Category Archives: Defended!

Staffordshire Police, DCS Javid Oomer, DC Garry Bainbridge Must be Investigated Over Esther Baker Bias

Posted on by
5

Defended banner for articles defended in court

[UPDATE – 17 August 2022. Esther Baker sued over this article in High Court Case QB-2020-001013. She lost. The court granted both summary judgement and strike-out finding the claim had no realistic prospect of success. No other person mentioned sued and the time limit has elapsed. Judgement here. My follow-up article here. This article has been added to the “DEFENDED!” category and readers may rely on it.]

DCSJavidOomer

Detective Chief Superintendent Javid Oomer is currently acting up as Temporary Assistant Chief Constable. However, is he showing bias?

Just past 2:23am on 3rd February 2020, Esther Baker emailed Staffordshire Police and John Hemming to complain I had violated her anonymity as a rape victim under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. This is of course ridiculous. Baker’s anonymity is the most waived there ever was – she has commented on Sky News, the Guardian, the Daily Mail and many other publications. Why does she keep putting in these absurd complaints? If her public court filings are correct, it is because Staffordshire Police are encouraging her.

On 17th December 2019 Esther Baker filed her Re-Amended Reply to Defence in the claim Baker V Hemming. By way of brief explanation, Esther Baker was an abuse accuser who alleged that a group of VIPs and others ritually abused her. No charges have been brought. She has attempted to sue one of the VIPs, former MP John Hemming for libel for calling her a liar. He counter-sued for libel over her rape allegations. Much of Baker’s claim was struck out last year and she lost the counter-claim entirely, with Mrs Justice Steyn ruling her allegations of VIP ritual abuse, “untrue”. Baker is now supposedly under police investigation.

A few small parts of Baker’s claim continue as to whether she lied or there was some other explanation for the untruth such as honest mistake or mental illness, although some more of Baker’s claim was struck out at a hearing on 30 January 2020. The pleadings are available to the public without permission under CPR 5.4C. Under CPR 5.4C (1) (a) any non-party may obtain a copy of the pleadings (but not attachments) in the case as of right without the court’s permission so the pleadings are not confidential. They may be reported upon.

One passage I find particularly chilling is this one –

“[…] The Claimant’s liaison officer at Staffordshire police who has recently become involved in the case again due to the Defendant’s behaviour and admissions, has repeatedly stated to me that as far as Staffordshire Police are concerned the Claimant is regarded as a victim of crimes and not a suspect […]“

Esther Baker’s liaison officer is Detective Constable 4163 Garry Bainbridge. The officer running the purported investigation is, DCS Javid Oomer. If Bainbridge has told Baker that Staffordshire Police regard her as a “victim of crimes and not a suspect”, acting as liaison for Oomer, then that completely prejudges the investigation that the police are supposedly conducting. More importantly, it ignores the multiple recent court rulings against her.

I therefore believe there is grounds for an investigation into police bias and / or failure of duty. I put it no higher than the lowest ‘Chase Level’ meaning. Baker has made a formal statement in court. However, she has in the past been incorrect or mistaken – including of course in her serious allegations that John Hemming raped her. It is possible that Baker is mistaken, or that police have some reasonable excuse. DC Bainbridge might not have been fully briefed on the court rulings, for example. Ms Baker, who hears voices, might have misunderstood his position due to her mental health difficulties. Because of that, I do not say there is anything more than grounds for investigation.

In November 2019, the County Court found that Baker had engaged in racist harassment of a proven child abuse victim and awarded said victim £12,500 in damages – details are in my full article here. The stalking included specific, imminent, violent threats as this extract from the judgement shows –

Baker Violent Threats

The County Court found that Esther Baker threatened to commit battery against a vulnerable child abuse survivor. MHN underlining.

Continue reading →

Share Button

County Court Restrains Esther Baker for Racist Stalking, High Court Makes Further Strike Out Order

Posted on by
26

Defended banner for articles defended in court

[UPDATE – 17 August 2022. Esther Baker sued over this article in High Court Case QB-2020-001013. She lost. The court granted both summary judgement and strike-out finding the claim had no realistic prospect of success. No other person mentioned sued and the time limit has elapsed. Judgement here. My follow-up article here. This article has been added to the “DEFENDED!” category and readers may rely on it.]

BakerRestrained

Esther Baker has been handed another life-long restraining Order, this time by the County Court, for racist harassment of a proven child abuse victim. She was also ordered to pay £12,500 damages.

