something that anyone should be proud of. She did it without naming anyone but it didn't take a genius to realise that it would send the tabloids into a guessing game. We had Matthew Wright naming John Leslie but to this day she has never confirmed this allegation.
As for the alleged rape. She says that she was so badly injured that she had 4 days in hospital. In which case she will have had full medical care/advice & the opportunity to report the crime at the time. The physical injuries were all there to be recorded. She made a decision at the time to not proceed with any allegation of rape. We can & it has been speculated as to why she said nothing at the time ranging from the usual fear to not wanting to damage her showbiz career. Only Ulrika knows the reason - none of us. Whatever it was to then to use it for financial gain via an autobiography & set off a guessing game is poor. If folks seriously believe Ulrika did anything worthy in terms of rape victims then I believe they are very much mistaken. She trivialised it.
I don't think the fact that he was/is sleazy, didn't really know how to treat a woman and was rather neanderthal in his ways regarding sex but none of these things are illegal.
BIB - shocking and pretty disgraceful thing to say IMO. You have no proof of that whatsoever. If people write their autobiography it's pretty inevitable that they'll include something important like that - it would have had a lasting impact on her,
She didn't need something like that to sell her book - she has plenty of other :eek:shocking stuff that people would have wanted to read.
I think it's a shameful thing to say that.
That guy owes his career to John Leslie's demise
Well being that he's openly said friends 'warned' him about his behaviour with the ladies I guess maybe his colleagues had heard 'rumors' rather like JS - people don't see or don't want to see what's under their nose.
Oh dear.
What evidence is there that she was talking about him specifically? You have failed to give examples so far and I suspect that will continue to be the case. You have your own agenda with no basis in reality.
Um, except the subject of this thread.
& it should be innocent until proven guilty. Until they are proven guilty. Which Leslie hasn't been. But apparently, it's 'obvious' whom Ulrika was talking about with seemingly no evidence or examples whatsoever. But that's fine; he's only a bloke after all...
Thats the problem she wont say, as Leslie himself said
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/john-leslie-my-behaviour-was-at-times-inappropriate-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.
The fact he's endeavouring to get back into the entertainment business though, is indicative that he needs the fame as well as the fortune.
I like the guy. But then again, I have never met him, thus am not qualified to pass judgement on his character.:o
It is made more difficult when you get cases like the Leslie one where the tabloids paid women for stories about him and then some of them went to the police , thats not the right way to do things if you are telling the truth.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/aug/09/john.leslie.interview
Photographs of him taking cocaine appeared in a Sunday paper, and more than 30 women came forward to accuse him of sexual assault. Columnists declared the former Blue Peter presenter a monster - a dangerous pervert who exploited his fame to lure women home and attack them. Following legal advice, Leslie said nothing, promptly got sacked by ITV's This Morning, and fled into hiding.
After 10 months, of all the lurid accusations reported by a feverish press, only one - for minor sexual assault - ever came to trial. It was thrown out when the credibility of the prosecution witness collapsed. Leslie, the judge told him, could leave the court "without a stain on your character".