Esther Baker and the “Perversion of Justice” Claim

UPDATE: Via Twitter, Baker has informed me that this post contains “at least 8 factual errors”, and that I am ” talking bollocks again”. Unfortunately, however, no further details are provided.

From the Daily Mail, last week:

Four months after the Daily Mail raised questions about Esther Baker’s account of supposed VIP abuse, it has been announced that her allegations will not be investigated by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA).

Inquiry chairman Professor Alexis Jay described Miss Baker’s allegations as ‘highly contentious’ and added that she is the subject of a complaint to police that she had perverted the course of justice.

As per my previous post on this, Baker says that she was abused for an extended period as a child by VIPs in a woodland setting while police stood guard; she also claims to have been taken by night to a location in London that she says may have been Dolphin Square (1), and that the abuse had an international dimension, involving orphanages in a foreign country (unspecified, but from old Tweets likely to have been the Philippines). Three MPs – John Mann, Jess Phillips and Sarah Champion – have expressed confidence in her allegations, but the CPS decided in September 2017 that there was insufficient evidence to proceed.

Not much is known about which public figures Baker has accused, apart from the former MP John Hemming, who went public after the case against him was dropped in September. Baker says that she remembered Hemming as an abuser after seeing him at a meeting in parliament in late 2014 – this meeting apparently saw conflict between Hemming and Baker’s close associate Graham Wilmer over proposed arrangements for the IICSA.

It was reported that Hemming wanted Baker pursued for an alleged attempt to pervert of justice, but that Staffordshire Police had rejected the possibility, on the rationale that “It would not benefit her or the wider community”. Hemming has since taken his complaint directly to the CPS.

It seems that Alexis Jay was not fully appraised of these distinctions, and her statement about her initially included the detail that:

Ms Baker’s allegations… are the subject of both a police investigation (I understand that the police enquiries are now focused on whether Ms Baker should be charged with perverting the course of justice) and also contested civil proceedings.

This was then withdrawn and reissued in a softened form:

Ms Baker’s allegations are highly contentious. They are the subject of both contested civil proceedings and an ongoing police investigation. I am also aware that Mr Hemming is reported to have made a complaint to the CPS that the allegations that Ms Baker has made about him amount to perverting the course of justice.

Some background to the amendment has been provided by the journalist David Hencke, who continues to support Baker’s claims:

I am told [the first version] was withdrawn after Staffordshire Police contacted them to tell them it was untrue and defamatory and it is now deleted from the website. The inquiry confirmed they had deleted it. Instead there is a reference to a complaint by Mr Hemming to the CPS.

There is NO investigation into Esther Baker about her perverting the course of justice. It is itself a fantasy. Staffordshire Police in a carefully crafted statement said she was a ” victim of crime ” and they are still supporting her. When I asked the police force whether there were further investigations into Esther Baker – after Mr Hemming is said to have complained about the ” false accusations” against him – they made it clear there are none.

This is remarkable. Police forces are seldom so proactive when it comes to correcting claims made on their behalf, nor do they usually venture into providing advice about the civil matter of defamation.

Hencke’s account, though, fails to put Staffordshire Police’s stance in full context. We know that forces have been instructed to believe complainants as a matter of procedure (a directive criticised by the Henriques Review into Operation Midland), and that when a police force has set about building a case it is reluctant to later look for evidence that it may have been credulous or misled. We also know that Baker has made other allegations, such as having had underage sex with an employer – the reference to her as a “victim of crime” may thus be reasonable without amounting to a strong endorsement of sensational VIP claims.

Further, it seems unlikely that there is any forensic evidence or third-party testimony that could either prove or debunk Baker’s VIP claims, given the length of time that has passed and the extended period over which the woodland abuse supposedly occurred. The case against Hemming was apparently dropped due to the possibility of a mistaken identification; but this works both ways, and could also be used by Baker as a possible defence against having made a false claim. This is important, as Hencke’s article might give the impression that the police decision not to investigate Baker indicates the strength of her claims, despite the CPS decision.