Last week on Thursday 30th January 2020, there was a hearing in Baker v Hemming. Three more passages of Esther Baker’s defamation claim were struck out, after she tried to include further allegations that Hemming raped her. The judge removed these sentences because Baker’s allegations of rape have already been ruled untrue. Meanwhile, MHN is finally able to report on a County Court judgement made late last year in which Baker was made subject to a lifelong restraining Order and damages for multiple counts of stalking, including racist stalking, of a proven child abuse victim who cannot be named for legal reasons.

Readers will be familiar with disturbing news personality Esther Baker. Like Carl Beech, Baker made untrue allegations. Specifically, she alleged that she was raped by (then MP) John Hemming. By Order and Reasons of 19th November 2019 (sealed 20th), High Court Judge Mrs Justice Steyn ruled that they were untrue, there was no public interest in repeating them and restrained Baker for life from doing so. The only outstanding legal question is whether Baker lied and whether she Perverted the Course of Justice, as opposed to (for example) making an innocent mistake.

BakerAllegationsNotTrue

The Judge Mrs Justice Steyn has made very clear that Esther Baker’s allegations are untrue and defamatory. MHN underlining.

Last year, much of Baker’s libel claim against former MP John Hemming was struck out and she lost the counterclaim, as set out in my article of the time and my follow-up article when the Order was made. Last week on Thursday 30th January 2020, there was another application. Baker had put in a revised version of her Reply to Defence in what remains of her claim. She had also put in a Part 18 Response. Shortly afterwards Baker faced an application to strike out the claim.

The same week MHN also obtained the complete transcript of judgement in a harassment case against Baker that took place last year. Your author has wanted to write about this for a long time but has been waiting for the official transcript of the judgement. Esther Baker was sued in the County Court by a child abuse victim. They have anonymity, so I will be blocking out their name, sex, location and the names of any lawyers from the judgement extracts.

However, MHN can reveal that Baker has been successfully sued under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 – anti-stalking legislation – for a years long campaign of racist stalking against a proven child abuse victim. The judge ruled on 20 allegations and found 16 to be true. Multiple counts were expressly found to be racist. Baker had caused the child abuse victim psychiatric injury.

The judge expressly accepted counsel for the victim’s argument that, “the Defendant’s conduct is vindictive, obsessive and unpredictable and that it has been particularly malevolent”.

Continue reading →

Share Button

Rekt – Esther Baker in Humiliating Libel Loss – John Hemming Innocent of Raping Her

Posted on by
1

Defended banner for articles defended in court

[UPDATE – 17 August 2022. Esther Baker sued over this article in High Court Case QB-2020-001013. She lost. The court granted both summary judgement and strike-out finding the claim had no realistic prospect of success. No other person mentioned sued and the time limit has elapsed. Judgement here. My follow-up article here. This article has been added to the “DEFENDED!” category and readers may rely on it.]

John Hemming former MP

It is now a court finding that former MP John Hemming did not rape Esther Baker and when she publicly accused him of doing so on Twitter, she libelled him. She must pay damages and Hemming is completely exonerated.

Esther Baker suffered a humiliating defeat yesterday when John Hemming won the central point of the libel claim between them. In a judgement handed down in the High Court, Mrs Justice Steyn ruled that Baker libeled Hemming by accusing him of rape on Twitter. Some aspects of the claim remain live, the court has yet to rule on Baker’s claims Hemming libeled her by calling her a liar and criminal but Baker has been prohibited from saying John Hemming raped her even within the proceedings. Baker also applied to strike out Hemming’s claim, relying on 168 pages of exhibits (mostly articles from this website). Her application, including her many many many complaints about me, were found to have, “no merit”.

This article will be brief because the judgement is on BAILII. The whole judgement is lengthy, and worth reading in full. A few key points –

