Saturday, 18 August 2018

Metropolitan Police offer me £10,000 in compensation, but they don't want anyone to know about it.

Good news. The tide is turning.

The Metropolitan Police have offered me £10,000 in compensation. But they they want to keep it confidential. [Scroll down to see their letter].

I have told them that any settlement needs to be widely publicised and that I want a lot more than ten grand. The offer of compensation is to do with the very serious misconduct of Detective Inspector Julian King and Detective Constable Phil Dial in which they:

- Both refused to watch CCTV evidence I provided them with, and never looked at text messages that showed Eleanor de Freitas had lied.

- Both knew that Eleanor de Freitas had a history of making false rape complaints, but let her get away with it.

- I am also suing for breaches of the data protection act in which the police released confidential information to 3rd parties without my consent.

I have told the police that if they want to settle, then there can't be confidentiality... or we'll go to trial where the full details of the misconduct will be aired in court and widely reported in the press.

They have no choice, the full details will be coming out one way or another. And quite rightly. It's important people know the truth about this case. The police are the bad guys who are guilty of misconduct and that's a fact.

The thing I'm quite chuffed about is that I don't have any lawyers at the moment because I've run out of money. I am actually suing the police as a litigant in person and the police are already sending me offers to settle, just 3 months after I issued my claim. That's because I've got rock solid evidence.

Last year, the Daily Mail briefly reported the Police Misconduct. Click here to see the article. The officers are still under investigation by the IPCC and are facing a misconduct hearing at some point in the future. The outcome of that investigation is not yet known and that procedure is separate from my case against the police. Both officers were unavailable for comment, but have previously denied the allegations made against them and continue to do so.

As well as receiving compensation from the police, it is possible that the officers will face disciplinary action if they are found guilty.

Feeling good. Things are moving in the right direction.













Thursday, 26 July 2018

Still awaiting the result of the appeal, as the Summer legal term comes to an end on the 31st July.

The appeal was heard on 17 and 18th April and was reserved for judgement. There is unfortunately no way of telling when it will be handed down. Being a complicated case I anticipated several months.

The Summer legal term comes to an end on July 31st, and Autumn term resumes on October 1st. So there won't be a judgment handed down during that period. 

Although the wait is a little frustrating, it's nice to know that no 'life changing' judgement will be arriving in my email inbox for a couple of months. 

It could go either way. And the result could be potentially be very scary.

And now, it's time to relax and forget about the case for a couple of months.

Tuesday, 26 June 2018

Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC MP says: It was right for the prosecution of Eleanor de Freitas to go ahead.

After careful consideration, the Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC MP has decided not to order an independent inquiry into the prosecution of Eleanor De Freitas.

The request for a new inquiry or review was made by Ms De Freitas’ father David De Freitas. Ms De Freitas was charged with perverting the course of justice by the Crown Prosecution Service in 2014.

The Attorney concluded that there has already been a sufficient review of the case within the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), including by Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecution. The internal review process carefully considered the points that Mr De Freitas and others have raised, and reasonable conclusions have already been reached.

Commenting on his decision, the Attorney General said:

I recognise that this was a difficult case with a tragic outcome and I extend my deepest sympathies to Mr De Freitas and his family. However, I have carefully considered the concerns raised by Mr De Freitas and I am satisfied that this case has already been subject to extensive scrutiny within the CPS, and that it was right for the prosecution to go ahead.


Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC MP

Friday, 22 June 2018

I have a stalker called Lisa Avalos who keeps spreading lies about me on the internet.

For the last four years a woman based in America, has become obsessed with my case. Her name is Lisa Avalos. She also goes by the name "Professor Avalos", a supposed law professor.

I first spotted her at the harassment trial. She had flown all the way from Arkansas, USA to be there. On the day of the verdict, before the judgement had been handed down I saw her  giving out her business cards to the press, saying "call me". She was sure I was going to be found guilty.

She was wrong. I was found not guilty, and she has been mad ever since. Ever since I was found not guilty she has done everything to try to show the opposite.

It's like a dog that won't let go of a bone.

I later found out that she became friends with David de Freitas and his wife, and they have had several dinners together and even visited the family home in Fulham.

Since 2014 Miss Avalos seems to be constantly writing about me on the internet. It is amazing how a person can become obsessed with you and it certainly feels (from my perspective) like stalking. She visits my blog at least once per day. I know this from the i.p. logs.

She has visited this site hundreds of times. Sometimes even sending me anonymous messages, that unknown to her come from her i.p. address.

