John Leslie Trial - Accused of touching woman's bum in nightclub

retro:electro · 22-06-2018 03:18PM

Olsky wrote: »

Questioned if the position of his hand is appropriate for a ballroom dance style hold, she said: “I don’t think it is appropriate for hands to be placed on lower backs.

Ridiculous.
Her hands were on his shoulders, his hands on her lower back. It’s called dancing.
This whole thing is fcuking farcical imo.

Olsky · 22-06-2018 03:29PM

retro:electro wrote: »

Ridiculous.
Her hands were on his shoulders, his hands on her lower back. It’s called dancing.
This whole thing is fcuking farcical imo.

It's not farcical at all. Just the fact that we are discussing here whether he is guilty and the fact that men will now need to be cognisant of whether the positioning of their hands is appropriate when dancing with women in nightclubs means that #metoo has already accomplished far more than the priests ever did during the Ballroom of Romance era..

greenspurs · 22-06-2018 04:03PM

Next -
All male dancers on "Dancing with the Stars" have been arrested following repeated 'innapropriate' touching of their dance partners ...................

ohnonotgmail · 22-06-2018 05:01PM

Have we gone from "hands inside her clothes on her backside" to "hands on her lower back"?

Olsky · 22-06-2018 05:06PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Have we gone from "hands inside her clothes on her backside" to "hands on her lower back"?

I believe the sexual assault charge related to position of one hand only.
They are both clearly on the spectrum of male behaviours that are inappropriate and unacceptable in the current environment.

ohnonotgmail · 22-06-2018 05:08PM

Olsky wrote: »

They are both clearly on the spectrum of male behaviours that are inappropriate and unacceptable in the current environment.

well they are both very different behaviours. I'm just trying to establish what actually happened. A search for the truth, if you will, not meaningless soundbites.

AllForIt · 22-06-2018 05:24PM

Why is the verdict being described as "Not Proven" instead of Not Guilty?

ohnonotgmail · 22-06-2018 05:29PM

AllForIt wrote: »

Why is the verdict being described as "Not Proven" instead of Not Guilty?

Because its scotland. They have 3 possible verdicts. Guilty, Not Guilty and Not Proven.

Olsky · 22-06-2018 05:35PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Because its scotland. They have 3 possible verdicts. Guilty, Not Guilty and Not Proven.

Yup. They are not saying that he is not guilty of touching her bum. Only that it is not proven whether or not he touched her bum.

What has been clearly established though is that touching a woman's bum in a night club is a crime.

wakka12 · 22-06-2018 06:02PM

Olsky wrote: »

The trial continues. Some of today's evidence

The court heard from the accusers friend who said she felt the way Leslie was touching her friend was “inappropriate” and she looked “scared”.

She said: “They were dancing and I could see he had his hand on her lower back which I felt was inappropriate, I would have felt uncomfortable if it was me.

She said she cut in and danced with her friend, who initially said she was fine but then started crying and later reported the incident to the police, despite having not wanting to at first.

Under cross examination by defence lawyer Derek Ogg QC, she denied having any prejudices against Leslie, saying she did not know who he was.

Questioned if the position of his hand is appropriate for a ballroom dance style hold, she said: “I don’t think it is appropriate for hands to be placed on lower backs.

“ I didn’t think that dancing with this person, the way he had his hand on her, I didn’t think it was appropriate.”

She denied telling her friend something inappropriate had happened rather than the other way round.

The trial before Sheriff Adrian Cottam continues.

:eek:
I think it would be sad reflection on society if somebody goes to jail for putting their hand on somebodys lower back while dancing

Calhoun · 22-06-2018 06:04PM

Interesting times in the UK, same time this case is going on a number of rape cases have been overturned or dropped as the prosecution witholding evidence proving innocence.

Hagar7 · 22-06-2018 06:06PM

Official....not guilty.
https://twitter.com/stvnews/status/1010198004832169984?s=21

TomOnBoard · 22-06-2018 06:11PM

Hagar7 wrote: »

Official....not guilty.
https://twitter.com/stvnews/status/1010198004832169984?s=21

Nope. He's not been found 'Not Guilty'.

The verdict is "Not Proven". That's not the same thing as " Not Guilty' at all.

Outlaw Pete · 22-06-2018 06:20PM

Claimant's friend:

"I don't think it is appropriate for hands to be placed on lower backs.

:rolleyes:

Glad to see him cleared.

kylith · 22-06-2018 06:31PM

Olsky wrote: »

Yup. They are not saying that he is not guilty of touching her bum. Only that it is not proven whether or not he touched her bum.

What has been clearly established though is that touching a woman's bum in a night club is a crime.

You mean sexual assault?

Gatling · 22-06-2018 06:38PM

Thankfully a Judge saw sense in the end ,
CCTV and the so called witness Claims should have made sure some one in cps looked at this and said sorry no further action required . rather than a circus we got looking at this

Olsky · 22-06-2018 06:51PM

Their case was pretty weak. The accuser didn't have any real recollection of what happened other than that she was "traumatized" afterwards and persuaded by her friend to go to the police. The friends claim that she dragged her friend away was proven to be a lie by the CCTV footage. The recorded tape of them dancing also showed no evidence that he had actually touched her bum.
They did try to argue that he had his hand on her lower back and that this was sexual assault. Indeed this would be more than enough to have someone convicted in the current environment "in the workplace" However it would have involved declaring the waltz an illegeal and criminal activity as placing hand on lower back is an intregal part of this dance. Maybe a step too far at the moment.