Meanwhile, Baker has confirmed that an appeal lodged by her against the CPS decision under the Victims’ Right to Review scheme has been rejected. Apparently the result has come earlier than expected, from which she infers improper “pressure” by Hemming over the process.

Footnote

(1) Exaro reported in 2013 that Baker

has also told police that she was sexually abused at a flat in London, which she now believes was in Dolphin Square, the apartment complex where many MPs have homes, near Westminster.

She said that she recognised what one abuse survivor, known as “Darren”, described as the “medical room” at a large apartment in Dolphin Square.

However, she later clarified in December 2015 (here and here) that

Darren and I have described the same room. Independently of each other. He says that room is in DSQ – I was too young to know where it was. It may be DSQ it may not. That is for the police to determine.

The Exaro account, though, does not refer to two independent descriptions, just Baker agreeing with Darren.

Darren’s various allegations came under critical scrutiny in September 2015; some were found to be unsubstantiated, while others were impossible. He eventually withdrew an allegation against the late politician Leon Brittan, and was found to have a long history of dishonesty.

 

23 Responses

  1. Regarding Hencke’s desperate attempts to see something in what he claims to be a “carefully crafted statement” I pointed out that it could equally have been seen as a description of Baker as a “POTENTIAL victim of crime” (below the ‘cross-posted on Byline’ article):
    https://www.byline.com/column/22/article/2174

    (I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who isn’t a ‘victim of crime’ anyway!)

    Staffs police have ‘done a Veale’ as after wasting an incredible one hundred bleeding hours only on recorded interviews it is in their own interest – as it was in the interest of the crazed Mike Veale – to make it look as if they really might have been on to something big rather than admit the reality of being taken for a long, expensive ride by nutters.

  2. You may be interested to know that when Jay was commissioned to conduct an inquiry into the false satanic abuse allegations in Lewis, she sidestepped this and dealt only with the neglect and sexual abuse allegations – which she decided were all true even though much of the production of the sexual abuse allegations was linked to the production of the satanic abuse claims. Her approach left all those falsely accused without closure and a remedy together with an absence of a critical examination of the production of false allegations. She didn’t even give recognition to their being false. Later one of the main accusers, a woman with learning difficulties, admitted she made it all up under the pressure of the interrogators (which may have included leading therapists). So I would anticipate Jay will adopt a similar approach of confirmation bias in IICSA as she did in Lewis and Rotherham – leaving out anything which confounds a pre-ordained narrative presumption.

  3. Good post, but I have to take issue with your assertion that there are unlikely to be any third party witnesses to back up Baker’s claims or otherwise. According to Baker’s lawyer, there are actually enough out there to form a whole rugby team:

    “My client tells me there were at least 15 girls who were raped in those woods. I would like to put out a public plea for them to come forward.”

    Unfortunately for Ms Baker, none of these poor waifs appear to have approached the police to confirm what she has told them. Quite extraordinary in this current climate of #MeToo

    • Tut tut, Achelous, you doubting Thomas, you!

      What you forget is that the poor mites are probably in fear of their very lives. They may well have been threatened with dire consequences by the VIP network. Similarly, one can imagine that those who were abused along with ‘Nick’, the ‘credible and true’ abuse victim and witness whose real name is King Credible Trees , have not come forward simply because they are living in fear of the most dire consequences from the multi-dimensional VIP satanic abuse networks.

    • In her earliest media interviews she claimed that there were “only” 6 or 7, or 7 or 8 girls involved.

    • Unfortunately that’s yet another anomaly in Baker’s story. Her interviews in 2015 didn’t say that many girls … “anon” is quite correct. The transcripts of those interviews are available over on RTE:

      https://trollexposure.wordpress.com/transcripts/

      Also Hencke and Watts cooked up a story about 2 other women coming forward to corroborate Baker’s claims – yet Staffordshire Police denied that had happened.

