One of the first things that struck me about Esther Baker, was how much she lied.It almost seemed pathological.When one lie was worn out or exposed, up popped another in support of the previous one.
Currently in her hate vendetta against IMf she is trying to suggest it was down to him that she contacted Exaro, and is screenshotting DM's dated 17th Jan 2015 to try to support this ,
( she repeats this many times over the day )
pic x large so you can see the date on the conversation 17/01/2015
yet Exaros own site shows she was already in contact with them under the fake name of Becky' on the 10th of January and very likely before that
The phrase is several paragraphs from the bottom of the piece dated 10th January 2015, and starts..'Becky told Exaro....'
Becky is of course actually just another of the many names used by Esther Baker
Her own TL - as shown below- also indicates she was talking to exaro at latest 10th Jan 2015
As a matter of public record, as detailed here, Becky/Esther/Brookes story substantially changed from her C4 interview on the 5th January2015 where no VIPs are mentioned at all,to when she sold her story to Sky a few months later.(Without the inclusion of the newly created VIP list to spice up her story, it's very doubtful Sky would have broadcast it in such a way.)
Her explanation of the substantial change in story is that she informed C4 of her VIP list in the 5th Jan clip, but they decided to exclude this much more newsworthy aspect from their broadcast because the terms Judges, Lords, & Labour MP were just too close to identification. This is probably the most absurd excuse I have heard for a very long time, and one of the worst lies, in every sense of the word
Becky/Brooke/Esther was very much meshed with Wilmer/Exaro by the end of 2014 at the very latest.Her VIP list appears to have begun to form towards the end of Jan 2015. Her VIP list was crucial to both Wilmer & Exaro
Here is esther/becky/brooke seemingly forgetting her story ( actually by this date her viplist probably had not yet been finalized)
Leaving aside the ex lib dem MP , Baker had on the 14th january 2015 attended at meeting along with many others in the House of Commons, where at least 3 MP's spoke. This just 6 DAYS BEFORE the tweet above.So on that count alone Baker apparently either forgot entirely, or wasn't telling the truth
As far as her association with Wilmer/Exaro go her memory seems to fail her yet again
When cornered, esther/becky/brooke claims her first contact with Exaro was on 21st jan2015
Actually as usual with becky/esther/brooke etc, even her own TL says she isn't telling the truth again
as this is showing Jan10th 2015
Here is becky/esther/brooke talking about her alleged abuser who is due to be interviewed in October.
and the allegations that will be put to him ( Baker has no corroboration from any other 'victim') Esther seems to have forgotten her story since if her alleged abuser is guilty he would have a good idea of what allegations he faces at the interview, but Baker appears to have forgotten the plot, so when caught out, relies on the usual, 'im not allowed to comment' - odd since she has been for quite some time
What isn't obvious from just reading TL's is the situation as at early Jan 2015
The old Inquiry format was just about limping on, (including Wilmer) but was likely due to be axed by T May and a new stat Inquiry to replace it, along with a new panel (given a change in legal status the Inq Act tends to preclude those with a vested interest from serving on any panel- in this case 'survivors' )
What this meant was Wilmer would be removed as well as the only other 'survivor' S Evans, who as far as im aware has no specific role in events as detailed here.
Obviously ex panel members would lose their daily fee, said to be around 500 a day - so over 5 plus years of the Inquiry a substantial amount running into 100,'s of thousands.
Anyone on the Inquiry would have first knowledge of any breaking stories. If they chose to leak those to say a small internet news agency, the media value of those over 5 plus year would be in millions of pounds. 'Commission' in the form of brown envelope money, would also run in 100,'s thousands, possible million
Big money then for all concerned, not surprising why such a bitter protracted campaign was mounted by those most likely to gain, to try to save the old Inquiry format
Part of that fight even when the announcement was made to scrap the old Inquiry, was to try to say the new proposed Inquiry was unsafe for survivors partly to try to either force a reversal by boycott or divert those likely to report elsewhere. The new Inquiry had to be deemed unsafe.To this end how more unsafe could it be than having an alleged abuser, beckys/esthers/brookes alleged abuser in fact ,associated with it. Some coincidence that in scrambling around looking for ways to suggest the new Inquiry was unsafe, you happen to notice your newly 'alleged' abuser associated with it.But then improbable events dominate Esther Bakers various stories if you look closely enough
Apart from the obvious lies, reading Esther/Becky/Brooke account of events requires not only a temporary suspension of reality, but a permanent residents card