Hagar7 · 22-06-2018 06:57PM

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Nope. He's not been found 'Not Guilty'.

The verdict is "Not Proven". That's not the same thing as " Not Guilty' at all.

Wrong,it is EXACTLY the same thing.

_Dara_ · 22-06-2018 06:57PM

Everytime I see this thread title, the Cheeky Girls song pops into my head and it’s 2002 again.

BattleCorp · 22-06-2018 06:58PM

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Nope. He's not been found 'Not Guilty'.

The verdict is "Not Proven". That's not the same thing as " Not Guilty' at all.

It is in my book. Innocent until proven guilty.

Hagar7 · 22-06-2018 06:59PM

kylith wrote: »

You mean sexual assault?

He hasn’t been charged with anything in his life.

TomOnBoard · 22-06-2018 07:11PM

Hagar7 wrote: »

Wrong,it is EXACTLY the same thing.

Nope!

It is a verdict that acquits the accused where guilt has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is used where the alleged victim's account is broadly accepted, but has not been corroborated by enough other evidence to convict. If the alleged victim was considered to be lying and/or no evidence existed at all, a "Not Guilty" verdict would have ensued.

TomOnBoard · 22-06-2018 07:14PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

It is in my book. Innocent until proven guilty.

In your book, yes. It's also the case in most other legal systems. However, Scotland retains the old third verdict which is kind of a middle ground, and, as the case occurred in Scotland their rules apply.

Olsky · 22-06-2018 07:20PM

TomOnBoard wrote: »

In your book, yes. It's also the case in most other legal systems. However, Scotland retains the old third verdict which is kind of a middle ground, and, as the case occurred in Scotland their rules apply.

Correct. They are not saying that he is not guilty of touching her bum. Only that there is a reasonable doubt that he did do and they have insufficient evidence to find him guilty of this crime.

Clearly they wanted to convict but the CCTV footage contradicting the accusers testimony left them in a very awkward position. A salutory lesson for anyone who might be asked by a woman for a dance in a night club.
At least ensure a detailed consent form is signed beforehand and that the entire dance is filmed as evidence.

Paddy Cow · 22-06-2018 09:17PM

Olsky wrote: »

Correct. They are not saying that he is not guilty of touching her bum. Only that there is a reasonable doubt that he did do and they have insufficient evidence to find him guilty of this crime.

Clearly they wanted to convict but the CCTV footage contradicting the accusers testimony left them in a very awkward position. A salutory lesson for anyone who might be asked by a woman for a dance in a night club.
At least ensure a detailed consent form is signed beforehand and that the entire dance is filmed as evidence.

It left them with no case. She lied about her version of events which means that you cannot accept the rest of her account (which even she was unsure of) as fact. This should never have gone to court. John Leslie is lucky there was CCTV. If there wasn't, he probably would've been convicted.

I remember having a conversation with my brother a few years ago, well before the #metoo movement. He was telling me about a woman in a club who was coming onto him and wanted to back to his for sex. He was single at the time and she was in his words "hot" but he turned her down and walked away despite her persistence because she was drunk. He was afraid that if they did the deed, the next day it could have serious repercussions for him. He said he simply wasn't willing to take the risk for a ride. He also said that if his best friend was accused of rape, it went to trial and his friend was cleared, there would always be that doubt in his mind.

It was a sombering conversation and it highlights the dangers of hooking up in the modern world for both men and women. If a woman hooks up with a man and it turns into rape, it's hard for her to be believed because she's seen as "asking for it". If a man hooks up and is accused of rape because she regrets it/interprets it differently/is simply vindictive, it's hard for a man to clear his name.

kylith · 22-06-2018 09:51PM

Olsky wrote: »

A salutory lesson for anyone who might be asked by a woman for a dance in a night club.
At least ensure a detailed consent form is signed beforehand and that the entire dance is filmed as evidence.

Or, y'know, don't go dropping the hand or groping her without invitation.

Conservatory · 22-06-2018 10:11PM

Farcical thread. Poor John Leslie. What does he do for a living now?

I thought him and Abi Titmus were such a lovely couple. This was a set up job.

A life ruined by his decisions to get involved with crazy women when he had a few beers onboard.

Nobody comes out of an Ulrika relationship looking well. Since then it’s been false accusations and made up rumors.

I want him to be given a chance back on tv.

Conservatory · 22-06-2018 10:17PM

kylith wrote: »

Or, y'know, don't go dropping the hand or groping her without invitation.

Have you ever given somebody an invitation to touch your bum. I’m with the wife about ten years and never once did she ask to be groped.

If any sane woman I’ve known or spoken to over the years seen a girl grinding on a chap in a nightclub then getting all emotional when he touched her bum they’d laugh at her and think she was a spanner.

If everything is rape nobody will have sympathy for people really raped because everybody will be already on the register.

eagle eye · 22-06-2018 10:39PM

It might be for Leslie but not in the eyes of the court. Not guilty in Scotland is a clear acquital by the jury. Not proven is a little closer to guilty in that the jury don't believe the case is proven but don't believe he is innocent either.

Sweetemotion · 22-06-2018 10:45PM

eagle eye wrote: »

It might be for Leslie but not in the eyes of the court. Not guilty in Scotland is a clear acquital by the jury. Not proven is a little closer to guilty in that the jury don't believe the case is proven but don't believe he is innocent either.

Luckily for the John there was CCTV footage.

John Leslie Trial - Accused of touching woman's bum in nightclub

Comments