trial of alleged rape victim who killed herself

[chaosmonkey]

www.theguardian.com/law/2014/nov/06/call-crown-prosecutors-account-suicide-alleged-rape-victim

A young woman who said she had been raped went on to kill herself after the Crown Prosecution Service put her on trial for making up the allegation in a case originally instigated by her alleged attacker.

A bit speechless, so have just cut and paste initial para - sorry

This case is similar to a reverse of the Chad Evans rape case.
I think it was the woman's Dad that ousted the man on a radio show. Same as Chad Evans friends ousted the victim on Twitter.

Chad Evans was found guilt, yet some people are stupid enough to say "you just never know"

In this case the police found no grounds to prosecute and even the CPS deemed there enough evidence to prosecute the woman for perverting the court of justice.
Yet some posters on this site say "you just never know"

There is no "you never know". Chad Evans is guilt of rape and this man is innocent.

And Ched Evans was convicted. This poor woman wasn't.

So in fact no similarity whatsoever.

Ched Evans also doesn't suffer any sort of mental illness as far as I'm aware. Forgetting the absolute absurdity that is the law in the country. These two statements can both be simultaneously true:

"The man in this case did not commit a rape."

"The woman who took her own life believed she was raped."

The debate on this should be in my opinion centered around how the criminal justice system deals with those with mental health issues. It hasn't, the public interest hasn't been focused in this direction. The CPS have exonerated themselves, status quo maintained.

It will happen again.

To say "you never know"is implying he might have raped her.
Just as to say "you never know" on the CE case implies he might be innocent.
It feels like a witch hunt against this man.
The case should be focused on how the CPS treat people with mental health issues.

What witch hunt? (Nice bit of misogyny there by the way). The only person doing the hunting was him. After Eleanor Defreitas.

Oh lordy, I had to join because the bias in this thread is infuriating.

Here's a statement from the CPS, which alot of you were clambering for so much.

From the CPS website:

"However, the evidence in this case was strong and having considered it in light of all of our knowledge and guidance on prosecuting sexual offences and allegedly false rape claims, it is clear there was sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction for perverting the course of justice. This was evidence including text messages and CCTV footage that directly contradicted the account Ms de Freitas gave to the police. This was not assumption based on her behaviour or actions which fall into myths and stereotypes about how alleged rape victims should behave. It was on this basis that we concluded that there was a realistic prospect of proving that the rape allegation made by Ms de Freitas was false, and there was also a strong public interest in prosecuting due to the seriousness of the alleged offence which was maintained by the defendant for some time and which led to the arrest of an individual."

I see in today's news that Mr Economou's attempt to sue Mr De Frietas has failed. I'm so pleased.

What sort of person chases a dead girl's father through the courts?!

What sort of person chases a dead girl's father through the courts?!

A rapist, possibly.

Really disgusting.

In a previous harassment case it was reported that Mr Economou caused Mr De Freitas to see nude photographs of his dead daughter.
And that Mr Economou hammered on Mr De Freitas's door in the middle of the night, before Mr De Freitas was due to be interviewed on the Today Programme.

Mr Economou may or may not be a rapist but he is definitely a vicious, cruel, egotistical, vengeful little shit.

Glad that he's been sent away with a flea in his ear.

I've just read through this thread (which is from before I joined) with my mouth hanging open. The rape myths are unbelievable! And that Economou himself apparently shows up to keep on blackening a dead woman's name? Just wow.

I was particularly disgusted by the poster (gita? hopefully long gone from MN) who brought up Eleanor de Freitas' sexual history and flat out denied this was rape mythologising. Oh please - you're saying she's unrapeable because she has sex with other people. For what other possible reason would you bring it up?

And the assertion that sending texts about great sex were proof positive that he hadn't raped her. I suppose it never occured that it's entirely possible that they could have great sex together AND subsequent to that, he also raped her? And that she kissed him, so she must have been up for it. I feel sick reading crap like that. Sick. That is not the way that rape works. That is the way that rape myths work. The posters posting that are probably long gone, but it's still important to rebut crap like that (which PP have already done, beautifully).

poly

I agree, he sounds like a dreadful man

I was particularly disgusted by the poster (gita? hopefully long gone from MN) who brought up Eleanor de Freitas' sexual history and flat out denied this was rape mythologising. Oh please - you're saying she's unrapeable because she has sex with other people.

Where does Gita say that ? I looked back but couldn't find it - S/he posted generously.

