More Lies by David de Freitas

The Director of Public Prosecutions had only just made her statement confirming that the evidence was strong in the case case against Eleanor, and thus vindicating me, when Mr de Freitas struck back.

He had contacted the Daily Telegraph to publish a press release and also wrote and article in The Guardian authored by himself stating that what the DPP had said was wrong and that the evidence in the case against his daughter was based on "rape myths".

This was meant to be a day if vindication for me, the day when the news was focused on the DPP's statement. But no. Mr de Freitas stole that moment from me.

He was saying his daughter was victim and that I was guilty, all over again.

It was an ambush designed to confuse the public.

Once again I was under attack.

But this time I was going to take legal action. This time I was going to sue him for libel.

I had been amazingly patient over the last 5 weeks, but this was the final straw. There are only a certain amount of times that one can put up with being accused of being a rapist and this was the 7th time he had done so.

I called up my lawyer. We were going to take de Freitas to court.

DPP: Evidence, including texts & CCTV, contradicted Ms. de Freitas's account.

Ever since the press had come out over a month ago I had been waiting for the DPP to make a statement about the case. But no one knew what she was going to speak out, last of all me.

She had been heavily criticised by Mr de Freitas in the press, so it was expected she would confirm that the evidence in the case against Eleanor was strong.

What she had to say would be really important. The DPP is effectively in charge of all the criminal cases in England and Wales. That's everything from murder to speeding fines. Her word would be taken seriously. If she said there was evidence to show that I was innocent then that would be amazing. 

Finally on the 9th December 2014 the DPP, Alison Saunders made a public statement

Saunders emphasised that there was strong evidence against Eleanor de Freitas, including text messages and CCTV footage that directly contradicted her account of the alleged rape. The decision to prosecute was explicitly based on this concrete evidence rather than stereotypes about how victims of sexual assault should behave.

She also confirmed that the CPS thoroughly considered Eleanor de Freitas' mental health before deciding to prosecute. A detailed psychiatric report, commissioned by Ms de Freitas' own legal team, concluded she was aware of the implications of her actions and was mentally fit to stand trial. No additional medical evidence was subsequently provided that would have justified discontinuing the prosecution.

And explained that it was highly unusual to prosecute without initial police support, as happened here. The police had not carried out their own investigation into the allegation of perverting justice and were not able to form a view on the evidence.

 

Below: Alison Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions

 

Letter to Lisa Longstaff (Women Against Rape) on anonymity for accused.

Lisa Longstaff

Crossroads Women's Centre

25 Wolsey Mews

London NW5 2DX

5th December 2014 

Dear Ms Longstaff,

I was the Private Prosecutor in the case against Eleanor De Freitas

I have read you and your colleagues comments on my case with interest. Firstly please let me say that I am completely against rape. I have two female friends who were raped and never reported it to the police. One of which I dated and one of which was even a witness for the CPS and supported this case.

Please find USB stick enclosed. I want you to see with your own eyes the CCTV of me and EDF the morning after the alleged rape. The CCTV captured us in Ann Summers on 24th December 2012 at 11:24am. You can see EDF chose multiple sex toys including a couple of vibrators and a vibrating egg. On top of that she spent around £100 on lube, although you cannot see it clearly in the video. The total bill in Ann Summers came to £340.00

On top of this evidence are statements of others whom she told a different version of events to. As well as phone evidence showing a number of text messages consistent with a false allegation. That’s three types of evidence. CCTV, phone reports and witnesses.

Despite this wealth of evidence the CPS took three months (Sept-Dec 2013) to consider the case. It went through all the different departments. It was even ratified by Alison Levitt QC who are the time was Adviser to the DPP. I would also point out that Alison Levitt studied for a 17 month period false allegations of rape for the entire country and wrote the report herself. She an expert on the subject.

With regards to EDF’s mental health and “vulnerability”. Her own defense lawyers gave the court two reports on a voluntary basis that said she was fit for trial. Not only that but the reports described her a more able than most, manipulative, highly intelligent and even machiavellian. Those are the words of the psychiatrist who was chosen by her own lawyers. They didn’t have to serve those reports to the court but they did, and it was done on a voluntary basis. That’s what the CPS based their decision on when considering her mental health. Two reports that said she was not only fine, but also manipulative. Both reports were written by psychiatrists of her own choosing.

I note that you say that women should not be prosecuted for making false allegations of rape. I also note that Ms Avalos says that those who are falsely accused can bring civil defamation proceedings instead of prosecuting.

Ms Avalos is mistaken. Complaints made to the police (in the UK) are immune from defamation proceedings. There is a test case called Westcott v Westcott which was heard in the Court Of Appeal a few years ago. Even if you can prove that a complaint is false and has been done with malice you can still not bring defamation proceedings.

I am all for catching rapists and getting more convictions. But the problem at the moment is naming alleged rapists in public causes serious problems. If there had been anonymity laws in place for the accused as well as the alleged victim I would have not needed to bring my private prosecution.

As soon as you start naming people you are “upping the ante”. Those falsely accused are going to want to clear their names. The only mechanism for clearing ones name is a Private Prosecution. You may have seen my article on the Mail on Sunday? Underneath the online version are a lot of comments 90% of which support the prosecution. That’s what the public think about it. They believe that it was fair.

I note (from previous press) that you don’t want to have anonymity for those accused, but then you do need a mechanism for them to clear their names. Wouldn’t you agree? At the moment this is the Private Prosecution. I would welcome any creative ideas on how the innocent can clear their names, as an alternative to this. As I said before false police reports are immune from libel so you can’t go in the civil courts asking for an apology. That’s a big problem.

I seriously believe that anonymity for those accused (until conviction) would help your cause. If the innocent are not named then they are less likely to push for legal action and commence private prosecutions. By naming the innocent as “alleged rapists” you are guaranteed that what happened to me will happen again. There will be more tears and more tragedy.

For your information I would also like to point out that EDF has a history of making false rape complaints. That was part of the prosecution evidence. A few years ago she made a false rape complaint against another man. Police answered your prayers that time and did nothing in that case. As a result she did it again. A textbook example of how false allegations cannot be ignored. This is not yet in the press but will be when the IPCC investigation is complete.

I am all for catching and convicting rapists, but all in balance please, let’s protect the innocent as well.

Kind regards,

Alexander