      Hencke/Watts said on Exaro that one of the women was through the “Church of England” and another unknown… me thinks it was really “Becky” and “Brooke” who were both… Baker.

      On “tdf” point re “afraid” – that’s something that has never made any sense re Baker’s allegations. If she was making them public because she was scared of being “found by her abusers” as she claimed many times, why did she basically give the alleged “abusers” enough information to track her down? Doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. Unless of course it was all bullshit to begin with.

      • Hi Simon, while I reluctantly agree with your claim that Ms Baker’s allegations are probably ‘Bullshit’, I do not agree with your obsessional pursuit of her, or anyone you believe has made a false allegation of child abuse.

        As you appear to have appointed yourself a type of moral crusader, who feels the need to pursue anyone you think has made a false or malicious allegation, I also have appointed myself the role of highlighting your evidenced history of making false and malicious allegations against those you believe have wronged you in some way.

        Do you remember making an complaint to the Northumbrian force, using the name ‘James Justice’ that somebody you did not like was ‘following’ Old Holborm on Twitter?

        Do you remember claiming that a number of Hillsborough survivors were ‘liars’ and ‘paedophiles’ while you were running the ‘honourables’ Twitter accounts and blogs?

        Do you remember making a complaint to the Avon and Somerset force that a man you had fallen out with who lived in Bristol, was a ‘Paedophile?’

        You must remember as you were arrested for that, and were also was in receipt of a police harassment notice for your continual attacks on him.

        Do you remember making a complaint to the north wales force that a man living in wrexham was ‘harassing’ you because other people had left comments you claimed were about you on his website?

        Do you also recall that not one of your complaints have ever led to anyone being charged?

        There were arrests made certainly, but every one of your allegations were shown be be either malicious or entirely false and resulted in No Further Action being taken by the police or the CPS.

        In the same way that you are obsessively pursuing Ms Baker because you believe her allegations are false, I shall pursue you on every platform you frequent to highlight your long and evidenced history of making vexacious, spiteful and false allegations.

        Of course I cannot comment on your troll exposure blog as you refuse to allow comments there, nor will I contact you on your @majorleak2017 Twitter account as you block and report anyone who reminds you of your own history of false allegations and hypocrisy.

        But what I will do is to post the evidence here which supports everything I have stated here, should you try to deny anything of what I have said, in the same way that you have continued denied that it is in fact you Mr Just that runs the @majorleak2017 Twitter account and publishes the Real Troll Exposure wordpress blog.

        The one that has published upwards of a thousand articles about Ms Baker or anyone you believe is allied to her.

        Your move Simon

      • Obsessional pursuit?

        What like you wandering around third party blogsites to challenge others’ views because you wanted to defend Ms Baker regardless of the truth of her allegations or because you didn’t agree with people challenging her behaviour and that of her groupies of which “Mrs Pickering” is one (nice use of a specific maiden name btw)? that sort of obsessional pursuit?

        Also you were one of the causes for the comments being switched off on RTE because of YOUR obsession with it, your abusive comments and your obsession with Mr Just. Your comments here discussing him and not the article in question prove your obsession with him.

        Great set of lies about Hillsborough survivors too posted in your comments – at least if you’re gonna lie make an effort.

        The problem “Mrs Pickering” is that it’s you who has appointed yourself a moral crusader and have admitted that you’re hounding Mr Just online in your comment.

        It’s you who continue to make false allegations against Mr Just because you’re obsessed with him. All because you and your mates failed several times to get him charged. Northumbria Police? Never contacted. Can’t even get that right. Humberside Police were contacted because Darren Duckworth issued death threats to several individuals – the fact he was following Old Holborn was used as an example of his depravity and Duckworth was highly selective in his use of the police response. Again you wilfully mispresent the truth in your obsession with Just.
        As for Haydon, he was reported to both A&S Police and their Social Services because he was ACTING like an offender offering earrings and other things to minors. They didn’t take any notice or reply to the allegations – so the blog entry incorrectly linking him to an offender because there were distinct parallels with said offender was published. It was theoretical in nature and you failed to take into account in your defence of Haydon that he then went and published Just’s home address, pictures of his house etc etc and attempted to drive Just offline all for trying to protect people from someone suspected of being an offender. Avon and Somerset Police then arrested Haydon and seized his equipment – or have you conveniently forgotten that?

