The Wright Stuff.

[Nick]

Just seen that show The Wright Stuff is back on TV today.

That Matthew Wright is sitting there banging on and on about how his show is in the fourth series now.

Two things struck me... first, can this man not smile without practically closing both his eyes?

Second, I wonder if he appreciates just how lucky he is in life. One slip of the tongue and his whole career and life could be destroyed... a bit like he did to John Leslie.

I think he should make some sort of apology for talking about him, after all Ulrika has never said it was him and all charges against him were dropped. The man has done nothing wrong and is a wreck... while the smug git Wright goes on...

[Skii]

I wholeheartedly agree Deck m8

He's a very very lucky man considering the damage he has caused.

I actually quite enjoy the Wright stuff (when I'm 'ahem' on holiday) some quite entertaining subjects at times, other times they have these pathetic 'battle of the sexes' debates which I have no time for.

[Stoo]

shoeing. taken. for. outside. thorough. a. be. should.

re-arrange

(yes, I was bored )

[TeePee]

He's a wreck? You mean he's down to only one porsche?

The charges against him weren't dropped, there was enough evidence to take him to court, but because the victims didn't turn up to give evidence it was thrown out.

This isn't like the many cases where someone is found not guilty based on the evidence, where allegations have been proven to be false, no evidence was considered.

Would you turn up to give evidence if everything about you including your name would end up spread accross the tabloids, ruining whatever life you've managed to put back together after an ordeal like rape?

We have seen a few widely publicised cases where allegations of rape have been proven to be false after all the evidence has been considered, but don't jump to the conclusion that this is the same. The way that the media has behaved (including this Wright guys revelation) means it was never going to be a fair outcome.

He's innocent until PROVEN guilty, and in this case it means he's innocent ONLY because there was no proof in court.

[Nick]

And in those cases we've seen, excepting the Hamiltons, haven't the VAST majority of so called 'victims' remained completely anonymous? So saying the witness did not arrive due to fear of publicity is rubbish.

This is why there should be legislation to protect the accused until found guilty, just as we do for the witness.

Like you say, he is innocent as no proof was presented. If no proof was presented then you cannot jump to the conclusion that there was proof there in the first place!

As for there being enough evidence to go to court, where is it? If that is so, then how come he didn't go to court? The witness would have remained anonymous as many many witnesses have done before, so that's not the reason.

The man is innocent, simple as that.

But my original point still stands. An innocent man has had his life ruined by another man's 'accidental' remark.

And the only reason the name of the 'victim' of the Hamiltons became public knowledge was because she was found guilty of perjury, otherwise her name would never have been known but the Hamilton's have still had their reputation shattered.

(I admit that the Hamilton's reputation wasn't brilliant to begin with, but I hop you see my point.)

[TeePee]

The Hamiltons involved a flat out case of charactor assasination arranged by Max Clifford. The vast majority of victims do remain anonymous, but there's no way that would have happened in this case, it's simply too high profile, but who knows what would have happened? The victims were afraid!

He did go to court, becase there was enough evidence for the CPS to build a case. The witnesses didn't show because of their fear of exposure, you may think their fear is unjustified, but I don't, and when the evidence didn't show up on the day, the case was thrown out. That makes him innocent, because noone has offered to prove him guilty.

Just because this case is similar to other celebrities who have had false allegations made against them, doesn't mean this is the same. Just take a minute to consider the other side. What if it were true and he were guilty? What would have happened differently? In the eyes of the law, he is innocent, but what about in the eyes of his victims?
what about in the eyes of the police investigating the case, who sent it to the CPS?

In my eyes he's guilty (for reasons which make a crap argument), but I can't prove it, and I'm not trying to make you think he's guilty, only to show that his innocence hasn't been proven in the same way as most of these celebrity cases where there was a verdict.

His life has been in no way ruined. He's richer now than he was before and far more bankable as a celebrity.

