My insistence isn’t insistence at all, so don’t be concerned. I believe she was violently raped at a very young age, whether he was the perpetrator is up in the air due to the way he was outed. I find it odd that when Piers Morgan interviewed her and they spoke about JL, and about his trial by media, why PM didn’t flat out ask her if he was guilty. I find it even more odd that John Leslie doesn’t publicly say to Ulrika, clear my name or accuse me. What does he have to lose if he is innocent? Why wouldn’t he contact an old girlfriend and ask her why she won’t deny it’s him. He said he has never spoken to her since the time Matthew Wright outed him. It is that, more than anything, that makes me think he is linked to the crime.
Even if she did report him now, the case is so well known, how would they get a jury. I believe there are too many accusations about him from many separate sources for him just to be the “charming” man that Anthea et al think he is. I also think more accusations against him will emerge.
Piers Morgan is a swamp rat, but, anyway. I imagine his Star Stories programmes are pre-planned and questions are okayed beforehand via the celebrity's agent, or personally. He tries to give the impression of his style being off-the-cuff questioning but I'd be very surprised if it was. The ambiguity is intentional. For what reason, I'm not sure.
Of course some malicious women lie about rape, but false accusations are far outweighed by a majority telling the truth. Ulrika, I'm sure, has had to deal with people speculating over her looks/shaggability/promiscuity - even if not to her face, they're doing it online. It takes a lot of guts to even admit you've been raped, never mind pointing the finger at the perpetrator.
Recounting trauma to the police or a court means you then have to re-live it. I'm sure she's done that already, writing her autobiography. Even if you think you're made of tough stuff, it may come back in your unconscious when you're asleep or you'll get flashbacks. Maybe she's just over that whole rigmarole and feels she's suffered enough.
As for John Leslie, personally I'd move heaven and earth to clear my name, by any means necessary. And surely, if you have a big gig hanging in the balance (I'm sure This Morning paid handsomely), time is of the essence.
Edit: I'm comparing apples with oranges, but Michael Jackson didn't fight tooth and nail to clear his name either. He paid up to make the bad publicity go away. Of course there could be all sorts of reasons for that, but why not tough it out? MJ's public persona and the stories he put out there were carefully orchestrated - he *really* cared about his image. The way he dealt with his accusers didn't make sense.
MJ's behaviour was typical of a powerful male grooming vulnerable, poor, starstruck young males and their families. He had a "type" and a modus operandi. He was an impulsive person who spent frivolously, deeply in debt when he died, reputation tarnished.
We know very little of the background/lead up to John's five accusations, but I'd imagine they all follow similar scenarios. For whatever reason, John Leslie just let the story ebb away and didn't do much to salvage his reputation.
Maybe John doesn't have the money (nowadays) to pursue the legal route, or the emotional stamina. Or he's guilty.
www.thesun.co.uk
I need to use swamp rat more as an insult
