My Story

Lorenzo has been coming in and out of my life since 2014. In 2016, he found me on Facebook and proposed. I declined and blocked him. He contacted me again the following year.

In 2018, he asked me to live with him and marry him. We registered to marry in December that year, but I withdrew the application.

We later married in Copenhagen on 10 August 2019.

During our relationship, I experienced physical, psychological, emotional, financial and sexual abuse. I have reported violence, intimidation and conduct that affected my security and my ability to make decisions about my own life.

There were also periods of forgiveness, renewed contact and further attempts to resolve our situation. They are part of the history I want to explain.

On 6 November 2019, Lorenzo punched and kicked me. The police intervened and arrested him.

I have previously explained that I feared retaliation, including threats to kill me. That fear affected my decision about pursuing charges at the time. I also described the police urging me to reconsider.

In a separate incident, I reported that he took a butcher’s knife, threatened to kill me and slammed it onto a table. I described him getting on top of me while continuing those threats. I have said that police records and video exist in relation to the violence I reported.

The arrest did not end the abuse. In my earlier accounts, I identified 22 September 2022 as the last date of physical violence.

These are my recollections and the incidents I have reported. The records associated with each event will be identified individually as they are prepared for this website.

The supporting-material section now includes screenshots containing photographs and written reports of injuries. The visible messages refer to being punched or hit with objects. They are displayed without an assigned event date because no calendar date is visible in those excerpts.

I forgave Lorenzo and gave him further chances. That forgiveness did not mean that the abuse had not happened. It reflected decisions I made at the time about someone with whom I had shared a relationship and a marriage.

What followed felt like a further betrayal. I had tried to resolve our situation, yet I continued to face conduct that I experienced as harmful and obstructive.

When I describe those later events, the earlier history matters. It explains why unwanted contact, contradictory information and obstacles to resolving the divorce carried such significance for me.

I have also supplied messages containing apologies, requests that I stay and statements about wanting to change. They form part of the relationship history alongside my account of forgiveness and further contact. Most excerpts do not show a date. One closer excerpt displays a 7 January 2019 header; I do not use that header to date the other screenshots.

Our first separation took place in July 2020. It did not end all contact between us.

Lorenzo returned to live with me in October 2021 and again in August 2022. My account is that our last period of cohabitation ended on 22 September 2022.

I have also described later contact, including him crying in my arms in December 2022 before my departure from France. That later contact is distinct from the date our cohabitation ended.

Explicit messages continued after my departure. I blocked him in August 2024. I later explained that I reopened contact in September 2025 to try to finalize the divorce.

This chronology matters because I dispute the use of 29 July 2020 as the date of a definitive separation. It leaves out the periods when he returned and we lived together again.

The records section includes screenshots bearing the dates 17 and 18 July 2024. These show the continued contact I have described, with my replies included.

I reported abuse to the police and sought help from authorities in France. In 2020, I applied for a protection order. I also described appealing because I wanted Lorenzo to stay away.

I dispute statements made against me during those proceedings and have reported what I believe were false attestations and accusations. The original decisions and their procedural reasons need to be read separately from the accounts given by either party.

French authorities granted me residence rights in connection with domestic violence. Maître Grâce Favrel assisted me with those steps.

My efforts to obtain help form part of the relationship history: what I reported, the responses I received and the matters that remained unresolved. A police complaint records a report; an administrative or judicial decision must be described according to its actual content.

The police documents I have supplied add specific reporting dates to that history. An initial report dated 3 February 2019 records a report of partner violence on 21 January 2019. A bilingual pre-declaration form carries the same February date.

On 7 September 2020, I gave a further statement at Sartrouville. In that statement I explained that fear had delayed providing photographs and videos, and I described threats and blows with a knife.

I also supplied a receipt and police statement pages from 30 March 2021 concerning repeated threats reported over 29–30 March. These documents record the complaints and the accounts I gave at those times. The supporting-record entries explain their dates and which redacted copies can be viewed.

Financial issues were also part of my experience. I have described approximately €1,500 owed to me for trips and €300 taken from my savings, which I said was returned about a year later.

Alongside those amounts, I spent years trying to resolve the divorce. The discussions involved lawyers, fees and the practical steps needed to end the marriage.

My account of these financial matters should be read with the relevant exchanges and payment records. Where an amount is approximate or disputed, that context will be retained.

After our first separation, I remained in the Colombes apartment. I have described Lorenzo leaving that home and later involving Nabila Bouderka in matters concerning me.

My account is that Lorenzo and Ms Bouderka contacted my lawyer and the landlord, and that I experienced those interventions as pressure. I subsequently had to leave the apartment. I have consistently described that departure as forced.

I reported Ms Bouderka’s conduct to the police. In my later complaint, I asked for the communications and circumstances surrounding the loss of the home to be examined.

The dates, correspondence and housing documents belong alongside this account. My allegation about coordination between others remains a matter I have asked to be investigated.