When you take the unsolicited messages, travelling 5000 miles to see me in court, and her repeated allegations about me - I would call that a clear case of stalking. 

It seems I am not the only one who has made complaints about her though. A quick search on the internet will find other articles alleging that she is a liar, and a busy body in other people's cases.

This is the first time I am writing about her on my blog because to me she is a nobody who has a chip on the shoulder, so why would I want to write about such a person?

Today I am writing because Miss Avalos has again this month written about me, stating that I am guilty of the rape of Eleanor de Freitas, and this time she contacted the press trying to push her story which is based on a web of lies.

I have in the past asked her to stop writing about me, but she refuses. In America that's  called: The First Amendment aka "freedom of speech".

Professor Lisa Avalos has repeatedly stated that there was no evidence that Eleanor de Freitas lied and says that I raped her, which is totally false. Click Here to see the evidence that Lisa Avalos doesn't want anyone to know about.

For the last few days I've been dealing with a large media organisation called Buzzfeed who were proposing to re-ignite the story on me, saying they would publish "things you won't like".

In fact it was Lisa Avalos who contacted them, trying to push a false story about me which says I'm a guilty of rape.

An exhaustive two days was spent dealing with lawyers, sending out letters and documents to Buzzfeed showing them that I am in fact innocent. This is all very tiring. Especially when you've been dealing with this for four years. 

Lisa Avalos, if you're reading this please stop stalking me and move on.

Professor Lisa Avalos from the United States.

Thursday, 12 April 2018

Five days to go until the hearing, but what is my appeal about?

Recap

In 2014 David de Freitas ran a coordinated press campaign, saying that I had raped his daughter and got away with it. Mr de Freitas held himself to be an "expert" on the case, and the press believed every word he said. 

It was not the press' fault, because they reasonably believed that Mr de Freitas had told them the truth. Before he went to the press, Mr de Freitas had in his possession full details of CCTV and text message evidence that showed there was strong evidence to show his daughter had lied. But he did not tell the press about that. He concealed those facts and went even further than that. He said there was "no evidence" that his daughter had lied, which was not true at all.

Mr de Freitas press campaign started on 6th November 2014. Within a few hours of seeing the press I notified Mr de Freitas via a hand delivered letter that everything he was telling the press was wrong.

Mr de Freitas ignored everything I had to say, and continued accusing me of rape. The next day he told the Today Programme on Radio 4 at 8:10am that I had probably raped his daughter. Later that day he went on BBC News TV and said the same thing.

I continued to protest my innocence to his lawyer Harriet Wistrich. I sent 27 emails showing them the evidence that proved I was innocent. But Mr de Freitas would not stop. In fact he accused me of "harassment". [NB I was later put on trial for this supposed "harassment" and was acquitted].

A month later, on 9th December 2014, David de Freitas continued his allegations in the Guardian and Telegraph Newspapers, continuing to assert that I had probably raped his daughter. At this point I decided to sue for libel. David de Freitas was on a mission and would not stop unless restrained by a court order. 

I issued my claim in March 2015. He filed his defence a month later. In the run up to the trial my lawyers asked Mr de Freitas (via part 18 questions) if he would continue going to the press. The reply came back that he would continue going to the press and nothing could prevent him from repeating his allegations. See image below.

If Mr de Freitas had reassured me that he would stop making false accusations then I would have no reason to sue. And so the case continued to trial...

In June 2016 there was an 8 day trial. At the end of trial the judge agreed that David de Freitas press campaign was based on false statements; that were highly defamatory and caused "serious harm" to my reputation. We should have won.

But in his judgement, Warby J said it was more important for David de Freitas to have freedom of speech than to repair my reputation, even though it caused serious harm and was not true.

Judge Warby dismissed my claim and ordered me to pay David de Freitas 90% of his legal costs of around £1.4m. [NB His legal costs are high because he is represented by no win no fee lawyers, who charge double fees]. A few months later David de Freitas applied to have me bankrupted. I am still fighting bankruptcy, which is on hold pending this appeal.

And that's what the appeal is about: Freedom of Speech vs Right to Reputation. The appeal is about common sense. If you wrongly accuse someone of rape on Radio, TV, Newspapers and Online and ignore everything the innocent victim says then you ought to be held to account. Especially when you know what you are saying is not true.

The appeal will be heard at the Royal Courts of Justice on 17 and 18th April 2018. The result will then be handed down at the Judges discretion,  usually 6 to 12 months after the hearing. 


An extract from "Part 18 Questions" in July 2015, eight months after David de Freitas press campaign.