John Leslie

[WillowTheWhisp]

I can't remember what I did last week never mind 13 years ago.

[accyman]

it wouldnt surprise me if this woman flipped a coin to decide wether to say she was raped by john leslie or that she was abused by michael jackson

just another greedy jumped up slag jumping on the band waggon if you ask me



women like this should be publicy named and shamed and then given 10 years in prison for not only putting someone through such an ordeal but also for making a mockery of real victims of rape

[Lilly]

Originally Posted by Bonnyboy

If he is found to be guilty would that alter your view ?

It certainly would.

I'm not saying for a second that I condone rape, quite the opposite.

I'm just saying that it's a very difficult thing to prove and it's not made easier by women making false allegations.

If this woman has made false allegations then she ought to be suitably punished.

If John Leslie has raped this woman then he should be suitably punished but I agree with Willow when she says that the John Leslie case was massive in 2003. Why didn't this woman speak up when all the other allegations were in the spot light?

I'm very dubious about this one to say the least and feel sorry for John Leslie. I wouldn't feel sorry for him if I thought he'd raped this woman but I'm doubtful that he has.

[Bonnyboy]

I like others cant remember what I did recently, day to day stuff doesn’t really sink in.

Had I had my wicked way with some lass back in the 90’s I’m fairly sure I would recall it, not particular times and dates, but it would have been logged.

[katex]

I don't think anyone can speculate on something like this. Although know we all will.

Even saying can't remember 13 years ago ... sure you would remember if you had raped someone .. unless drugged up to the eye balls (or lower balls).

This guy obviously has a problem with an overactic genital area, however, difference between heavy seduction and rape.

We have no profile whatsoever on the accuser .. so again how can we speculate on the circumstances ??

Let's wait and see shall we ?

[Bonnyboy]

Originally Posted by Lilly

It certainly would.

I'm not saying for a second that I condone rape, quite the opposite.

I'm just saying that it's a very difficult thing to prove and it's not made easier by women making false allegations.

If this woman has made false allegations then she ought to be suitably punished.

If John Leslie has raped this woman then he should be suitably punished but I agree with Willow when she says that the John Leslie case was massive in 2003. Why didn't this woman speak up when all the other allegations were in the spot light?

I'm very dubious about this one to say the least and feel sorry for John Leslie. I wouldn't feel sorry for him if I thought he'd raped this woman but I'm doubtful that he has.

If the allegation does turn out to be false, then the woman involved should serve a prison sentence . As has been said, allegations of this nature wreck the lives of many.

[Lilly]

Originally Posted by katex

I don't think anyone can speculate on something like this. Although know we all will.

Even saying can't remember 13 years ago ... sure you would remember if you had raped someone .. unless drugged up to the eye balls (or lower balls).

This guy obviously has a problem with an overactic genital area, however, difference between heavy seduction and rape.

We have no profile whatsoever on the accuser .. so again how can we speculate on the circumstances ??

Let's wait and see shall we ?

Ok, I shall stop speculating on the reliability of this witness, Your Honour.

Seriously, that aside, my main question wasn't so much 'Do we think John Leslie is a rapist? ' although that is what we got onto.

It was more 'Do we think that people should be able to make rape allegations 13, 20, 25 years after the alleged event?'

[Bonnyboy]

I already answered that one so will go for a beer

[katex]

Originally Posted by Lilly

It was more 'Do we think that people should be able to make rape allegations 13, 20, 25 years after the alleged event?'

Yes .. look at that case in the Channel Islands at the moment .. though they were children then, now adults and can speak .. so are special circumstances. This may be one of those special circumstances ... who knows ?

[cashman]

in answer to the original question, i do not think there should be a time limit on any crime, thin end of the wedge i reckon, like well the murder was 20 yrs ago, so its out of time, let em off, that or somewhere like it, this could lead.

[Bonnyboy]

Originally Posted by cashman

in answer to the original question, i do not think there should be a time limit on any crime, thin end of the wedge i reckon, like well the murder was 20 yrs ago, so its out of time, let em off, that or somewhere like it, this could lead.

Exactly...

[Lilly]

Originally Posted by Bonnyboy

I already answered that one so will go for a beer

When you come back then.....I don't think that rape charges should be able to be made say 13 years later because the evidence is even more shaky than it was at the time.

People's memories fade and you will have a hell of a lot of unreliable witnesses. How can the accused be expected to recall their actions from 13 years ago? You'd know that you hadn't raped anyone but how could you prove it?

You couldn't prove that you hadn't raped anyone and the prosecution couldn't prove that you had because there'd be no evidence.

When a recent rape is reported all sorts of evidence / samples are taken....from the scene, from the woman, the man, clothes and posessions are seized for forensic purposes. You can't do this 13 years later.

There'll be no evidence and if you can't prove a man guilty then he must be found innocent so he'll get off.

All that police time, money, upset, trauma etc for nothing.

Why do you think that rapes should be able to be investigated no matter how long ago they were?

[Bonnyboy]

Originally Posted by katex

Yes .. look at that case in the Channel Islands at the moment .. though they were children then, now adults and can speak .. so are special circumstances. This may be one of those special circumstances ... who knows ?

You’re right, these things have to be investigated and people brought to book if possible.

[accyman]

i think anyone accused of rape should not be named until found guilty simply because even when found innocent the dammage is done

in cases of rape i would have a closed court so its only people relative to the case and proceedings present , no media and no public gallery and a gagging oprder on the alleged victim not to speak of it until a guilty verdict is decided but if the verdict is not guilty then the gagging order preventing her discussing the case stays in place

dont get me wrong here rape is a serious crime but how many innocent men are walking around under suspicion because they were found innocent but because their name and picture were in the news and in the papers people still think they either got lucky in court or must have done somthing

its time the accused were protected as well , we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty but often assumed guilty way before a trial because of the press

plenty of women have walked away from court free after owning up and saying they made it up because they were angry but by that time the poor blokes life is destroyed

somthing needs to change not only to protect men from vicious lies but also to protect genuine victims who fear coming forward because of these dispicable women who lie

[Lilly]

Originally Posted by katex

Yes .. look at that case in the Channel Islands at the moment .. though they were children then, now adults and can speak .. so are special circumstances. This may be one of those special circumstances ... who knows ?

Yes, I see your point but was that not a case of long term abuse of which the signs would be there and therefore could be investigated?

A one off rape on a Saturday night would leave no evidence 13 years later....one person's word against another.

I don't suppose you can have 2 separate rules though.....tricky one this.