“I just wanted you to know I am on suicide watch. Economou fucked me and chucked me….”
12:25 on 25.12.12 “I’m now safe with my family. The ambulance people treated me for shock and luckily I had a supply of sleeping pills. Without going into specifics, Ec and I had a fling, encouraged by Ben. I woke up at his yesterday morning and he was full of adoration. Then once I’ve finished work and I am driving to my family, he calls me up and says I am uncool manipulative bitch and never contact him again”
16:38 25/12/12 “I just never want to see him again. I can only assume he was on drugs or something when he spoke to me. It is especially hard because I told him my depression story, then he told me that I was being manipulative and attention seeking. He has also de-friended me on Facebook. I don’t understand what I have done wrong???”
These are messages EDF sent to friends after she was allegedly raped.
There was CCTV directly contradicting the account she gave the police.
This was not he said/she said. There was hard electronic evidence to prove she lied to the police. The evidence was reviewed by two separate DPP'S and found to be sufficient to result in a realistic prospect of conviction.
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
There is an ongoing IPCC investigation into the police officers for not doing their job properly and yet the majority on this board still believe that this guy is guilty.
Absolute madness.
For those who are erring on the side of caution and who believe she shouldn't have been prosecuted because she was mentally I'll, the psychiatrist employed by her own solicitors found her fit to stand trial.
I am satisfied that prosecutors had taken the necessary steps in assuring themselves that Ms de Freitas’ mental health had been properly considered. This was in the form of a very detailed report by a consultant forensic psychiatrist instructed by Ms de Freitas’ legal team, who also took into account the views of Ms de Freitas’ consultant psychiatrist. That medical assessment was clear. The doctor instructed by Ms de Freitas’ legal representative recommended that she was aware of the implications of making a false allegation, as she was alleged to have done, and was fit to stand trial. We do not take on these kinds of prosecutions lightly, but the medical evidence provided to us could not justify dropping such a serious case. No further representations were made to us as to Ms de Freitas’ health, which would of course have been carefully considered.
Not that any of this matters of course. Who needs solicitors, evidence and psych reports when you've got Buzzfeed? 
4th rule of feminism again eh?
By the way the reporting and subsequent deletion of my previous posts is pretty ironic given the constant wailing on here of "feminists are being silenced"
19th rule of feminism. Freedom of speech is only important if it's the right speech. Fucking hypocrites.