Friday, 3 July 2020

Online video of Eleanor de Freitas emerges showing her true colours.

Last week I was having a look at the website analytics for this blog. The user statistics are anonymous but  give me an idea of why people are searching for me online and if there are any new webpages discussing my case. It is helpful to find this out so I can tell publishers to remove false or misleading information about me.

As I was looking through the data I noticed that someone had visited an online video with the title "Posh Escort Shagged for Cash" and then visited my blog. I went online to see why online traffic was coming from this source. I did a few searches and soon located the video. 

It was in fact a video of Eleanor de Freitas, which explains the connection to my own blog. The video starts with Ms de Freitas sitting on a sofa and a man behind a camera asking her about her escorting and what services she provides. She answers his questions fully aware she is being filmed. She discusses candidly that she has sex for money and performs all services apart from "a levels". She says she is based around Chelsea and that it is a "hobby" which she really enjoys
The man then asks if she has ever had sex on camera before. He says "well this is an outcall isn't it" and she explains she doesn't do "in-calls" they then go on to have sex for around 20 minutes and, she is fully aware she is being filmed, often talking into camera. At one point she tells viewers the name of her website, which I shall not name.
In the December 2012 blog entries I explained it was when I discovered Ms de Freitas was an escort that I broke off the relationship. For many years various "high profile" feminists were adamant that I lied about Ms de Freitas being an prostitute, even accusing me of harassment, eg Harriet Wistrich and Lisa Avalos amongst others. Well now I have Eleanor talking into camera confirming what I said is 100% true.
The significance of her being a prostitute is firstly that she would have had to lie about her whereabouts all the time to her parents who she was living with. Lying is what this case was about. Who was a liar and who was honest.
And fact she is doing these risky escorting activities for "fun" also  means that she is an assertive individual, far from the poor little innocent victim that she tried to come across to the police. She was confident around men, knew what she was doing and highly manipulative. All this is relevant when putting things into perspective.
 Eleanor sitting on a sofa talking to her client - in still image.
Note: I have not re-published the actual video nor will I insert a link here. At all times Eleanor de Freitas was aware she is being filmed on the video, and consents to being filmed. It is clearly a business transaction in which she was paid. I have no involvement with the publication or any re-publication of this video and am merely speaking about its existence and how it relates to my case. This is not new information,  Eleanor de Freitas escorting has been discussed since 2015 by the national press, for example.


  1. I don't see many comments on your post, which is a shame. I will try to get the message out to people because for men, it is all to often guilty until proven innocent.

  2. She killed herself after making false allegations? Doesn't she know she will probably face no consequences so she had nothing to worry about?

    But seriously, did she feel guilty to suicide?

    I will try to spread this story if I can.

  3. Even now her wikipedia page says: "Unbeknown to her parents, she reportedly also worked as a tantric masseuse and escort". (As if to infer it's in dispute). A 23 year old woman killing herself is a tragedy (even when she was clearly nasty and manipulative), but I don't understand why so many people made her into a cause célèbre; she committed a serious crime and should have taken responsibility for her actions. Even when the CCTV came to light, her fanclub doubled down, rather than accept the hard evidence.

  4. What in your understanding is the case theory that the defence intended to put forward at trial?

    It seems to me, had the trial gone ahead, they had three options:

    1. She maintains she was raped, therefore she did not attempt to pervert the course of justice.

    2. She admits she was not raped, but she did not intend to pervert the course of justice.

    3. She accepts she was not raped (or she accepts the possibility that her version of events is wrong), but she was not capable of forming the necessary criminal intent to pervert the course of justice.

    I have the impression from reading through this blog that possibly there was no firm idea on the part of the defence as to what they were going to say and they were telling her to plead guilty, but under the Criminal Procedure Rules, my understanding is that the accused is supposed to serve on the prosecution prior to trial a summary of the proposed defence.