  • Baker is suing Hemming for libel and he is counter-claiming. In 2015 Baker, like Carl Beech from Exaro (who she supported on Twitter) made allegations of rape against an alleged faith related abuse group including in later versions at least two politicians including Hemming and a Labour Cabinet Minister. Baker is suing Hemming for calling her a liar and accusing her of Perverting the Course of Justice. Hemming counter-sues Baker for accusing him on Twitter of raping her and also allegedly accusing him of being involved in cult / ritual abuse.
  • At the hearing on 17th October 2019 for which judgement was handed down today, Hemming and Baker applying to strike out each other’s claims and defences. Hemming also applied for summary judgement and an interim injunction. Today the judge ruled on those applications. She found in favour of part of Hemming’s application and rejected Baker’s as having, “no merit”.
  • The judge held that Baker’s tweet did at least bear the meaning that Hemming raped her and the judge ruled this was libel. She granted Hemming summary judgement to this extent. Baker must pay damages – there is also an application for an injunction. It remains undecided whether the words in the tweet, “also bear an innuendo meaning that the Defendant abused the Claimant as part of a ritual cult involving Cabinet Ministers, MPs, Lords and Judges”. That is for trial.
  • The judge held that Baker had deliberately dropped her defence of Truth
The judge found that Baker deliberately dropped her defence of Truth

The judge found that Baker deliberately dropped her defence of Truth

Continue reading →

Share Button

Esther Baker Made Bankrupt Over “Rape” Libel Case – are Jacqui Dillon and Jayne Senior Next?

Posted on by
9

Defended banner for articles defended in court

[UPDATE – 17 August 2022. Esther Baker sued over this article in High Court Case QB-2020-001013. She lost. The court granted both summary judgement and strike-out finding the claim had no realistic prospect of success. No other person mentioned sued and the time limit has elapsed. Judgement here. My follow-up article here. This article has been added to the “DEFENDED!” category and readers may rely on it.]

EstherBaker

Esther Baker has made numerous unproven allegations of sexual abuse. Now she is literally paying the price.

Today, at 12:55 in the afternoon at the Liverpool Civil and Family Courts, Esther Baker was made bankrupt as a result of her crumbling libel claim against John Hemming and her failure to pay the costs order. At this point, most mentally healthy people would think again about supporting her. Two notable exceptions to common sense however are “Dr” Jacqui Dillon and Rotherham Councillor Jayne Senior. Despite Hemming now having won two libel claims against significant opposition – a former Guardian journalist and a charity CEO – these two women continue to refer to Baker’s allegations on Twitter.

I do not intend to deal in much detail with them now, as that is for later articles. However a brief introduction. Jayne Senior is a councillor in Rotherham and manager of a charity called Swinton Lock. She received an MBE for supposed whistleblowing. However, the shine has been knocked off her by recent revelations in an independent safeguarding report commissioned by her local council. The findings were that she mistreated real abuse victims who used her charity. This was bravely exposed by Sammy Woodhouse (@SammyWoodhouse1). The findings are set out in detail in the Yorkshire Post in these articles [1] (archive), [2] (archive). A third article [3] (archive) sets out her failed attempts to silence media critics by complaining to police. Most recently, Jayne Senior has been complaining on Twitter that her local police are contemplating restricting her right to complain (archive). She has also been complaining about me – to no effect.

“Dr” Jacqui Dillon is a mentally ill woman who by her own admission sees things and hears voices as set out in my previous article here. Dillon, like Baker relates an unproven history of alleged child abuse. She admits her first psychiatrist thought they were delusions. However she eventually found a psychiatrist who believed her and launched a successful career as a mental health ‘advocate’ and ‘survivor’ despite there being no convictions. This is dealt with in more detail in this excellent blog here. Dillon has a nasty history of calling people “paedophiles”, their “supporters” and “enablers” on Twitter but now complains of criticism. Again, this has been of no effect. I am entitled to scrutinise and criticise public statements by a public figure.

Both of these women have seen the unravelling of Baker’s life, and her court losses. They are aware of the bankruptcy proceedings. Yet they have this strange belief that it could not possibly happen to them. If they persist in supporting her, they are likely to find out just how wrong they are.

For Baker, it is a tragedy. John Hemming bears her, surprisingly, no ill-will. He recognises she was offered inappropriate encouragement by others. There is sufficient evidence even in public statements for me to name Jess Phillips MP in this article. Even now if Baker would cooperate, admit her mistake and produce evidence as to those who encouraged her, it may be another resolution could be found. In some circumstances those others may even be liable for all the costs.

Share Button

Dr Jacqui Dillon and Her Appalling Remarks on Esther Baker and Historic Abuse

Posted on by
4

Defended banner for articles defended in court

[UPDATE – 17 August 2022. Esther Baker sued over this article in High Court Case QB-2020-001013. She lost. The court granted both summary judgement and strike-out finding the claim had no realistic prospect of success. No other person mentioned sued and the time limit has elapsed. Judgement here. My follow-up article here. This article has been added to the “DEFENDED!” category and readers may rely on it.]

