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

Actually I don't know why I bother.

You are making very confident statements about this case which are not based in truth. Whether this is because you can't be bothered to read about it or because you want to deliberately miselad, I have no idea.

Like this:

"Amethyst- he was cleared in a court of law of rape, and she was facing a trial for perverting the course of justice. Pretty clear evidence actually."

That is plain, outright, 100% wrong. And stated in an absolutely certain, unequivocal way. Why would you do that? And now you say that his prosecution and the CPS case were one and the same - that doesn't make any sense. He was never prosecuted, it never went nearly that far down the line. Why are you posting untruths on this thread? Like stating the reason the CPS took over the case before they have released the results of their investigation. Do you have inside info, or a copy of their statement?

FFS.

I've just said I made a mistake there so I don't know why you've re-repeated that.

The fact that the CPS took over his private prosecution for perverting the course of justice was widely reporting and featured in all the articles I've read (don't know how to link on phone but if you type E deF into Yahoo and read the first BBC article it's in there). She killed herself days before the trial was due to start.

C&P'd from the BBC news.

"In early 2013 she made a rape complaint to the Metropolitan Police.
The force told her there would not be a prosecution because of some inconsistencies in her evidence.

Media caption
Eleanor's father David described the impact of the prosecution on his daughter as "utterly devastating"
The man she had accused of rape then launched his own private prosecution, accusing her of perverting the course of justice.
Ms De Freitas' solicitors asked the Crown Prosecution Service to halt the private action but the CPS decided to take it over and continue it.
Three days before Ms De Freitas was due to stand trial in April, she took her own life."

Yes saucyjack and the CPS is investigating why the decision was made to take over the case, with the head of the CPS saying this:

"In a statement, Saunders said she was concerned about the case and was investigating it personally. “I have asked the team which dealt with this case for a full explanation which addresses all of the De Freitas family’s concerns. I appreciate the family’s unease which is why I am looking at this personally in order to satisfy myself of the detail surrounding all the stages of the case"

As per the link in the OP.

Yet you are stating unequivocally that "the CPS did take over the prosecution due to the weight of the evidence" which seems a little premature given what the head of the CPS says.

Please can you stop making bald statements that are wrong / imply things that are wrong please. Whatever your feelings about this case, it is simply out of line to do that.

I suspect she took her own life in no small part to the huge amounts of harassment she was allegedly getting from the man she accused of raping her. This took the form of endless texts, late night phone calls and messages and emails, some of which were threatening in nature.

The CPS were unable to continue her case against the man she accused due to lack of forensic evidence, NOT because they felt she had lied.

Please try and stick to the facts we know.

I mean sure you can assume that they took it over because of the weight of evidence, and that is likely what the outcome will be. However there are other possibilities - they took it over because they had an incomplete grasp of the facts, they took it over because they didn't realise that the woman was so ill, they took it over because they were given misleading information by the man's lawyers that they didn't check, they took it over because he was rich and powerful and they were corrupt, they took it over because of a string of internal clerical mistakes etc etc etc

Yet you see fit, having already stated one totally incorrect and really important fact, to decide unilaterally that you know why they did it, and to state the reason categorically on the thread, even though the report is not out yet.

You see I don't appreciate this sort of behaviour. This is a difficult case and I understand that you have some kind of emotional investment in it, but telling lies about a dead woman's case, and misleading people about facts around that case, is just out of line, so please stop it.

What are you talking about Puffin?

The CPS proceeded with the case and set a trial date. The only thing that stopped the case going ahead was her suicide.

The rape case Saucy

Yes but why are you saying the CPS were unable to proceed with the case.

It was the CPS who were taking her to court over charges of perverting the course of justice.

Why don't you stick to the facts?

Umm because I was talking about the initial rape case, which the CPS wasn't able to proceed purely due to lack of forensic evidence.

Which is facts, just not facts you like, I assume?

Why don't you try reading

"The CPS were unable to continue her case against the man she accused due to lack of forensic evidence, NOT because they felt she had lied."

Puffins is talking about the original report of rape, and that the man was questioned, and that case was not pursued but not due to lack of evidence.

Are you doing this on purpose? What is your aim here? To spread lies about this woman for some reason? Are you that invested in the plight of this man as he told it in the Daily Mail that you think it reasonable to scattergun incorrect statements all over this thread? Why would you want to do that?

One mistake well maybe but you've made more than one massive error in your proclamations around this and that is more than careless.

Sorry the case was not pursued due to lack of evidence.

OBVIOUSLY and waits for a certain person to say that quite obvious slip of the mouse in context is exactly the same as lying about this man having been cleared of rape in a court of law and misleading anyone reading about the CPS statements to date.

FFS some people.

Why are you so invested in trashing this dead woman, saucy? And her dad, I seem to remember you doing that upthread as well. If you want to make a point can't you stick to things that are true rather than just typing out whatever you think is a fact in your own brain.

I'm arguing because I think, when considered objectively, that the fact that she was facing a CPS trial for perverting the course of justice is a better indication that the guilt lays on her side than the fact he is in possession of penis suggests that he is the guilty one.

Sorry for being reasonable. Don't worry, I'll piss off back to AIBU and leave you to your man-hating in peace.

What?

No you don't get to do that.

You stated that he had been found not guilty of rape in a court of law.

That was completely made-up.

Then you stated unequivocally that the CPS had taken on the case due to weight of evidence, which might well be what the CPS says when they issue their statement, but the point is they haven't yet and so this time rather than outright making it up, you are assuming/guessing.

I don't understand your investment in lying about this woman. She is dead, she can't do anything further to the man.

Yeah, because wanting the facts without misogyny is sooo very man hating.

You're probably better suited to AIBU anyway.

The CPS wasn't taking her to court for perverting the course of justice. The alleged rapist brought a private prosecution against her.

Anyway, does anyone remember when the CPS is going to make it's statement as to why it took the extraordinary step to continue a private prosecution using public money?

The CPS took over the private prosecution amethyst.

That's what the father has asked for an explanation around (given her health etc) and the CPS are looking into.

Not seen it anywhere Puffins.

I must admit that I have very little faith in organisations of this type (that would be with one of my other hats on than the feminist one ) and while the answer is probably going to be they had x, y and z evidence and they didn't take her state of health into account fully, I just don't trust them. I expect the usual lessons learnt etc. No way would they come out and say e.g. well this very wealthy powerful individual managed to cajole some inexperienced officers into doing this and not checking with the higher-ups. That's for another time / thread though and once the CPS have said what they're going to say.

I agree. I very much doubt that they will hold their hands up to anything.

Thing is there might turn out to be nothing sinister at all, just if there was, we all know full well they'd never in a million years admit it.

Although TBF I don't know if the CPS has been found to be corrupt itself has it.

From what I can tell the CPS will intervene to continue or halt private prosecutions depending on the circumstances, or leave them to run their course.

I'm not an expert by any means. No one knows what actually happened: whether she accused him falsely because she was mentally ill, or for malicious reasons; whether he harassed her; or what. But that article in the Mail was a disgrace, and to claim what it says as fact is naive at best and at worst following a very unpleasant agenda.

My understanding is that it is very unusual for the CPS to take on private prosecutions. And so given the facts of this case, that the police found the witness credible, and her fragility, the CPS do really have some explaining to do in why they decided to pick this up and take it forward.

I can't get away from the fact that this man is immensely rich and powerful TBH but I have no basis for thinking that way, just years of reading about corruption in related organisations.

Here's what the CPS says:

www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/private_prosecutions/#an05