Esther Baker has made numerous allegations of sexual abuse. Now it is revealed she is under investigation herself by two police forces, one for nearly a year.

In a recent ruling by Professor Alexis Jay the Chair of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), Esther Baker has been revealed as the latest alleged ‘victim’ of child abuse to come under police scrutiny themselves. Baker is one of several individuals who came forward making allegations of child abuse by VIPs in the wake of the revelations about Jimmy Savile. These individuals were given significant support by the now defunct Exaro News, but there have been no charges of alleged abusers in relation to many key allegations. One high profile, Exaro-backed allegator, known only by the pseudonym ‘Nick’ is currently on trial for Perverting the Course of Justice (archive).

Baker had told the national media, including the Daily Mirror and Sky News, that she was abused by a faith-related paedophile ring. However, with each public telling the story seemed to change –

• In her letter to Theresa May, published in the Daily Mirror on 13 January 2015 (archive) under the pseudonym, ‘Becky’, Baker claimed that she was abused from the age of 3 or 4. The abuser was allegedly her father, assisted by members of their church.
• Having waived anonymity, in her interview with Sky News on 25 May 2015 (archive) she claimed she was abused from the age of 6 and police officers guarded the abuse group’s meetings.
• In recent submissions to IICSA, referred to in this determination it was 8 to ‘around’ 12.
• In January 2015 Baker contacted an MP and asked him for assistance. The MP declined, except for advising her to report the alleged abuse to police – she subsequently accused him of being a member of the abuse group and of raping her as a child decades before. The MP has shown me copies of her email asking him for help.

Baker’s allegations are vaguely reminiscent of the 80s cult movie Spellbinder, which features a satanic cult. As the film reaches its climax, a police car speeds towards a late night cult meeting, perhaps to rescue a cult victim – only for the officers to don robes and join the proceedings, which end in a human sacrifice. Of course, the movie is not quite the same – no satanic cult alleged here, just a ‘faith-related’ Christian group.

Now it has been revealed that there is a further police investigation by Staffordshire Police that has been ongoing since June. Baker, who was controversially granted ‘core participant’ status by IICSA (archive) had applied for the Inquiry to investigate the police handling of her allegations. The basis of the application was Ms Baker’s accusation that police were influenced by a former MP who was one of the accused.

The Inquiry was in contact with Staffordshire Police, Jay revealed –

“In a letter dated 6 November 2018, Staffordshire Police confirmed (as at paragraph 4 above) that its investigation into the complaints made by Ms Baker in 2015 had concluded. The letter added, however, that:
“One individual who was the subject of allegations made by Ms Baker subsequently made a counter allegation that Ms Baker had perverted the course of justice in her original complaint (which in June 2018 was concluded with no further action to be taken). At the end of June 2018 the individual met with officers from Staffordshire Police and indicated he had further information in relation to this complaint.
Staffordshire Police is currently investigating the nature and content of this further information and is not able to comment further as this is an on-going investigation.””

Baker’s application was refused. The Inquiry will not scrutinise the police investigation. MHN can exclusively reveal that multiple potential witnesses have been contacted directly by the officer investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice against Ms Baker, who appears to be conducting a serious and thorough investigation. It is clear that the information has been provided is substantial, given the amount of time spent and the number of witnesses contacted.

MHN can also exclusively reveal that Baker is the subject of a second police inquiry not mentioned at IICSA, by Merseyside Police. This has been going on since January. A fellow IICSA participant, who wishes to be known as ‘Z’, has made allegations of harassment against Baker and the police confirmed in a letter to ‘Z’ dated 9 October 2018 that police may still interview her having taken advice from the CPS. The same abuse victim has also commenced civil proceedings, and is suing Baker in the County Court. Baker initially made an application to strike out the claim, but has withdrawn it and the matter is now proceeding to trial.

‘Z’ was abused by at least two Catholic Priests, who have now been convicted. He alleges that he was contacted by Exaro journalists acquainted with Baker, including an Exaro journalist who I shall identify as Mark Conrad. It is alleged that Exaro asked ‘Z’ repeatedly about Jimmy Savile even after being told that ‘Z’ had never been abused by Savile. ‘Z’ felt pressured to make allegations against Savile and refused to do so. ‘Z’ has told the court that when he refused and also agreed to give evidence for the former MP, Baker harassed him over a period of years. Baker vehemently denies harassment, and the former Exaro journalist has filed a statement at the court denying it.

I put the allegations to, Mark Conrad and he denied the allegation with the following quote – “The allegation is utter nonsense – so demonstrably false as to be absurd. I have retained copies of my correspondence with Z, a damaged and troubled CSA survivor, and at no point is he encouraged to make a false claim about any individual. Indeed, the correspondence shows that only Mr Z, and not Exaro, was interested in making allegations about Jimmy Savile. At no point did Exaro investigate his claims about Jimmy Savile, because he was unable to provide any evidence for them beyond mere anecdote. As a professional journalist of more than 20 years, I always operate within the code of practice developed by the National Union of Journalists.”