Here you are Cadno. HTH.

gita7007 Sun 07-Dec-14 02:14:03
"We do have an idea of what went on in the case.
Just some of the details:
They had a brief affair where a sexually adventurous tantric sex coach (who advertised on the net- a secret from her friends) initiated a sexual relationship with a wealthy man"

gita7007 Mon 08-Dec-14 21:42:57
"Flora,
And in turn I think your insistence that people are not allowed to form conclusions from reported evidence is … very silly… squared…. smile

Its true that credibility of testimony can be tested in court.
I have a suspicion that a bipolar woman, who lied to her friends about her sexual side business and sent regular suicide threats may not have appeared as the most reliable witness"

What do you think Gita was driving at other than using Eleanor's alleged sexual history to prove....something? How on earth could it be relevant unless you're trying to create an impression that she's a) "slutty" and b) liable to lie about it?

I wonder if the rape myths page needs updated. I just had a read, and it's great and covers a lot, but one aspect it doesn't cover is one that came up a lot on this thread. It's the belief that there is a "correct" way to behave after a rape, and not behaving in a "normal" way casts doubt on a woman's story. In fact, it's not just possible that a woman who's been raped will continue to have contact with her rapist, but she may stay in a relationship with him after having been raped. There are lots of reasons for this - denial that what happened was rape, for example because it was your boyfriend and he's supposed to love you. Or she could be afraid of repercussions, or unable to leave him, or she's made to feel it's her fault or...or...

Thats a very good idea fresh

I hadn't seen that his action against her father had failed. Thank fuck for that.

Freshwater Yes, thanks for that – I agree it’s of no relevance. Yet, thankfully, given the number of posts that Gita’s made, it’s hardly a matter he or she made very much about. And there was no suggestion being made, whatsoever, that she was somehow rendered incapable of being raped by dint of her past.

It seems to me that Gita was more interested in the possibility that De Freitas had lied to friends about her business. (But as Judges often point out to juries, merely showing that a defendant has been shown to lie, doesn't of itself mean they are guilty as charged).

Do you really think it's fine to drag up a rape myth as long as you only do it twice and don't bang on about it? What an extraordinary thing to think. Almost as extraordinary as decided that Gita didn't really think it was relevant even though it featured in the middle of a protracted, extravagant, and thinly-evidenced tirade about the injustice done to the man in this case? What was the point of bringing it up, if not to demonstrate that Eleanor de Freitas was not to be believed? What possible other function could it serve?

Not that I think for a minute anything I say will make you change your mind, but, you know, I'm an optimist.

Good suugestilon fresh - reported so MNHQ can consider!

I've reported your post Fresh, not so it gets deleted hopefully MNHQ can have a look and a think and get back to us.

Perhaps we should focus on the grief of the parents a little and their suffering and dignity. They will have grieved for the sanity of their once perfect only daughter. They will have watched her suffer the indignity of mental illness and have lived with the worry of her future for years before this.

And now this. Seriously, what sort of chap emotionally or physically gets so involved with a young girl ten years younger with mh problems in pursuit of his own gratification. If it weren't for chaps who exploit young women, sex businesses wouldn't exist.

David DeFreitas has conducted himself with absolute dignity and his decency shines through. My heart absolutely goes out to this poor family. If Economou had a shred of decency he would have allowed them to grieve in peace and the matter would be long forgotten. One can only wonder how the rest of his life will pan out.

Polyethol - "Mr Economou may or may not be a rapist... "

Well he's not a rapist in any legal sense of the term.

He was released without charge by the police, the CPS prosecuted her because they had text messages and CCTV footage which contradicted the account she gave to police.

A very sad case, but innocent until proven guilty is bloody important and it annoys me when some posters seem to disregard this.

Neither Economou or DeFreitas have been convicted of any crime and both should be seen as innocent, but given that he was released without charge and she was prosecuted for perverting the course of justice, there is a balance of probability that he didn't rape her.

Homer

"Innocent until proven guilty" simply means that, were one to have dealings with mr economou, one couldn't treat him as if he was a criminal with respect to offering him a job, renting him a flat etc.

Giving an opinion that he may or may not be a rapist is NOT disregarding this principle. You may or may not be a rapist or a fraudster. I may or may not be a thief or a perjurer. If we were sitting on a jury, we'd be considering if those matters were proven beyond reasonable doubt. As it is, we are not.

No, but without Economou, Eleanor deFreitas would in all probability still be alive. An allegation was asserted, the charge against him did not proceed. He then commenced a vindictive prosecution against a vulnerable young woman suffering from a mental illness. A young woman who might not have dallied with him at all but for her vulnerability.

Whether there was a rape or not, his conduct ill behoves a man who is entirely innocent and says rather more about his character than any trial.

I am glad the judge at a recent hearing saw through him and to the dignified and decent person that is and was her father.

As this is a site largely for women and their rights I think it would be helpful and right if this thread ceased to mention the misguided activities of someone who was vulnerable and is now deceased. The establishment didn't respect her vulnerability when she was alive. Perhaps this forum can do so now,along with respecting the feelings of her parents, in the way that a parenting website perhaps should.

The family are good people and deserve a little more peace and respect.

As you were.