“Doctor” Jacqui Dillon is psychotic. Not in the hyperbolous sense but in the proper medical sense that she hears voices (archive) and sometimes sees things that are not there, including (according to the Daily Mirror) hallucinating her own daughter covered in blood. Even so, Dillon has many achievements to her name – an honorary doctorate she received from the University of East London for her undoubted work in mental health. However, her achievements give her no right to hound others on Twitter or jump into complex debates about historic abuse without respect for guilt or innocence, nor to the families and children of those involved.

JacquiDillonTweet

Jacqui Dillon calls Baker a survivor, but none of Baker’s alleged abusers have been charged. Baker was then placed under police investigation and Staffordshire Police have stated that a file is to be sent to the CPS for advice, including on potential charges.

Historic abuse is a complex issue. There are undoubtedly many persons who have been genuinely abused and even today authority figures want to turn a blind eye. I have written many articles, for example, about Reddit. Reddit is large social media website of sorts that was openly advertising two groups called, “/r/PedoCity” and “/r/PedoWorld”. The groups were openly advertised in a full text index, though no images were visible except to those warped individuals who joined. One was there for three years quite openly. They were banned the day after my article exposing it based on a tip-off from a whistle-blower.

EvidenceRWorld

Reddit, proudly hosting a forum for ‘Watching pedos rape the young’. Screenshot from their text index above. They hosted the ‘community’ for three years – until I wrote an article exposing it. Words cannot adequately express my contempt for Reddit CEO Steve Huffman.

So, when Dillon complains of paedophile apologists and modern fellow travellers to PIE on Twitter I have no doubt she is raising legitimate issues.

The problem is not everyone is guilty. Dillon believes she was abused by a paedophile. Perhaps that is true.

However, when dealing with abuse, there is a world of possibility for mistake and outright falsehood. In 2015, Esther Baker accused then MP John Hemming as well as a former Labour cabinet minister and a large group of other people of rape. She said she recognised Hemming as her assailant beyond doubt, that she had seen his whole body and he had various physical features including a birthmark on his back. The police investigation checked that and he does not have those features. The case inevitably ended with no prosecution.

Hemming is clearly not the man who raped Esther Baker – if she was raped at all. According to the BBC, Baker is now under police investigation for inventing all her allegations (archive). In fact matters have moved on. An advice file has now been sent to the CPS and police have stated that, “The CPS will consider the papers pertaining to the Perverting the Course of Justice allegation alongside any alternative offences they feel might be appropriate”.

Continue reading →

Share Button

Staffordshire Police, Esther Baker and DCS Javid Oomer – His Career and Reputation on the Line?

Posted on by
3

Defended banner for articles defended in court

[UPDATE – 17 August 2022. Esther Baker sued over this article in High Court Case QB-2020-001013. She lost. The court granted both summary judgement and strike-out finding the claim had no realistic prospect of success. No other person mentioned sued and the time limit has elapsed. Judgement here. My follow-up article here. This article has been added to the “DEFENDED!” category and readers may rely on it.]

DCSJavidOomer

Detective Chief Superintendent Javid Oomer – Career at Risk?

Staffordshire Police believe Esther Baker is a criminal. Recently, I reported some of her Twitter posts as harassment directed at myself and (indirectly) former MP John Hemming. Upon review, a crime number was assigned which can only happen if an officer considers on balance of probabilities that an offence was committed (police email below). I am far from the only complainant, with far more serious allegations outstanding. How is it that Baker has not yet been interviewed over the many allegations against her?

Last week the BBC reported (archive) that Staffordshire police are conducting an ongoing investigation into Baker over the far more serious allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice and Harassment of John Hemming. The investigation is currently with Detective Chief SuperIntendent Javid Oomer and frankly, a large number of powerful people are unhappy about the police, the speed of the investigation and Oomer’s attitude. To put this in context, Mr Hemming first reported Baker in 2015!

EstherBakerCrimeNumber

Staffordshire Police considered my allegations against Esther Baker and allocated a crime number before referring the matter elsewhere.

Continue reading →

Share Button

Esther Baker Crowdfunding Campaign Removed from Third Site

Posted on by
1

Defended banner for articles defended in court

[UPDATE – 17 August 2022. Esther Baker sued over this article in High Court Case QB-2020-001013. She lost. The court granted both summary judgement and strike-out finding the claim had no realistic prospect of success. No other person mentioned sued and the time limit has elapsed. Judgement here. My follow-up article here. This article has been added to the “DEFENDED!” category and readers may rely on it.]