Naturally I replied to Conrad. I understood (and believe a reasonable person would understand) the response to mean that ‘Z’ had initiated allegations that Savile abused him. In relation to his allegation, I asked him for copies of any correspondence where ‘Z’ sought to raise allegations against Savile. I offered to omit all reference to Conrad, even in anonymised form if he could produce emails proving that apparent contention. Conrad initially declined to provide them saying he needed to check them for confidential information. Later Conrad emailed me with a screenshot from an email folder showing a list of emails between he and ‘Y’ of that period.

I asked to see content where ‘Z’ “initiates anything about Savile”. ‘Z’ denies making allegations – he says he only mentioned Savile visited one of the schools involved, which I can verify from an easily found article (archive). Pressed, Conrad expanded –

“In fairness to ‘Z’, one thing he is being consistent about is that he never told me, or anybody else, that he was abused by Savile. I should make that clear. He merely said Savile was a regular visitor to the area in which he was abused. I had my doubts about even that allegation, because the area concerned was a remote part of Scotland – and he provided no evidence to support even that claim. Hence I was not interested in [Z – redacted]’s allegations about Savile. But he has since claimed I forced him to make up allegations about Savile – which is utter nonsense”.

In that case however, the first quote was at best deeply, unintentionally unfair to a vulnerable, and proven victim of child sexual abuse. ‘Z’ had made true statements about Savile visiting the school but never alleged he was abused by Savile. It was this quote that made me decide to name Conrad. The allegations by ‘Z’ in court are unproven but the statements above are deeply concerning and of legitimate public interest. Conrad describes himself as a professional journalist, yet his statement is clearly flawed.

I also asked Baker for comment. She claimed that the MP she has made allegations about is under investigation for Perverting the Course of Justice. Baker said that she had complained of the former MP and his supporters in relation to, “misbehaviour of a criminal nature over media, including social media, in a campaign that has become unpleasant and intimidating”.

When I asked her for evidence that the police were actually investigating, she replied refusing to provide it to me. I also copied the former MP into her serious allegation and she accused me of working for him. I have never taken money from the former MP to work for him. If police are investigating they have not in any way communicated this to the former MP nor ‘Z’. Baker did not deny any of the other facts nor allegations referred to above, although I understand she denies any allegation of wrongdoing.

Added together, the duration of the two police investigations into Baker exceeds a year. The Determination by the Inquiry Chair also shows that Baker is involved in multiple proceedings including a claim against a former MP for libel, and his counterclaim against her (also for libel).

Chillingly, former Exaro journalist David Hencke (a close work colleague of the journalist complained of by ‘Z’) named ‘Z’ in a recent article on his blog, referring to ‘Z’ as ‘brave’. ‘Z’ complained that Hencke had breached his anonymity – a complaint that was rejected by IMPRESS (archive). However, it does seem to me odd that Hencke would praise ‘Z’ for being ‘brave’ right about the time that ‘Z’ was accusing Hencke’s ex-colleague and former news organisation of serious wrongdoing. At the very least it was a bizarre and insensitive insertion. ‘Z’ did not seem to have much to do with that article and legalities aside, objected to being named. Whatever Hencke’s intention it is easy to empathise with ‘Z’ and see how he would perceive it as a threat. At this time, the former MP accused by Baker is suing Hencke for libel over the same article.

I put a draft of this article to Mr Hencke and he said he would be referring it to his lawyers, but has yet to provide a response at the time of writing. He is a professional journalist, once an award winning writer for the Guardian yet chose not to respond disputing a single fact, nor asking for extra time. I have treated Hencke with greater respect than he chose to give to the former MP or ‘Z’ – who were not approached for comment before Hencke’s article.

None of the cases, civil or criminal, have yet reached a conclusion. The mere fact that Baker is the suspect in multiple police investigations and the Defendant to two civil claims by different people does not prove she is guilty. However, it is clearly in the public interest for readers to have the full context of these matters, which was markedly absent in Hencke’s article. Millions of pounds have been spent investigating lurid allegations of child abuse by public figures, particularly championed by Exaro and its former ‘journalists’.

Their recent coverage however has been notable for its failure to include the other side’s view – as an example, Hencke’s article that ‘Z’ complained of mentioned ‘Z’ for no clear reason and neglected to mention Hencke’s personal interest due to ‘Z’s allegations about Exaro. It also neglected to mention that Hencke had received a pre-action letter from the former MP (albeit a very poor one he did himself and was later updated when said former MP finally sought advice).

Declaration: Both ‘Z’ and the former MP have barristers assisting them in their civil cases. However, moved by their cases I have also provided pro-bono legal advice on a voluntary basis. Although IMPRESS has found ‘Z’ waived anonymity I have granted it out of respect as he is a bona fide child abuse victim and also to the former MP.