        There was no PIN notice for anything to do with Haydon. Again you falsely accuse.

        You also completely fail to understand that Mr Just has been on the receiving end of at least 7 false allegations resulting in him having to give police interviews because of malicious complaints and he responded back to those with COUNTER allegations some of which then resulted in arrests that you state. Again you wilfully misrepresent who initiated what and to whom.

        The allegations against the person in North Wales weren’t actually about the person you claim, but about his cohort “Jane Russell” who was traced to an address in Surrey and was issued with and accepted a formal police caution which is now on her criminal records for malicious communications against Mr Just. Again you’ve misrepresented the truth.

        You wilfully misrepresent the truth because it doesn’t suit your agenda. Now that is TRUE obsessional pursuit of someone and you’ve admitted it in your post. How dumb is that? ;-)

        “I shall pursue you on every platform you frequent to highlight your long and evidenced history of making vexacious, spiteful and false allegations.”

        Thank you for confirming you’re stalking… ;-)

        Gotcha… again.

        Aww bless.

      • p.s. your misspelling of vexatious was a “tell”… ;-)

  4. “Not much is known about which public figures Baker has accused, apart from the former MP John Hemming”

    I beg to differ on that point, the other prominent figure that Baker accused is allegedly a government minister who had a very high public profile in his day.

    • I should have added former government minister, long deceased, though he would have been alive at the time Baker claims she was abused in the woodlands.

      • “… though he would have been alive at the time…”

        Good to hear, though had he been dead it’d only have reduced the credibilty of the claim by approx. 1%! That ‘medical room’…

        https://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BY2M2MWRlOGItZTRhMS00NTA3LWE5NDgtOWRlMGIyYzczYzNhXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjM0ODM0NDk@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,1492,1000_AL_.jpg

      • ^ Well, some of these ‘VIP’ abusers are capable of travelling through space and time, and, no doubt, re-incarnation, what with them being Satanists ‘an all.

      • Don’t forget the Lords and Judges, and all the police officers who were there… standing around in Cannock Chase waiting to be found with 6 or 7 or 8 girls.

        Whether Baker was abused as a child by a family member is a completely different question to the rather preposterous tales she told back in 2015 and even more since. Perhaps those “trusted individuals” who advised her to go public (as revealed by Garsden to IICSA on 31/1/18) might want to reflect(!) on their advice and surely doing so in the middle of what was then an ongoing criminal investigation was bound to compound issues for the police and CPS going forwards. That one decision to go public when she did likely ruined her case for her, the alleged google identification process she used and was clearly prompted on camera in the Australian 60 minutes interview were always bound to add further doubt into her claims and would certainly have raised doubts in the minds of the police and CPS. Any defence of allegations would’ve had an absolute field day with her interviews, other social media output etc.

        Frankly, I think she needs proper professional psychiatric help not some backstreet unregulated therapist likely giving her more and more fantastical ideas. If there is one thing that should come out of all of this (leaving aside any possible charges) is that she gets the help that she really needs.

  5. Drifting slightly off-topic, but FAO anyone interested, in particular Bandini, as I think he had been following developments in this case:

    https://mosesfarrow.blogspot.ie/2018/05/a-son-speaks-out-by-moses-farrow.html

    • Cheers, TDF. Now there’s an opinion piece from Suzanne Moore in The Guardian in which she sort of maybe accepts that she possibly made a mistake in shooting her fool mouth off previously – or perhaps not, I’m really not sure:
      https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/24/farrow-family-truth-trauma-mia-dylan-moses-woody-allen

      Moving us ever so slightly back on topic I note that ace ‘spy’ Andrea Davison has produced a book. I’m actually tempted! I wasn’t aware that she had some sort of supernatural ability passed down via her Celtic bloodline or summat – ‘the sight’. Wowser.

