she was sexually assaulted when she was a young presenterand she never told anyone. Then she wrote her autobiography, called it 'HONEST' and reasonably enough included the incident, without at any point saying who it was who attacked her - as many years later as it was, there would have been no possibility of making a case stick against them under our legal system.
However, the press got speculating and Matthew Wright let slip on telly that most people thought it was John Leslie. An unknown woman then went to the police claiming JL had attacked her, too. Recently this woman withdrew her evidence after it was revealed that she'd gone to the papers before the police, so JL is now cleared of any attacks.
At no point did Ulrika comment on whether it was JL who attacked her.
(However, the press got speculating and Matthew Wright let slip on telly that most people thought it was John Leslie. An unknown woman then went to the police claiming JL had attacked her, too. Recently this woman withdrew her evidence after it was revealed that she'd gone to the papers before the police, so JL is now cleared of any attacks.
At no point did Ulrika comment on whether it was JL who attacked her.
Dr Phil Kitten,
Mon 4 Aug 2003, 11:20,
archived)
stupidcow. She should at least say it wasnt him. Then lie low.
I was put in an aquard situation at 13 yrs old but I would name and shame him if nessasary. But I did cause him to have a hernia at a later date....
(I was put in an aquard situation at 13 yrs old but I would name and shame him if nessasary. But I did cause him to have a hernia at a later date....
jiva nearly always up for a game of scrabble,
Mon 4 Aug 2003, 11:27,
archived)
thing isshe can't say it was him because there's no way it would stand up in court, so it's technically libel. but if she says it wasn't him...
well, the book's called "honest" let's put it that way.
(,
Mon 4 Aug 2003, 11:37,
archived)
well, the book's called "honest" let's put it that way.
she may well have told the policewhether it was/wasn't him as part of their investigations. There's no reason why she should tell the press too, as it would just lead to more 'who is it then?' reports, which were rather distasteful in the first place.
(edit: and he was being investigated for the other claims who came forward, so she couldn't have stopped it anyway)
((edit: and he was being investigated for the other claims who came forward, so she couldn't have stopped it anyway)
monkeon schmonkeon,
Mon 4 Aug 2003, 11:49,
archived)