Did Eleanor intentionally lie to the police? Here's what she told them.

There has been speculation in the media that Eleanor "wasn't sure" if she had been raped, and that she made a report in good faith, in the "genuine belief" that she might have been raped but couldn't remember anything because she was "drugged".

Let me dispell this myth...

Here is an extract from an email she sent to police, in which Eleanor was adamant she has been raped. And says she was locked in my flat until midday.

Here is another email she sent, saying that she was held "captive" and then developed Stockholm syndrome. For context, these emails were sent by Eleanor, months after her initial complaint to the police

And here is an extract from her Police  Interview (ABE) on 4th January 2013, which clearly demonstrates the level of detail she was prepared to go into when making up her story.

The contrast between Eleanor's allegations and the prosecution's evidence is undeniable and compelling. 

She claimed she was violently attacked, crying, fighting back, and held captive until midday. Yet, how do we reconcile those claims with the text messages she sent from my flat, saying she had "huge fun" with me? How do we explain her telling a colleague—just minutes after leaving my company—that she had "an amazing time with an amazing guy"? The reason is simple: there was no rape, no violent attack, no waterboarding, and no kidnapping.

Eleanor's false allegations were consistent, numerous and ongoing. It was plainly a false allegation, and she intended to mislead the police. This was not a one off, or an accidental allegation, it was a deliberate attempt to pervert the course of justice. This was a very serious accusation which could have landed me in jail, with a false rape conviction, had I not had evidence to refute her claims.

It’s critical to highlight that David de Freitas and his associates—Harriet Wistrich and Lisa Avalos—are fully aware of these facts. They have access to all the case documents. 

Despite this, they continue to push a narrative that Eleanor "couldn’t remember" and "wasn’t sure" what happened because she was drugged and wasn't able to consent.  This is demonstrably false, and they know it. 

But distorting the facts serves their agenda. By making the case appear more credible, they can continue to persuade others—people who haven’t seen the evidence—to join their campaign of misinformation and keep fuelling their momentum.

High Court ruled "no arguable failings" by CPS in Eleanor de Freitas case.

For some very strange reason David de Freitas and his feminist campaigners keep lobbying special interest groups to write to the Attorney General for an enquiry into Ms de Freitas death - 10 years on - in 2024.

But the reality is, this has already happened.

The de Freitas family were given the opportunity to present evidence to show wrongdoing at the High Court, but the reality there was none. There was not a speck of dust of evidence to show that there was even an arguable case against the CPS (or me), let alone a finding of wrongdoing - a judge looked at the submissions and made a ruling as detailed above.

On 9th March 2016, Mr Justice Holroyde sitting at the High Court in London denied a Judicial Review against a decision by the coroner to not hold a full enquiry into Ms de Freitas death - because there was no arguable case.

Paragraph 5 of the order says:

"The CPS here had medical evidence, including that which was relied on by those representing the deceased, which did not identify any real or immediate risk to life. No representations were made to the CPS, in the days immediately proceeding her death, to the effect that her condition was worsening and that the prosecution was endangering her life. In those circumstances it is not arguable that there was any such beach of an obligation as is alleged in this ground".

The Order can be found on pages 3 and 4 of this pdf 

https://alexander-economou.docdroid.com/F59eyl5/2016331-permission-for-a-jr-refused-pdf#page=3

This also concurs with the Director of Public Prosecutions who has also said in her statement that:

"I am satisfied that prosecutors had taken the necessary steps in assuring themselves that Ms de Freitas’ mental health had been properly considered. This was in the form of a very detailed report by a consultant forensic psychiatrist instructed by Ms de Freitas’ legal team, who also took into account the views of Ms de Freitas’ consultant psychiatrist. That medical assessment was clear. The doctor instructed by Ms de Freitas’ legal representative recommended that she was aware of the implications of making a false allegation, as she was alleged to have done, and was fit to stand trial. We do not take on these kinds of prosecutions lightly, but the medical evidence provided to us could not justify dropping such a serious case".

Full statement off DPP found here:

https://blog.cps.gov.uk/2014/12/statement-from-the-director-of-public-prosecutions-on-eleanor-de-freitas.html

Even at the very early stages of the prosecution, myself and my lawyers took the public interest stage very seriously. 

Please find  letter from my lawyers to Ms de Freitas lawyers in 2013, saying that her mental health was paramount importance, when considering the public interest of the prosecution.

https://alexander-economou.docdroid.com/tFIrH7s/2013915-emm-considering-edf-mental-health-pdf

Three months later, the case was taken over by the CPS, in December 2013, and that decision to continue the prosecution was taken by:

Sarah Maclaren - Head of RASSO (Rape and serious sexual assault unit at the CPS)

Jenny Hopkins - Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor for London

Alison Levitt QC - Legal adviser to the DPP at the time.

It's crucial to understand that the decision to prosecute Ms. de Freitas was made by a group of highly experienced lawyers, who were senior officials within the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), and experts on rape cases, who meticulously examined the evidence and firmly believed that Ms. de Freitas had lied. 

Please find letters from the CPS, confirming of all of this, here:

https://alexander-economou.docdroid.com/SBOQzz6/2013-r-v-eleanor-de-freitas-cps-letters-pdf

They also carefully considered her mental health before concluding that the prosecution should proceed. This case was then reviewed, a year later in 2014, by Alison Saunders, the then Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), who, after assessing all the facts, issued a statement supporting the CPS's decision.

Here, we have a clear example of women (not men) at the highest levels of the CPS and the DPP, all of whom found the evidence against Ms. de Freitas compelling enough to warrant prosecution, and believed that she lied about being raped. There was no cover up, no misogyny, or anything thing like that.

Then the Attorney General made his own statement which can be found here in 2018: 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/no-independent-inquiry-into-the-prosecution-of-eleanor-de-freitas

To summarise:

According to David de Freitas, and his campaigners, the following people are wrong:

• Three high ranking female officials at the CPS who looked at every document of the prosecution.
• The DPP Alison Saunders who started her tenancy in 2014,  then looked to see what had happened before she was DPP - when the case was taken over in 2013.
• The High Court judge Mr Justice Holryde
• And the Attorney General

The only people that David de Freitas (and his feminist entourage) aligns themselves with are the following:

• Ms de Freitas
• Detective Inspector DI King, who was found guilty of misconduct for refusing to investigate the case against Ms de Freitas and the police had to pay me £10,000 for his misconduct. See here:  

https://www.accused.blog/2019/12/corrupt-police-officer-julian-king.html

and here:

https://www.accused.blog/2018/08/metropolitan-police-pay-compensation.html

Further, it must be empathised that the police did not see all the evidence, in the case against Ms de Freitas because they refused to investigate. The DPP said in her statement (back in 2014) the following concerning the police:

"There has been speculation that the police did not agree with the prosecution for various reasons. However, the police never undertook an investigation into the alleged perverting the course of justice nor did they consider all the material provided to us by the private prosecution. They were therefore not in a position to form a view on whether there was sufficient evidence to prosecute".

Find this quote here, in the DPP's statement

https://blog.cps.gov.uk/2014/12/statement-from-the-director-of-public-prosecutions-on-eleanor-de-freitas.html

Conclusion:

Back in November 2014, Mr de Freitas brought this story to the press saying there was "no evidence" his daughter lied, and even now, ten years later, his lies are ongoing. 

The only reason this blog exists is to counter the lies and misrepresentations of David de Freitas and his fellow campaigners Lisa Avalos, Harriet Wistrich and others on the same bandwagon of misinformation. I would much rather have no blog, but this saga of misinformation seems to be never endling. 

And thus the blog is updated and kept online. Not my choice, more of necessity, as no one else is going to be publishing the truth, or fight my corner. 

Royal Courts of Justice, London, England.

A week before trial, Eleanor's lawyers pushed for a Guilty Plea.

In late 2014, following Eleanor’s death and during David de Freitas’s press campaign, I informed him, via his lawyer Harriet Wistrich, that Eleanor’s legal team had previously attempted to negotiate a plea bargain with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) a week before trial.

At the time, I was being accused in the media of being a rapist. In an effort to clear my name and demonstrate my innocence, I sought to show that Eleanor had lied. Unfortunately, Ms. Wistrich accused me of lying about this alleged plea bargain. Back then, I did not have the evidence to prove this.

I am pleased to say this has now changed.

For context, Eleanor was charged with “Perverting the Course of Justice,” a serious indictable offence—rightly so, given the gravity of the situation. There is, however, a lesser charge, “Wasting Police Time,” which is typically reserved for minor offences such as hoax calls to police. Cases involving this charge are usually dealt with in Magistrates' Court, where sentences are more limited.

When false allegations are targeted at a specific individual or are sustained over time, the CPS usually opts for the more serious charge of Perverting the Course of Justice, as they did in Eleanor’s case.

In May 2024, I contacted the prosecuting counsel for Eleanor’s case with some queries about the prosecution (on a different matter relating to misuse of trial documents). During this correspondence, he also confirmed that Eleanor’s lawyer had approached him to ask if the CPS would accept a guilty plea to the lesser charge of Wasting Police Time. Here is the email:

Click here to see the email regarding the guilty plea request.

This revelation is important for two reasons. First, Harriet Wistrich, acting as David de Freitas’s lawyer, has publicly dismissed this as being "untrue". Second, it suggests that Eleanor’s own legal team may not have believed her account. If they had confidence in her story, why would they propose a guilty plea to a lesser offence?

The prosecuting counsel also noted in his email that the CPS had rejected the plea bargain. However, he could not confirm whether the suggestion had come directly from Eleanor or was initiated by her lawyer. 

My nightmare 7-year ordeal with false accusers Eleanor & David de Freitas, in one easy to read blog post.

In October 2012 I started to become friends with Eleanor de Freitas. I had known her cousin Lizzie Noel for years. We began to chat daily on Facebook messenger and by December 2012 we had exchanged over 500 messages. In all that time she appeared to be a completely normal and fun person, there was nothing out of the ordinary. She was intelligent and previously a straight 'A' student. She was assertive, independent and confident.

On December 22nd 2012 she sent me text messages insisting that we meet for a "massage session" even though I was apprehensive. She told me to "change my sheets" and that we would have "croissants in bed together" the next day.

The next day she came round to my flat and we had some lunch and I accompanied her whilst she did her Christmas shopping. We came back later that afternoon to my flat where we chatted for hours and hours. She called her father and told him where she was (as she was living with her parents at the time). We later had consensual sex that evening and she stayed the night. We were not drunk, we had one small (300ml) bottle of cider each. Not even enough to be over the drink drive limit.

We woke up and had some breakfast, we were getting on amazingly well. She was only meant to come over for lunch (the day before) but now we had been together for almost 24hrs. We were playing music and she was dancing around my living room. (I later learned she messaged a mutual friend that morning and told him she had "huge fun" with me). At 1130am we went shopping to Ann Summers, a shop which sells sex toys. We joked about getting a vibrating egg and during the shopping trip she bought no less than £340 of sex aids whilst I watched.

The excessive shopping trip caused me some concern and also the night before she told me she had depression (even though she seemed the exact opposite to me). I started to have my suspicions she might be a prostitute. At around 6pm that evening I did some searches online and found out she was indeed an escort. It was all a bit to much for me.

She called me up around 7pm after having sent me some very strange text messages. It was only minutes after I found out she was an escort. I did not know what to think. I had a bad gut feeling about her since the Ann Summers shopping trip and decided to end things there and then. I felt manipulated and told her not to contact me.

I did not realise that this sudden rejection, after a night of passion, would set her off on a spiral of revenge. And so the "snow ball effect" began. First she began to tell people that I "upset her", and slowly, slowly, the lies snowballed into more serious allegations, and eventually a rape allegation.

Later that evening I saw some bizarre Facebook posts. On 26th December her cousin sent me messages accusing me of having done something awful to Eleanor. On 29th December her mother called me to ask what had happened? I answered all her questions but stopped short of saying her daughter was a call girl.

Friends began to avoid me and rumours started to circulate. On 3rd January 2013 I was told by a friend that Eleanor was going round telling people I had raped her, tortured her and didn't let her escape from my flat. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing.

On 4th January I wrote to Eleanor and told her to stop spreading lies or I would report her for harassment. I also called her father to explain the situation (since his wife had contacted me days earlier) although there was no answer so I left a voicemail.

That evening I went to the police station to report Eleanor for harassment. But instead of taking the report the police told me that Eleanor had been to the police station an hour before I had arrived and alleged I raped her. I was arrested and taken into custody.

During my police interview it was alleged that I waterboarded and tortured Eleanor, as well as raping her. It was absurd. However at this stage I no evidence to prove my innocence so it was actually very scary. I did not sleep for weeks, smoked like a chimney and lost a lot of weight.

By the end of February 2013 Ann Summers had given me a copy of the CCTV that showed Eleanor and I shopping for £340 of sex toys the morning after the alleged rape. Not only that but friends provided text messages that showed she told them she had "huge fun together" and that she complained about me rejecting her. 

The police dropped the case, please see their reasons here: https://www.accused.blog/2013/02/nfa-no-further-action.html

But they weren't interested in prosecuting Eleanor for lying. They just shrugged their shoulders as if it was nothing and said "these things happen".

Unfortunately Eleanor continued to go round and tell people for months and months that she had been raped. My life continued to be a nightmare. I had people contacting me telling me about all these things she was saying about me. Rape allegations never go away. Especially if you are arrested. "That's the guy who was arrested for rape," people will always say.

Was I going to live with these ongoing accusations? No way.

I decided the only way to clear my name was to prosecute Eleanor myself, through a private prosecution. 

I hired a team of  specialist lawyers and in  August 2013 we took the CCTV and text message evidence, as well as other evidence and placed this evidence into court. Eleanor was issued with a summons. 

This is when things got even weirder. Instead of getting his daughter a lawyer David de Freitas wrote to the police to try to have me arrested for "harassment"…. He was complaining about my court case being “harassment”, even though it was quite literally my lawyers asking a court to consider evidence. 

I wanted a judge and a jury to see the evidence, which would lead to a verdict in my favour, so that I could prove my innocence, and get on with my life. But according to her father, that process was "harassment". Although in reality, it was me who was being harassed, for months on end, with the false accusations. 

Eleanor appeared in Westminster Magistrates Court in September 2013, charged with perverting the course of justice, it was just a first hearing.  Eleanor's lawyers then wrote to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and asked them to take over my court case and stop it.

In the meantime Eleanor’s lawyers sent us a psychiatric report which said she was fit to stand trial. (It was a damning report and probably sent by her lawyers in error). In the report Eleanor complained extensively about her father and family life as having an impact on her mental health. There was no mention of me having an impact her mental health. It was mostly negative comments about her father. 

 

In December 2013 the CPS, wrote to the parties, saying they would take over and continue with the prosecution themselves. They found it was both in the public interest to prosecute Eleanor (for lying) and the case passed the "evidential stage". In other words, there was enough evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction. 

The decision to prosecute Eleanor was not taken lightly. The evidence was examined and ratified by the following high ranking officials: The Chief Crown Prosecutor for London; Head of the Rape Serious Sexual Assault Unit (RASSO), and the Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor. All of these highly experienced prosecutors came to the conclusion that Eleanor must be taken to court, and that I was a victim of a false allegation of rape.

In January 2014 at a plea and case management hearing Eleanor kept up the lies and pleaded not guilty. The trial was all set for 7th of April. 

 

On the 4th of April my lawyer called me to her office. It was a Friday and the case was just three days away. I went up to my lawyers office, she told me to sit down and that's when she told me the news... 'Eleanor has killed herself'. I was shocked and of course I felt sorry for her parents, how could one not be.

 

I also was concerned about some form of retribution by her family. I was right. Within a month Eleanor’s mother Miranda de Freitas starting sending threatening messages to witnesses in the prosecution. Eventually she was reported for harassment and the police visited her to tell her to stop.

Seven months later on November 6th 2014 the story hit the press. Eleanor’s father David de Freitas had gone to pretty much every feminist organization, every newspaper and TV broadcaster saying his daughter was wrongly prosecuted and that there was no evidence that she had lied. He also gave my name to the press. Within 24hrs my name was all over the internet.

I contacted his lawyers to tell them there was CCTV and text message evidence to show his daughter had lied about the rape allegation, in the hope he would realise his error and stop spreading lies. I thought he has made a mistake and hadn't seen the evidence. Instead of listening his lawyers reported me to police for “harassment” and continued their false campaign.

Not only was my name in the papers as a supposed rapist, which was all false, I was now back in the police station being interviewed for this latest harassment complaint. It was truly awful to have to be in that situation. I was being falsely accused again and again.

Most newspapers refused to delete inaccuracies and refused to mention the CCTV and text message evidence and my family received death threats. They were all siding with the feminists. So I went to the Mail On Sunday and I told my story and also set up a website publishing the CCTV and other evidence.

David de Freitas went back to the police and reported me for harassment again. Saying it was upsetting to see his daughter on CCTV shopping for sex toys and portrayed as a prostitute. But then why the did he bring this into the public domain then if he did not the actual truth published?

In December 2014 the Director of Public Prosections made a public statement confirming there was evidence which contradicted the account Eleanor de Freitas gave to police. But within minutes of this being published David de Freitas went to the press saying this was not true. 

 

I had had enough and instructed lawyers to start legal action against Mr de Freitas for libel. This was a man who only wanted to fight and not stop his lies. He had libeled me for 6 weeks and there was a limit. Before then I was open to the fact that he might be given some slack but he had now gone too far. All I wanted was peace in my life and to be left alone.

By August 2015 his lawyers had said in writing that he would continue going to the press and that he could repeat his allegations when he wanted. What to do? Let him accuse me of rape again and again? Or put a stop to it? Somehow he had managed to pursued every feminist charity in the UK that his daughter was innocent and I was guilty, this was me against an entire feminist army that would seek to destroy my reputation for the rest of my life. Things on the internet don't disappear. Every person I would ever meet would look me up (e.g. to find me on LinkedIn) and then they would see all this awful nonsense. It was important to clear my name in court.

The libel case was scheduled for June 2016. In the meantime David de Freitas, his lawyers and his feminist charities had written dozens of letters to the Police and CPS asking me to be charged with harassment. Eventually the authorities gave in to his demands and charged me with harassment, even thought I had not had contact since telling his lawyers to stop talking to the press almost eighteen months before. Because the case was in the public eye the authorities were acting under pressure from his feminists groups and had to be seen as not being soft, so they went ahead and prosecuted me.

I was put on trial in June 2016 for harassment and the judge found me not guilty. Judge Tan Ikram even said I was a man wrongly accused. I was relieved someone understood what was going on.

Two weeks later we had the libel case and the result quickly followed six weeks later. In his judgement My Justice Warby agreed that David de Freitas caused serious harm to my reputation and that the rape allegations made by Mr de Freitas were not true. But in a bizarre twist he said that David de Freitas free speech rights were more important than my reputation (also known as the Public interest Defence - Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013). In other words he said it was more important de Freitas should be able to speak about his dead daughter even if what he was saying wasn’t true. And on that basis I lost the case and was ordered to pay David de Freitas legal bill, starting with a payment of £400,000. And was just the first instalment! The full amount I was being asked to pay (at that time) was around £1.5m.

I couldn’t believe it. So here’s what has just happened. I was falsely accused of rape in the press for a six week period, (with the websites quoting David de Freitas defamatory statements to the world for two years). He knew there is CCTV and text messages that proved I was innocent but lied to the press regardless to fit his story. That's what we found out at trial. I asked him to stop at the time of his press campaign, by writing to his lawyers, and he continued. And not only does he get away with it I am ordered to pay all his legal bill. What justice is that? The name of that judge is Sir Mark Warby and he knows he got it wrong. He clearly felt sorry for de Freitas and made him win on a technicality.

So of course I decided to appeal. If I didn’t appeal then I would be bankrupted. So I went to the court of appeal. In December 2016 the court of appeal agreed the judgement was potentially wrong and agreed to hear the case in full. In the meantime just as expected David de Freitas issued bankruptcy proceedings against me, which were stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.

The appeal took ages though, two more years in fact. David de Freitas kept making applications to the court to have me bankrupted (unsuccessfully) and by the time we arrived in the Court of Appeal it was April 2018 - over five years since I was falsely accused of rape. I was exhausted by the court process.

Out of the blue in June 2018 the Attorney General made a public statement confirming again that it was correct to prosecute Eleanor de Freitas for making her rape allegations. It doesn't say I am innocent, but it implies there was a good reason to take her to court for lying.

In November 2018 we got the result of the appeal…. Unfortunately the court of appeal made the same decision as the original judge (Section 4 Defence). Freedom of speech wins over reputation they say. The judgement however does have a couple of pages dedicated to the CCTV and text message evidence which shows I am innocent [see paragraph 45 and 61]. Any lawyer will read the fine detail and see that I am innocent, but the general public are not going to read an entire judgement. To them losing a libel case means something else. However the section 4 defence in no way implies I am guilty, all it means is de Freitas gets a special immunity in the face of his false allegations, but it does mean I am going to have to pay for de Freitas £2m legal bill, and face bankruptcy.

 

[NB The judgement mentions de Freitas did not name me during the press interviews. This is a legal technicality. He actually provided my name to the press in the form of documents, which was a sneaky way for him to get away with naming me, without it being in a press statement, and of course the press published my name].

 

On January 7th 2019 David de Freitas took me to the High Court and  bankrupted me on the back of his demand for £2m. I didn't have £2m so the court bankrupted me. I was a bankrupt for a year, until 7th January 2020.  

 

And that's my story. I was falsely accused in public for years on end, my case throw out of court even though I am innocent and then bankrupted by my accuser. 

 

And would I do it again? Absolutely. Anyone that says Eleanor is a victim of rape will be sent court papers very swiftly, because it is completely false. Of course I will defend myself.

One small victory though was that I did take the Metropolitan Police to court, myself and with no help from lawyers, for police misconduct during the "rape" investigation (for refusing to prosecute Eleanor or look at my cctv and text message evidence) and won £10,000. Unfortunately the press were not interested in reporting this. 

 

The real shame about this case is that it's individuals like Eleanor de Freitas that cause real rape victims problems because when the real rapists are taken to trial the jury will think: "I wonder if she's not a vengeful liar like Eleanor". Real rape victims are now suffering because of her false allegations.

Mr de Freitas is equally guilty of spreading harmful misinformation around. He has told the world in his press campaign (and continues to do so) that Eleanor was prosecuted on the back of "no evidence" which will make real rape victims scared of coming forward thinking they could be prosecuted if their story is inconsistent.  It is very important that people know there was a mountain of evidence against Eleanor and even two of her own doctors said she was fit to stand trial. It was a rare thing to have such a prosecution, because of the amount of evidence.

Some important facts:

• Eleanor made her first false rape complaint against another man in 2012, I was her second victim.
• She falsely accused her own parents of poisoning and imprisoning her in 2012, this is even admitted by her father... who argues it shows she was 'vulnerable' and should never have been put on trial.
  
• The case was only ever made public when David de Freitas went to the press in November 2014, and put his daughters (and my) name out there all over the internet.
  
• David de Freitas knew about the cctv and text message evidence before he went to the press, but mislead the public to fit his story, and said there was no evidence.

If anyone reading this wants more details please don’t hesitate to contact me although you can read the story in full and see more details by clicking on "archive" and links on the right hand side (on a PC in full web browser).