I watched John Leslie’s statement to the press yesterday after all the charges were dropped and the emotion in his voice was overwhelming. Like he said he and his family have been to hell and back, he’s lost his job and his reputation is in tatters.
Do you believe John Leslie can reclaim his reputation and repair his career or is he now finished?
This scenario has happened many times before (Matthew Kelly, etc.), when any trial attracts large media attention (not just celebrity but being one seems to guarantee it).
Should defendant in a serious crime have anonymity if media interest could affect the trial and does the defendant (found guilty or innocent) have the right to sue for damages from intense media pressure?
I realise that for the U.S. the media cannot be censored but the rest of this is very relevant, especially with the Kobe Bryant case coming up.
Although it wouldn’t have helped Leslie I really do think there should ne anonamity till charged in such cases.
I hear that Sky is in talks with him about a chat show. Hopefully the man can get his career back. He has aged considerably over the last year due to the pressure.
I don’t watch much tv, so can someone tell me whether Matthew Kelly’s career ever recovered? I see John Leslie is starting to consider his own legal battle to gain some recompense - good on him.
I believe there should be anonymity in sexual assault trials of any kind. Not just celebs - though clearly there is a special case to be made for them, they’re not the only people who have media circuses built around them.
It’s bad to be the (wrongly) accused in all trials, but in most of these cases the verdict comes down to one person’s word against another. Why should one side have anonymity, but not the other? Shit sticks, even if the person is entirely blameless.
I think his career is finished. Also, this morning Sky denied all knowledge of the deal.
My best judgement on this (and I haven’t had the chance to read any of the papers today), is that everything hinges on the accused being able to not be ‘named’ by the media until after the court case.
For the name of the accused to not be put in the public domain requires three things:
We then get to the ridiculous position of tabloid headlines saying (and I recall this) **‘It’s 35 women now!’ ** – the suggestion being Leslie had raped 35. And this before a single charge was laid. This prejudices any potential trial to the extend that the accused cannot expect a fair trial in the IK. Period.
Of course, the media love the scenario where they are prevented from naming someone because they can lay on the crap about ‘in the public interest’, being ‘gagged’, etc. It becomes a media-driven frenzy in which the rights of the individual are lost.
Finally, what the hell can we, as a society, do anyway. The courts began to become lax in applying the law from the time when the power of the Internet made it clear that their enforcement of the Contempt laws was not going to prevent what they were intended to prevent, anyway.
At present, I have no idea what the solution is but I have no sympathy whatsoever for that old media whore and well-known slapper Ulrika. I do feel terribly for John Leslie.
From the post time I think we can call that a draw amanset :D.
Your making a very interesting point London_Calling, I never considered that the internet makes gagging irrelevant. With more people in the UK gaining access to a wider choice of news sources the courts can’t protect the names going out, but is that the same as the media frenzy that errupted. If the papers and local news programs were unable to run the story with the names would the story get as much public attention?
While the internet and more international news suppliers would prevent anonymity the media interest might be less blatant, less press harassment?