31. LETTER
TO
THE
COMMISSIONER
FROM
MS
SARA
SMITH,
30 APRIL
2009
Thank you for your letter. I see that you require
the words of the Home Secretary to be corroborated and I am happy
to do that for you.
My sister and I share a house, as we have done for
many of the years during which she has been a Member of Parliament.
I can, as you request, confirm her description of
the way we share the accommodation.
I can also confirm that she spends three, four, five
or more nights a week here, depending on where her duties as a
Minister and constituency MP take her. But no, I'm not sure that
I can provide evidence for this, further than my word.
As for the Christmas period, I didn't think I would
be able to offer more conclusive proof than the picture I understand
she has submitted to you of the two of us and a huge turkey in
our kitchen... but I can!
My [related individual] is a professional photographer
and he spent Christmas with us. He gave me a long and complicated
explanation of how the digital pictures he took, including one
of Jacqui and her son in front of a Christmas tree, can be proven
to have been taken at the time indicated on the computer file
and not doctored (ie: he hasn't photoshopped in the Norwegian
spruce) but I'll spare you that and just include the picture.
Let me know if you would like more details.
The picture of us on the terrace of the House of
Commons on New Year's Eve I can't improve on, I'm afraid... although
I understand through my experience of court reporting that mobile
telephone records can show the location of particular phones at
particular times. Also, the security guard on duty that night
might well remember having seen us.
Our next door neighbour would also be happy to confirm
that Jacqui was here in […] at those times.
I see in her letter to you that Mrs Taplin insists
that she and her husband understand exactly what the arrangements
are for policing our home—although I would be surprised
to hear that the Met has made that known to them. She also makes
it clear that each and every night she or Mr Taplin—perhaps
even both of them—check the outside of our home for proof
of Jacqui's presence. That is quite a commitment as they live
five doors—around thirty metres—away on the same side
of the road and behind a fir tree.
Despite their best efforts and I assume late night
trips up to our home to investigate who's in and who isn't, they
have clearly got themselves confused.
The idea that weeks and months have gone by when
Jacqui has been away from London—and away from our home
here—is not true. The police may have disappeared for the
two week holiday that we all took last August but the complainant's
"clear and simple indicator" for when my sister "is
in residence" has obviously let her down.
I see from the date on Mrs Taplin's letter that she
only chose to write to you after contacting the Conservative Party
for advice and after her extensive interview about us appeared
in that great organ of truth and social justice, the Mail
on Sunday.
As a journalist I have been amazed to see her story,
unchecked, repeated so many times since you announced you would
be carrying out the investigation.
Mrs Taplin describes the whole situation as being
"based on untruths".
I hope you will understand the damage that these words, not backed
up by facts themselves, have caused,
These false allegations have had a direct impact
on me. In the two and a half months this inquiry has already taken,
three newspapers have attempted to run stories about my own finances,
suggesting I don't pay income tax on money I receive from my sister.
I do, although my accountant reckons I'm about the only person
in Britain who does.
None of these papers have come to check this story
with me. In fact only today the Evening
Standard was due to run it. It's only
because their photographer was taking pictures of our home late
last night that we found out about their plans and were able to
let them know that whoever is hawking this story around—with
no doubt increasing desperation—is making it up.
Our … neighbour has said she would like the
matter of Jacqui's primary residence to be fully investigated
by you. I wonder if by giving (not selling, surely) her "facts"
to a newspaper first, she may have encouraged a few people to
have made up their minds about this matter already?
I hope this information helps.
30 April 2009
| 
