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. 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. 

In December 2012 (see blog entries) I explained it was when I discovered Ms de Freitas was an escort that I broke off the relationship. However this video comes as a real surprise. It turns out it has been online for at least 7 years and that she was paid money to make it. 

For many years various "high profile" people have suggested that I lied about Ms de Freitas being an escort, even accusing me of harassment, including feminist extremists Harriet Wistrich and Lisa Avalos amongst others. Well now I have 100% proof that I was telling the truth about this. Any suggestion that she was an innocent English rose is completely false. She was a prostitute and that is a fact.

Important: I have not re-published the 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. I have always maintained she was an escort and a manipulative individual, see for example the 2012 entries for this blog.


  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.