IMPORTANT NOTE: You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
Topic History of: John Leslie Cleared. Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
Author
Message
Honey
Jo wrote: I don't agree. I think that after Wright's naming of John Leslie she had a moral obligation to deny it was Leslie if it wasn't. She could have said that she didn't intend to name who it really was without being obliged to deny a string of names. The fact that she didn't deny it was Leslie clearly implied that she was saying it was him. I assumed at the time that she and Wright were in cahoots and she doesn't seem to have done anything to contradict that impression.
"In August 2003 Leslie said: ‘I was not damned by anything Ulrika said – I was damned by her silence"
Damned indeed, and forever suspected.
Why would Ulrika be in cahoots with Mathew Wright unless John Leslie did in fact rape her? We can safely assume that he didnt, because she has never accused him, he doesn't fit to the story, and the fact that she went out with him for a while strongly implies not.
I really cant imagine Mathew Wright deliberately accusing anyone. From what I remember at the time it slipped out accidentally as the name that he had heard, rather than calling him a rapist.
Jo
I don't agree. I think that after Wright's naming of John Leslie she had a moral obligation to deny it was Leslie if it wasn't. She could have said that she didn't intend to name who it really was without being obliged to deny a string of names. The fact that she didn't deny it was Leslie clearly implied that she was saying it was him. I assumed at the time that she and Wright were in cahoots and she doesn't seem to have done anything to contradict that impression.
"In August 2003 Leslie said: ‘I was not damned by anything Ulrika said – I was damned by her silence"
Honey
Ulrika Jonnson is not responsible for other people's wild imagination and amateur detective attempts.
If she carried on confirming or denying one by one, she would eventually run out of suspects and be forced to either reveal the identity of her attacker or admit that there was none.
Either way, it is her choice.
Green Man
Jo wrote: I had always been under the impression that Jonsson did effectively accuse Leslie of rape after he was named by Wright and she did nothing to contradict Wright. That seems to be backed up by the article.
Before the trial, Leslie had already been investigated an astonishing number of times over separate sexual assault allegations made to police since 2002, when he was falsely accused of raping Ulrika Jonsson. ... In 2002, Leslie was mistakenly named by the TV presenter Matthew Wright as Ulrika Jonsson's rapist that she wrote about anonymously in her 2002 autobiography. ... Jonsson made no public comment on Leslie's naming and did not cooperate with police over the matter. Police investigated Leslie but never charged him with the alleged offence.
So did Jonsson fail to deny it because she was accusing him or because she wasn't but she wanted to sell her book?
Forums 
We can safely assume that he didnt, because she has never accused him, he doesn't fit to the story, and the fact that she went out with him for a while strongly implies not.