Proof that David de Freitas lied to the public

A few days ago we had disclosure from David de Freitas lawyers, as part of normal trial preparation. Th trial is now 3 months away. Soon we will exchange witness statements.

Disclosure is the exchange of documents that can help or hinder your case. If you have any documents relevant to the case then you have to show them to the other side, otherwise it is contempt of court.

What was very interesting, was that one of the documents we obtained was a letter written by the Director of Public Prosecutions to David de Freitas. On page 3 of the the letter she says:

QUOTE

A lot of this evidence quite simply contradicted what Eleanor had said in her ABE interview. Some of it laid the ground for a motive as to why she may have wanted to make up a false complaint, namely that Mr Economou had had sex with her and then later told her he never wanted to see her again, about which she felt bitter. Other evidence amounted to her effectively apologising for making allegations to a friend and seeking reconciliation. There were 10 such pieces of evidence. As most of it derived from message exchange and CCTV footage it was incontrovertible evidence, no depending on the frailties of human memory or susceptible to the influence of loyalty or pressure.

UNQUOTE

The letter was dated 3rd of December 2014. This was really important because it showed that David de Freitas knew about the evidence in the case against his daughter before he published false and defamatory statements a week later in the Telegraph and Guardian.

David de Freitas was told by the DPP:

- There was CCTV

- There were witness statements

- There were text messages

- A motive for the false allegations

But what did he tell the public? He told them it was a "myth" and that there was no evidence against he daughter.

We must remember that it was David de Freitas who went to the press. Not me. He went to the press first and he started to mislead the public from the very start. And did it again and again.

This was proof that David de Freitas was a liar. He knew the facts but told the public the opposite. He wanted to confuse and mislead the public to pursue his own agenda.

Click here to read the full letter.

Page 3 of letter from Director of Public Prosecutions to David de Freitas

I offer to settle my libel claim for a nominal £1 of damages.

The reason I am suing David de Freitas is very simple: 

a) To clear my name 

b) And stop to Mr de Freitas from repeating his allegations.

It is now over a year since I issued my libel proceedings. However David de Freitas is not backing down. Last year his lawyers wrote to us saying he would continue going to the press and was free to repeat his allegations at any time. This is very worrying.

The trial is now just three months away. This thing could be stopped now if we are both willing to compromise.

I know Mr de Freitas is not a rich man, so I have made an offer he can't refuse. I have said that if he pays me £1 in damages and just 25% of my legal costs I will back down, on condition he makes a short statement and promises to make not to repeat his allegations. I am not asking for him to say sorry because he never will, just an acknowledgement that he accidentally got things wrong.

Considering that I have been wrongly accused again and again I think this is a pretty reasonable offer.