So many people are anxious to assume this is another case of a celebrity's name being dragged through the mud in order to support their opinion that there should be legislation to protect the accused until found guilty, that his reputation remains almost untouched. Now I agree wholeheartedly with that opinion, but I can see doubt about this specific case when taken on it's own merits.

[Nick]

Sorry, I have to disagree on a couple of things there. (in a friendly, discussion kind of way )

Take the Jonathan King case, that was high profile but none of his victims ever became known.

Leslie is innnocent until PROVEN guilty so there is no need to prove his innocence, he already is innocent. The job of the CPS is to prove him guilty.

His career is wrecked because people have decided he his guilty, you're one yourself. Which is what I'm talking about, he has now to prove to you that he is innocent when he hasn't actually been found guilty of anything. Why should he have to do that? He already is innocent.

But people deciding for whatever reason they chose to, as is their right, that he is guilty has ended his potential as a bankable celebrity and therefore ended his career.

I don't think it was a case of a celebrity's name being dragged through the mud, but rather more of one celebrity using another to boost their book sales.

Then on the back of that, people 'jumping on the bandwagon' to accuse him of similar charges. Remember, two of the women completely retracted their statements. That fact alone says to me that they were fabricating everything to perhaps cash in on a newspaper story?

But for him, even though they have retratced their stories, the damage has still been done. Would you have ever thought him a rapist unless someone said he was? No, you wouldn't, but now the idea is there and you are aware of his previously private promiscuous sex life you now have a different opinionof him based on un-proven, retracted information.

[headbrace]

I have to agree with Deck, something i dont do lightly The cornerstone of the British Legal system is that someone is inncent until they are proven guilty by the courts. It seems the fairest system, but something most of the media have yet to grasp. It is a shame that his life has been so publicised, and that he has lost all privacy.

[Russ]

TeePee, you should be aware that Ulrikakakaka never said it was him at all.

[TeePee]

Ulrikakaka was only trying to boost her book sales, and Wright was trying to boost viewers for his failing show, and both succeeded.

While yes in law he is innocent and can't be punished, I think there is some doubt (unlike so many other cases) and I don't see any reason to give John Leslie the benefit of it. I wouldn't see him punished without something being proven, and he hasn't been, since if anything he's more of a celebrity now than before.

I can see your point, that unproven allegations made against him have changed my opinion of him, and it is wrong that this should happen to an innocent person. But he's guilty as hell!

[Russ]

Originally posted by TeePee
Ulrikakaka was only trying to boost her book sales, and Wright was trying to boost viewers for his failing show, and both succeeded.

While yes in law he is innocent and can't be punished, I think there is some doubt (unlike so many other cases) and I don't see any reason to give John Leslie the benefit of it. I wouldn't see him punished without something being proven, and he hasn't been, since if anything he's more of a celebrity now than before.

I can see your point, that unproven allegations made against him have changed my opinion of him, and it is wrong that this should happen to an innocent person. But he's guilty as hell!

but how do we know he was guilty? Ulrika has never even comfirmed she has selpt with him, let aloned been raped by him, so how on earth can he be guilty?

[Knoxville]

the bottom line in this situation imo is that stuff like rape and abuse the man is treated as guilty until proven innocent.

A woman hits a man and its no big deal, man hits a woman its an open and shut case in court if the woman and her lawyer want it to be.

[Nick]

Originally posted by TeePee
I can see your point, that unproven allegations made against him have changed my opinion of him, and it is wrong that this should happen to an innocent person. But he's guilty as hell!

And that view held by you and many, many others has effectively finished him.

I'm at a loss to understand just why you think or, as it would a appear, KNOW him to be guilty. The evidence given was retracted, the one woman the CPS were using as a witness withdrew her evidence too. You said due to her fear of media attention. That just isn't true. The media are legally bound to keep identities secret.

Perhaps she couldn't face being in court? Well, no, that argument falls over when you realise that for such a high profile case the woman would have been able to give evidence from a separate room by video link.