      A screenshot of that fateful day When Andrea Met David for your amusement:
      http://oi65.tinypic.com/2d26r0x.jpg

      • Ah yes, super spy Andrea. IIRC, the comments on Anna Raccoon’s blog were quite…informative regarding her background.

      • She made the mistake of claiming to having been a Duncroft resident during a period that’d have had her more or less sharing a dorm with Anna – Anna who needless to say had no recollection whatsoever of the nutter; when challenged over this Davison became uncharacteristically unforthcoming and scarpered.

        Perhaps her dates were out after the Duncroft torture she was subjected to… but they were no match for her anyway as she tied some sheets together and escaped from a window like summat out of The Beano.

        Mind you not everyone is quite so dismissive – our Steptoe of the shoreline, our Welsh Womble, our Log Laddie (or ‘Llog Lladdddie’) rated her as “100% spook”. Who are we to argue?!?

        P.S. It seems that the coppers who arrested her had a lucky escape as the first thing that popped into her head was “to get the AR 15” as a “20 round magazine was enough to take them all down” and “even with a straight pull rifle [she] was fast”. Blimey! Fortunately for the plod her capacious mind quickly deduced that shooting dead 10 men might be a bit much, even for a superspy with psychic abilities such as her.

      • Yet Suzanne Moore skillfully avoids one pertinent fact: she ‘victim blames’ Moses by attempting to both try to accept his claims as maybe truthful but ‘skewed’ by having a different vision of events that may not be factual.

        This tactic was missing in her original article where she simply accepted Dylan’s account because, well she said she was a victim. And this goes to the crux of the matter : women are always truthful, men lie.

        Nor does Moore, intelligent as she is bother to ever inquire, which is the fact in virtually every single media article written on this case, to what Soon Yi’s desires and wishes are.

        Soon Yi has been treated disgracefully and cruelly- and Suzanne Moore does it also by emission- as a person incapable as a 20/21 year old woman of making up her own mind, her own choice as to who she wishes to spend her life with, a union that is obvious genuine given it’s continued for over 2 decades and the couple have 2 daughters. Perhaps she thinks Asian women are not too clever.

        Suzanne Moore even gets her facts shockingly wrong which demonstrates an inability to even read Moses Farrow’s account correctly : 2 of Farrow’s children have committed suicide, not one, and one died of AIDs. A dysfunctional family to say the least and I’m surprised people haven’t found a way to blame Woody Allen for that.

      • Absolutely, Eric, it’s victim blaming. And feminists do it a lot. Yes, I know, not ALL feminists but enough for it to be a noticeable thing. You see it a lot when the thorny issue of the male suicide rate compared to the female suicide rate in almost all Western societies is ventilated.

        “ah but the men don’t talk about their problems!! They should stop with that and be all lovey dovey like us wimmins!!” – victim blaming.

  6. Esther reminds me of that Australian woman who makes similar claims although her alleged abusers were not just mere MPs but several PMs, fathers of movie stars, US Presidents and oddly the famous Walt Disney who died 2 years before she was born.

  7. Staffs police have dismissed allegation by ex-MP John Hemming against Esther Baker of attempt to pervert course of justice following “review” of his complaint, according to Mad Mark Watts. Anyone seeing this news being reported by a reliable source?

  8. Watts jumped the gun somewhat. Again.
    It’s been reported today by the Daily Mail, however there are signifcant questions to be asked about how Staffordshire reached that conclusion, not least why they didn’t ask the CPS and DPP for advice in line with the CPS charging guidelines.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5871849/Former-MP-blasts-police-woman-false-child-rape-allegations-against-isnt-charged.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *