This week, Esther Baker has been quite a bit upset with my previous article. She has sent me several emails mostly seeking information. Eventually Baker began to annoy me so I sent her an email warning her I may publish future correspondence. I said, “You have sent me several emails and told me you may send me further ‘corrections’ later. This is just to repeat my earlier warning that I am not willing to consider our correspondence private. I reserve the right to publish your emails or share them with anyone I see fit. For the avoidance of doubt, the others are intentionally copied in. […]” Esther Baker has emailed me again, so I have published the email and put my reply below. Ms Baker, has (somewhat foolishly) contradicted her own court pleadings.

Email from Esther Baker at 01:54am 24 November (names of third parties redacted)

From: Esther Baker
Subject: Defamatory Blog
Mr Hopkins/Smith

Having read through the version of the blog that is online as of 24/11/2018 I now have some corrections for you to make. I am aware that you have made several corrections already due to anonymity issues, and defamatory and provably incorrect statements concerning Mr Conrad. I understand that as an amateur in “journalism” that you may not have realised that there are so many rules you should adhere to – but as you self identify as an expert in litigation, including that of defamation – then you should be more than aware of what constitutes defamation. As I said the journalism mistakes I will leave to others to critique you on, a task I’m sure may take them a little while.

Concerning your headline. It is inaccurate and defamatory. Putting aside that there seems to be no reason for the single word “rape” to be in quotation marks – your headline alleges two issues. One, that my allegations are unsubstantiated, and second that I am under police investigation. Neither of those are true. What makes this worse in regards to the second issue – is that you have quoted the very statement from Staffordshire police later in this “article” which confirms this, as explained to you below.

You allege in the piece that my story has changed. This is incorrect. I am aware that you have seen the papers in the defamation case against [a former MP, redacted] in which these issues are discussed. To save you reading again the summary of that is that the national media (journalism lesson number 1 for you) is that they have to stick to specific word counts. Therefore anything submitted to them is edited and subject to alteration and redaction. Nothing has changed between that letter and the present day. I was abused by my father from the age of three or four. The period in which the sky news piece covered was the ages of where I believed I was shared with other people including [the former MP], which at the time of recording was the age of six due to a specific memory I have that was before I was introduced to [the former MP]. In the IICSA submissions, which are only relevant in context to the abuse by [the former MP] and others this has been changed to age 8. The reason for this is because in the three years between the two, the police proved that the specific memory I have occurred when I was 8. This is not a changed story, this is evidence that narrows down the timeline of events.

[The former MP] was indeed sent a copy of the May letter as were several other MPs, from an email list I had been provided with various MPs who had been recommended as “campaigners” in this area. His name at that point meant nothing to me as you well know.

I have no comments on the rather bizarre comment on a film which bears no relevance to …. anything. Although when I did a lesson on media when I was about 13 – I vaguely remember reading that some papers – notably “trashy” papers used to add irrelevant details to plump out boring pieces so maybe this is just your style? Plus … obviously as this film reference is in [the former MP] defamation reply somewhere it seems to indicate to me that you are incapable of independent thought.

In the quote from Jay’s determination which you have copied seems to be the latest comment from Staffordshire police on the cases which I have no reason to believe is false. As you will see, indeed the original allegations of my 2015 complaints have now officially concluded. The fact that [the former MP] made counter allegations is also well known as he spoke about them for years, most of the time in a defamatory way, and using statements which he has admitted to knowing were incorrect. You are well aware of this as [the former MP] McKenzie friend and having seen the case against him. The quotation goes on to say

“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).

As you and [the former MP] are well aware this investigation commenced at some point in May 2018 … and as stated was NFA’d in June 2018, without the need for myself to be questioned. I have highlighted that in bold for you above to aid comprehension. As shown – the idea of a very brief investigation into myself was considered and dismissed within a month. If the complaint had been considered to have any basis in reality then Staffordshire police would have been procedurally required to interview myself. The quote from Staffordshire continues:

“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 a live investigation”

Please note. This is described very carefully by Staffordshire Police as an investigation into the “nature and content” of this further information. To be frank, as we all know the nature and content of [the former MP] further information and how he obtained that information, then yes, they are very right to be investigating that, and indeed they continue to do so. That, however is not an investigation into myself …. I’m sure Mr Just will be able to help you with a phrase I’m sure he won’t mind me using. “Join the dots”.

As discussed in previous emails I have no intention of providing you with further information about the police investigations into [the former MP] and Z. I’m very happy to wait for the outcome of that from the police. That includes the vexatious, querulous and oft repeated allegations against me and many, many, many others by Z. It would be inappropriate for me to discuss the reasons behind his actions, both because of ongoing criminal investigations, and “sort of” ongoing civil matters. Suffice to say that if I do not have the civil case struck out shortly, I will be more than happy to proceed to trial, and will be requesting a harassment order against Z alongside those of my costs. The repeated and querulous complaints about me to various police forces about me have been made for three or four years now, and amount to a course of conduct by Z and the police I believe are looking into the “nature and content” of those allegations. At no point has there been any correspondence that shows that myself or others are being investigated …. after a full year it appears that Merseyside are still seeking advice on whether these allegations even warrant investigation, as has been explained to [the former MP] and Z many times.

Your further and edited comments on Z and Mark Conrad I have no comment on apart to confirm that I have now seen the correspondence and agree with Mr Conrad that the allegations by Z are indeed “so demonstrably false as to be absurd” a pattern that forms many of his allegations.

Your ridiculous statement that “if the police are investigating they have not in any way communicated this to the former MP or Z” leads me to offer you the advice that you really need to research how the criminal justice system actually works. You could even just watch The Bill if the research is beyond you.

Mr Hencke’s paragraphs I have no intention of commenting on. I believe it is rightfully with his lawyers.

I do though approve of your admittance and wholeheartedly agree that the pre-action protocol letter from the former MP was “a very poor one”.

In conclusion I ask that you amend your headline and all suggestions throughout the piece that state or infer that I am under any police investigation or indeed have ever been so. There have been various reviews into vexatious and malicious complaints and at no point has a decision been made to progress those reviews into actual investigations against me. Your allegations that they have are therefore clearly defamatory. Your “article” has been based on information from sources who are dubious at best.

The entire “article”, from the headline to the end is grossly inaccurate, inappropriate, and tendentious. You are clearly biased as [the former MP] and Z’s admitted McKenzie friend – and as this is the second attempt you have made to discredit me you are now following a course of conduct which could be considered as harassment.

I suggest if you wish to continue your forays into journalism and/or law that you learn to interpret press releases independently instead of swinging to assumptions about them due to your biases.

Reply

Dear Ms Baker,

1. The word, ‘unsubstantiated’ means unproven. Your allegations have not been proven in any criminal court. They have been subject to No Further Action. Your allegations have not been proven in any civil court. This meaning is therefore true and I will not remove the word, ‘unsubstantiated’.

2. You claim you are not under investigation by Staffordshire police. You will recall that papers from your case in the High Court against a former MP are available to non-parties automatically under CPR 5.4C (1) and in any event you have expressly asked me to refer to them.

In that claim you wrote the following in your Reply and Defence to Counterclaim, “11. As to paragraph 11, the above three paragraphs are again repeated. It is admitted that the Claimant is apparently under investigation for PCJ after Staffordshire police were threatened with Judicial Review by the Defendant[…]” You have filed that in court and signed a statement of truth. You are contradicting your own sworn statement. In addition I have seen a letter from Staffordshire police dated 4 July 2018 confirming the police are investigating and I have spoken on the phone to officers. Furthermore, I have seen a letter dated 9 October 2018 confirming that Merseyside police are investigating you and may interview you. Furthermore I have spoken to a witness who has been interviewed for some hours as part of the investigation of your conduct.

Therefore I shall not withdraw the allegations that you are under police investigation.

If you bring court proceedings contradicting your own earlier sworn statements in the High Court, you will likely go to prison.

3. You claim that your story has not changed. It manifestly has. You advance some innocent explanations as to why (for example, because you have narrowed down dates with police help), but the three texts are plainly inconsistent.

Therefore I shall not withdraw the allegation that, “the story seemed to change”.

4. Finally, although I have offered him some advice, [the former MP] is represented by a barrister and therefore at no time have I appeared as his McKenzie Friend in your libel case.

Kindest regards,

Sam Smith