1. Mr de Freitas and the feminists say: "How a rape victim behaves in the morning after an alleged rape has got nothing to do whether they were raped or not the night before". This is the rationale they use to dismiss the CCTV at the sex shop (captured the morning after the alleged rape), which was part of the evidence against Ms de Freitas.
But Mr de Freitas and his campaigners separately argue that Eleanor appeared 'distressed' the next day (in the evening) and used this behaviour as evidence she was supposedly raped. So which is it then?
Either you examine the person's behaviour or you don't. But no, the feminists and he chooses things that fit into their narrative, ignoring everything else. In reality, she was happy in the morning and the reason why she spent £340 of sex toys with me is that she wasn't raped. In fact quite the opposite. Instead of going home, she drove with me to sex shop.
We are not buying milk or food, we are specifically going to buy sex toys. Later on that evening, she got upset when I broke up with her. All of her behaviour supports my version of events, the actual truth, whereas Mr de Freitas and his feminists only want you to see half the truth. They only want people to focus on why she was upset that evening, and totally ignore how she behaved immediately after the supposed rape, ie that cctv that captured us buying £340 worth of sex toys. Watch the video, it's quite absurd. The receipt is three feet long.
2. Mr de Freitas and his feminists also claim that what a person says the next day (after an alleged rape), is not relevant at all, to whether they were raped or not the night before. Even though we found text messages she sent to friends saying "she had huge fun" with me, and that later that day told another friend said she was "fucked and chucked". The feminists say these messages are 'irrelevant' whether the sex was consensual or not.
They want you to ignore these text messages, and instead focus only on other things she said, that fit into their narrative. IE Her rape allegations to 3rd parties, and her police interview for instance, but ignore everything else that she said that could contradict those allegations. You can't have it both ways. You can't say "what a person says after an alleged rape proves nothing whether the rape occurred or not" because then we must ignore everything she said then, including what she told the police. So which is it then? Do we look at all the evidence, or just select what fits?
That's the problem with David de Freitas, and these feminists, their arguments make no sense. They say all evidence needs to be ignored unless it fits their narrative. When you look at all the evidence together, you can clearly see that she was saying she had "huge fun" with me (her own words). She only gets upset when I reject her later on that evening (after I found out she was actually a prostitute), telling friends "he fucked and chucked me". That's what she was upset about, being rejected. But no, the feminists say she was upset because she was raped, and nothing will ever change their minds, everything that doesn't fit that narrative must be ignored according to them.
3. Next, Eleanor's mental health. There was much criticism that the CPS did not fully examine Eleanor's mental health, before prosecuting her. The feminists say that Eleanor was in a bad state of mind before she was taken to court, and this should have been taken into consideration by the CPS. But here's what David and his feminists are not saying.
It is agreed that Eleanor was seeing a psychiatrist and he took notes about her state of mind, many times. But guess what. Neither she nor her lawyers actually told the Crown Prosecution Service about this. So how could they know? The only thing the CPS were given was a a single psychiatric report in October 2013, some 6 months before her death. And in that report it said she was "fit to stand trial". After that, the CPS were told nothing, nor given any updates.
For years the feminists and David have campaigned for 'justice' for Eleanor on these grounds, but the fact is she and her lawyers decided not to disclose her mental health problems to the Crown, and you can't force someone to hand over their medical records without their consent, especially in a criminal case, when a defendant has the right to confidentiality on their own medical and legal papers.
In fact, the Crown did examine the papers they were given, and they did everything by the book. And this is why the Attorney General made a statement saying it was correct for her prosecution to go ahead. What is it Mr de Freitas and his feminists even campaigning about? There is absolutely no arguable case. Which is what the coroner found, and the High Court found during a judicial review of the case.
4. There was also much speculation that Eleanor was " trapped" and driven to suicide by the court process. This is the agenda of David de Freitas and his feminist campaigners have pushed since day one and want people to believe. And it's easy to fall into that way of thinking. But let's take a step back for a second.
On the 4th January 2013, Eleanor started the ball rolling with regards to the legal process. She decided to get the police involved, when she made a false allegation She was pushing for legal proceedings (against me), and raised the stakes.
No one wanted the court process more than her. She made it happen. She wanted the attention and to play the victim. Later I found out, she had a history of playing the victim and being a narcissist.
I told her to stop spreading lies, but she did the opposite, she wanted the lawyers, police and court process to go ahead (against me). That's what she wanted, not me.
The feminists say the prosecution of Eleanor drove her to her death, they even say my lawyers harassed her.
They argue that it was ok for her to make false claims, on the basis she was mentally unwell, and that i was never convicted, but when the tables are turned and the real justice happens, they say it was "harssment"?
These people are delusional.
Was she really trapped, as they alleged she was? No. At any time, she could have retracted her allegation.
Eleanor was in control of the situation and had the steering wheel. She first went to the police, lied to them, then kept up the lies. All these were conscious choices. There were no traps.
What a lot of people do not realise, is that Eleanor was actively lying and accused me of being a rapist not just once, but for 15 months to our mutual friends and frequently wrote to the police during that period, begging them to have me arrested and charged.
It was relentless.This was not just one allegation. She repeated it again again. This wasn't just a one off 'mistake' by a 'vulnerable woman'. No. This was a vicious attack by someone who wanted revenge.
 |
| Lisa Avalos, Harriet Wistrich, Julie Bindel, David de Freitas |