I know, it's because she couldn't go through the ordeal of repeating it all to the court...umm, no, that one doesn't hold water either. If she had managed to face her ordeal of so many years before in a series of statements to the police over several weeks , surely just confirming her statement and discussing the key points wouldn't be so tricky. And the police would have provided her with counsellors and every means available to get her and the case through court.

Perhaps she had flu on the day? Maybe she met and old friend, went for a drink and forgot the time? She could've forgotten to set her watch to BST... or not been able to find a thing to wear... I know, she had washed her hair and couldn't do a thing with it!

Perhaps, and I know this one is tricky to grasp, she was just plain lying? After all, think of the attention she'd get!

Perhaps a little delving into her private life is needed?

So, here ya go...

She had promiscuous sex with many men over the course of the years, nearly all of whom she became practically obsessed with, calling and badgering them continuously. After they finished the brief relationships with her she became jealous and intruding, even waiting outside their houses late at night in her car. On three occasions she was cautioned for breach of the peace and was bound over for one year to not approach a particular man she was infatuated with. She also recieved a 200hr community service for the damage she did to one ex-lovers car. A friend, who did not want to be named, said that she seemed nice and normal but had a 'funny' side, she even boasted about bedding football players and even a top nightclub owner. She has a history of alcohol abuse and once was cautioned for carrying small amounts of a controlled substance.

Right then, I want you to now PROVE to me that none of what I said about that witness is true . Just telling me I made it up won't do. You have to PROVE to me it's not true.

The evidence above is just as reliable as the evidence given against Leslie. Do you hate this woman now too? At the very least she is an unreliable witness, her past shows that, does it not?

Balls in your court now. You have a witness whose reputation is in tatters on evidence just as substantial as the eveidence against Leslie, which I'm afraid you can't fail to accept.

You have to accept th evidence I have given you, after all, you accepted the evidence against Leslie which was no more substantial than mine. You wouldn't treat her any differently becuase she's a woman and not famous, would you?

[TeePee]

It's been very obvious from the start that I can't win this argument. Mainly because I agree with most of what you're saying. I agree that the accused in rape cases get a very bad deal, and should have their anonimity protected!

Were we talking about another case I'd be backing you up completely. But on this specific case I don't. Because It has been proven to me that Leslie is guilty, and no, I can't offer you any proof, because any proof I offer would lack credibility. Nothing you can say would make me change my opinion, and without proof you would recognise I wouldn't try to change yours.

I will however offer the proof that nothing you said about the witness is true, because the witness is my sister, who at the time was a student at imperial college. She had no drinking problem has never taken drugs and prior to the rape had never been involved with the police or courts. Leslie begged her to go out with him, which she did mainly because of his celebrity status. He walked her home and then forced her into her house and date raped her.


OK, thats a completely false account, I'm an only child. The point of the little tale is that I could present that as a true story. You, of course, wouldn't believe it, (I know I wouldn't), but were it true, then, as the brother of the fictional sister, that would be conclusive proof of Leslies guilt for me. For you, it would just be the last desperate attempt to win back credibility for a failing argument.

Point is, I know Leslie is guilty because of similar (but less personally involving) reasons. Which is why I know I can't win this argument. What is conclusive proof for me is just heresay for you.

[Nick]

Teepee, that's a fair enough comment. I understand completely what you're saying. In any judicial case, no matter what the outcome I wouldn't expect anyone to do anything other than stand by their relative/friend whatever the justice system decides is the truth.

That is a sign of honour and integrity, which you obviously have by the bucket load. I take my hat off to you.

You're right, we will have to agree to differ, both, I think, on reasonable grounds for our points of view.

Thank you for an enlivened and engaging debate.

What do you want to argue over now?

[TeePee]

Well, thank you for making it as difficult as it should be to argue a point that goes against common sense. The justice system we have is very flawed, and not only in it's failure to protect the innocent.