Unsubstantiated rape accuser Esther Baker, who accused former MP John Hemming and a number of other VIPs, has had her crowdfunding campaigned banned from yet another website – this time GoGetFunding.com.

EstherBaker

Esther Baker has now been dropped by four lawyers and three crowdfunding firms.

This is the third site that has booted Baker and there is no point repeating all the problems with the campaign nor the evidence. My article about the many misrepresentations is here from the first time she got booted. My video about her dropping her Defence of Truth whilst telling potential donors they were going to help reveal the ‘Truth’ is here.

At this point Baker has been dropped by four lawyers and three crowdfunding firms. The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) has also declined to investigate her claims. Those organisations must have had good reasons – readers can draw their own conclusions. At this point it is barely worth a stub of an article.

Share Button

Esther Baker Crowdfunding Page Taken Down Over False Statements

Posted on by
3

Defended banner for articles defended in court

[UPDATE – 17 August 2022. Esther Baker sued over this article in High Court Case QB-2020-001013. She lost. The court granted both summary judgement and strike-out finding the claim had no realistic prospect of success. No other person mentioned sued and the time limit has elapsed. Judgement here. My follow-up article here. This article has been added to the “DEFENDED!” category and readers may rely on it.]

EstherBaker

Esther Baker has made numerous allegations of sexual abuse. Now she is begging for money for a court case – but she has failed to tell backers the whole story.

Esther Baker’s crowdsourcing page has been taken down after Simpson Millar solicitors (whose name was placed on the page without their authorisation) asked for their name to be removed. These days, crowdsourcing is everywhere. Whether it is for a new type of watch, a security camera with a battery that lasts a year or a revolutionary type of food storage, there is something for everyone. Crowdsourcing has its downsides though, with many campaigns that do not deliver or which even turn out to be fraudulent, such as the Kickstarter for board game, “The Doom that Came to Atlantic City” (archive). Last week Esther Baker, an unsubstantiated rape accuser, began a campaign on Crowdjustice.com. She claims that John Hemming, the man she accused of rape, has defamed her by calling her a liar and is seeking funds to sue for defamation. She is entitled to her day in court. However, Baker’s campaign left out many key facts about the case. If backers knew the whole truth, would they be so keen to contribute?

Esther Baker’s campaign is aimed at raising money from well meaning members of the public who are passionate about achieving justice. However, the campaign (which is down for the time being) was at best misleading and at worst actionable misrepresentation, leaving out key facts about Baker’s mental health, the evidence in the case, its current state and her various changes of lawyer. By asking for this money, Baker is inviting backers to spend their money with her instead of with other good causes, so in this article I set out the truth about the case.

CrowdJusticeLogo

Crowd Justice says it helps people fund legal action, but what protections are there for donors against misleading campaigns?

Esther Baker’s campaign as first published opened with the following lines – “My name is Esther Baker, and I am a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, grooming and domestic violence. I suffer mental health conditions as a result of my abuse including severe depression and PTSD”.

Baker claims she is a victim of childhood sexual abuse and grooming, but it is public knowledge that despite extensive police investigation, no one has been convicted. Therefore, Baker’s claim to be a survivor is unproven. In fact, according to the Independent Inquiry on Child Sexual Abuse, there were as many as 11 police officers involved in the investigation. Witness statements were taken from 30 individuals. Ms Baker alone was interviewed for a total of 91½ hours, with the transcripts of those interviews running to 1,081 pages. No one was convicted. No one was even charged.

More importantly, Esther Baker has given an incomplete account regarding her mental health. Baker’s pleadings are available to the public without the Court’s permission under Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 5.4C. In her campaign she refers to Continue reading →

Share Button

Jess Phillips MP, Her Outside Earnings … and How to Take Them Away

Posted on by
2

Defended banner for articles defended in court

[UPDATE – 17 August 2022. Esther Baker sued over this article in High Court Case QB-2020-001013. She lost. The court granted both summary judgement and strike-out finding the claim had no realistic prospect of success. No other person mentioned sued and the time limit has elapsed. Judgement here. My follow-up article here. This article has been added to the “DEFENDED!” category and readers may rely on it.]

Official_portrait_of_Jess_Philips

Jess Philips MP (official portrait, CC-BY-SA 3.0 license).

