At any time Johnsson could have publicly stated that Leslie was not responsible but she chose not to do so. I suspect that this was to keep the interest in her book going - but it may have been because something happened but not as she described.
Although he was never charged with this alleged offence - he was charged with another case of rape and assault but was acquitted in 2003 after the accuser changed her mind.
Just picking upon these bits (no pun intended) and adding comment.
Johnsson's behaviour was deplorable - she should have either been made to stand by her insinuations or back away from them. In that instance, Leslie was effectively branded and found guilty without ever appearing in a court of law. He lost his reputation and his career. Whether that was/is deserved remains a matter of conjecture.
Re. the woman 'changing her mind': I'd suggest that a woman would be pretty certain as to whether she'd been raped or not.
A mate of a mate is a senior copper and has been on his police force's sex crimes team for many years. He once made the point that he has to deal with dreary regularity with regretted sex - some girl gets drunk, decides in the morning that she shouldn't have scratched that itch, and goes to the police. But, once an allegation has been made it's then very difficult to admit having stretched the truth, or having lied, so a lot of cases go far further than they should because some silly cow thinks she has to save face.
Of course, having said that makes me a rape apologist or some such.