I tried for years to bring the divorce to a resolution. Our communications concerned lawyers, fees, signatures and possible arrangements. My existing case bundle identifies exchanges from 30 January to 3 February 2023 about those steps.

On 7 April 2023, I emailed Lorenzo about finalizing the divorce. That email included an American address in Beverly Hills. I have explained that it was a mailing address, rather than my later home in London.

I have described Lorenzo knowing that I lived in London. I withheld my exact London address for safety. Had he asked for an address for divorce service, I would have directed him to a lawyer. These distinctions matter to my account of what he knew and how he could contact me.

The case bundle also identifies messages dated 2 August 2024 in which I again asked for the divorce to be initiated and Lorenzo said he could not afford a lawyer.

In January 2025, there were further requests for my details, with references to a letter and a cheque, as well as communication through family members. I have explained that these exchanges did not tell me that divorce proceedings were being pursued.

My later complaint identifies 19 May 2025 as the date proceedings were initiated. I say that I was not told. I subsequently learned that a divorce judgment had been pronounced on 17 April 2026, without my participation.

On 12 June 2026, I formally asked Lorenzo to confirm whether proceedings or a judgment existed and to provide the relevant documents. On 17 June, Maître Grâce Favrel wrote requesting his lawyer’s details with a view to an amicable resolution.

I dispute the use of the American address in the circumstances I have described, and the presentation of 29 July 2020 as our definitive separation date. My position is that the information used and the absence of notice prevented me from participating in my own divorce.

I blocked Lorenzo on WhatsApp. I followed that by emailing him and telling him to contact me by email for any updates about getting a divorce. Blocking him on WhatsApp did not close that route for divorce-related communication: I had expressly directed him to use email.

The judgment, the attempts to notify me and my objections should be examined together. I do not present my allegation that the procedure was deliberately concealed as a judicial finding.

My concerns also involve Anne-Marie Cissé, whom I identify as Lorenzo’s current partner.

I received unwanted messages, emails and telephone calls, including calls from a withheld number, which I attribute to her. I believe Lorenzo shared my private contact information and facilitated this contact.

I have described this conduct as harassment. My account concerns direct contact with me and the effect of that contact in the context of the history I have explained.

I contest a complaint against me dated 13 September 2025 concerning harassment and blackmail. I believe it contains false allegations. I have asked for the complaint and the full chronology of communications to be examined.

Where I can identify the source of a communication, I will explain how. Where I infer involvement or coordination, I will identify that as my understanding. The messages and records should be considered with their dates and surrounding context.

I have reported that Lorenzo used Snapchat to record sexual acts involving me without my consent, for uploading to the platform.

I did not consent to being recorded or to the sharing of those recordings. I have reported his account and asked Snapchat to address what happened.

This website will contain my account and any reporting correspondence I decide is appropriate to publish. It will not contain intimate recordings or links to them.

The 18 July 2024 exchange refers to an existing intimate video. It is included as part of the context; the messages alone do not establish the circumstances in which that video was recorded or shared.

In connection with CARNI’s formation, Lorenzo and Anne-Marie presented an account describing his troubled past and suggesting that he had changed.

My existing case bundle identifies CARNI statutes dated 10 July 2025 describing Lorenzo as separated since 29 July 2020. I have disputed that date in correspondence, including my letter of 1 September 2025, because of our later periods of cohabitation.

I believe that account leaves out my experience and the conduct I have reported since our separation. It is difficult to see a public narrative of change circulated while my own account is challenged or removed.

My concern extends to the role of third parties who repeat or support that portrayal without addressing my testimony. When I discuss a particular statement or article, I want readers to be able to see its date, source and exact relevant wording.

Public statements about personal change deserve to be considered alongside the experiences of those affected. My account is part of that history.

In 2021, I gave a video interview about the abuse. I have explained that the journalist examined material I supplied before interviewing me, including police and court documents and videos.

I have also said that Lorenzo knew about the interview and later asked me to save our marriage. That sequence is part of why I want the relationship history to be understood in full.

The interview link is included on the media page. I am not adding audience figures, quotations or a transcript until those details have been checked against the publication.

I used social media to speak about my experiences. Accounts where I shared that testimony were removed following complaints, including complaints described to me as involving trademark infringement. I dispute those complaints.

My position is that I was describing my own experiences. I believe reporting mechanisms have been used to interfere with my ability to speak publicly.

The platform notices and the chronology matter. They can show the stated reason for an action, the steps I took to challenge it, and any response I received. My belief about the purpose behind the complaints is my interpretation of the events.

This website allows me to keep the story, chronology and published records together, with room to correct or add information.

My efforts to forgive Lorenzo, seek help, resolve the divorce and speak publicly belong to the same history.

I want that history to be understood with its context. I want the conduct I have reported to be taken seriously, and the information I dispute to be examined carefully.

I will continue to speak about what I experienced and to explain why it matters.