My last article was an exposé of the repugnant female MP Jess Phillips and her irresponsible, exploitative behaviour towards a mentally ill, alleged child abuse victim Esther Baker. As my article explained, there is now ample evidence Baker (who claims to hear voices) has accused the wrong men of rape. Conveniently for Phillips, one of them was her electoral opponent. The court process Esther Baker has initiated, egged on by others, has left Baker with a costs bill likely to be in the region of £12,000. Law enforcement and the public purse have wasted even larger sums. This article gives details and then provides a contacts spreadsheets for any reader who would like to help organise a boycott.

Unlike Baker, Phillips has no money problems. In fact her most recent register of interests (archive) shows a plethora of writing and speaking engagements. It is easy to see why the Corbynites dislike her so – she is hardly a horny-handed son of toil. In the last year Phillips has had numerous writing, speaking and television engagements (including her book) bringing her in around £45,000. She finds time to be Deputy Editor of House Magazine at £2,000 a quarter. All this whilst drawing a full time salary as a Member of Parliament employed by the good people of Birmingham Yardley.

Phillips has an extraordinary number of enemies –

Share Button

Jess Phillips MP, Mark Watts and Who Raped Esther Baker?

Posted on by
6

Defended banner for articles defended in court

[UPDATE – 17 August 2022. Esther Baker sued over this article in High Court Case QB-2020-001013. She lost. The court granted both summary judgement and strike-out finding the claim had no realistic prospect of success. No other person mentioned sued and the time limit has elapsed. Judgement here. My follow-up article here. This article has been added to the “DEFENDED!” category and readers may rely on it.]

Official_portrait_of_Jess_Philips

Jess Philips MP (official portrait, CC-BY-SA 3.0 license).

Who raped Esther Baker? Baker is suing John Hemming for libel, claiming he raped her. He is counter-suing. On 15 April 2019 I sat in the High Court with John Hemming, Barbara Hewson and Richard-Owen Thomas and looked on as Baker, accompanied only by former Exaro Editor Mark Watts, was handed a costs order likely to run to about £12,000. Baker was also ordered to have a psychiatric assessment to be filed at court. During the hearing it was revealed that Baker asserts that she is seriously mentally ill. Politicians and ‘journalists’ such as Labour MP Jess Phillips and former Exaro editor Mark Watts have encouraged Baker’s allegations yet Jess Phillips is not Baker’s MP and never has been. Were Phillips and Watts right to encourage a vulnerable mentally ill woman in making unproven allegations public? Were they right to expose her to the possibility of mental injury from public criticism and controversy? Were they right to expose her to legal risks? Have Watts and Phillips helped Esther Baker … or benefited from her distress?

As my previous article recounted, Esther Baker is suing John Hemming for libel – without legal representation. He is counter-suing. The claim is not yet decided but outcomes so far are have not been good for her. Barrister Barbara Hewson’s excellent article is here for an independent perspective.

Amongst other things, John Hemming alleges Esther Baker’s lawsuit is out of time. Despite regularly insisting on Twitter that the ‘truth’ will be revealed she has point blank refused to particularise the alleged ‘rape’. This led to the judge telling her that Hemming did not know the claim he had to meet – Baker’s pleadings were inadequate. She claims in reply that her lawsuit is not out of time because she was mentally ill and lacked mental capacity to litigate for part of the limitation period.

My earlier article did not cover Esther Baker’s mental health problems, as I wanted to treat the issue sensitively and appropriately in this piece. On Twitter Baker has admitted to being, ‘psychotic’ (archive) and referred to hearing voices. In the publicly available pleadings in her case it is alleged that she suffers from auditory and ‘command’ hallucinations. In simple terms, she hears voices in her head that tell her to do things. Sometimes she obeys.

For a woman in Baker’s position to bring a lawsuit as litigant in person is challenging. Whilst the case is not yet decided, there is now significant evidence on the other side. As the Mail reported (archive) Baker has admitted that she told police her rapist had a curved penis and a birthmark on their back. Hemming has never had either (and there is a photograph of his back exhibited in evidence) but does have a distinguishing characteristic that Baker did not mention in her pleadings. So if Baker was raped at all, there are good reasons a fair minded observer might conclude that it was not Hemming. Now a court will decide.

CreepyJessPhillipsSweetDreams

Jess Phillips eerily wishes Baker ‘sweet’ dreams, a few months after she accused Hemming.

Continue reading →

Share Button