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.
No comments:
Post a Comment