|
Archived Transcript for 19 November 2001: Pages
101 to 150
101
1 infected area longer than an hour and, once outside, to
2 destroy your clothing or wash in disinfectant and
3 shower, and that it was -- scabies was transmitted by
4 close contact.
5 MR GARNHAM: Did you ask about treatment for scabies?
6 PC JONES: No, I did not ask about treatment.
7 MR GARNHAM: Did it not occur to you that if somebody had
8 been in hospital for scabies they might have been
9 treated and cured?
10 PC JONES: Well, I assumed -- you mean like Victoria?
11 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
12 PC JONES: Yes, I knew that if somebody came to hospital
13 with scabies they would be treated, yes.
14 MR GARNHAM: Then what was the ground for your continuing
15 concern?
16 PC JONES: Well, I did not know anything about scabies.
17 I mean, in fact I had never heard of the thing before in
18 my life.
19 MR GARNHAM: Did you ask about treatment and its
20 effectiveness?
21 PC JONES: No, I did not ask about treatment because what
22 I wanted to know was how would you catch it.
23 MR GARNHAM: You understood it was caught by close contact
24 with somebody who had it?
25 PC JONES: Yes, close contact, yes.
102
1 MR GARNHAM: Was it not therefore material to discover
2 whether Victoria still had it?
3 PC JONES: Well, at that time I was going to see Mrs Kouao
4 in her home address and that was the reason for ringing
5 up.
6 MR GARNHAM: Did you discover whether Mrs Kouao had been
7 treated for scabies?
8 PC JONES: Yes.
9 MR GARNHAM: And had she?
10 PC JONES: From what she told me she said that they all had
11 to wash in something.
12 MR GARNHAM: But at the time of this phone call to the
13 hospital did you make enquiries as to whether Kouao and
14 Victoria had been treated?
15 PC JONES: No.
16 MR GARNHAM: Because was it not at least possible that they
17 both had been treated and the scabies infection had been
18 destroyed?
19 PC JONES: Of course, yes, of course it was possible.
20 MR GARNHAM: But you did not enquire about that?
21 PC JONES: No.
22 MR GARNHAM: Why not?
23 PC JONES: The reason I made the enquiries was because I was
24 going to the home address of Mrs Kouao to speak to her
25 and convey -- tell her that the police were involved and
103
1 how the child protection procedures worked and the
2 reason I rang about her, it was because I was going into
3 that house, not because I was going to visit Victoria at
4 that time.
5 MR GARNHAM: Did you receive information that it can pass
6 other than from body to body?
7 PC JONES: I just knew it was by close contact.
8 MR GARNHAM: Then why were you concerned if you simply were
9 visiting the house as opposed to visiting the people?
10 PC JONES: In the house I would be with the people.
11 MR GARNHAM: But you were content to invite Kouao to visit
12 you at the social services office?
13 PC JONES: Yes.
14 MR GARNHAM: If you are content to do that why are you not
15 content to see them in their home?
16 PC JONES: I see what you mean. Well, I just had a feeling,
17 well, you would be more in control at the social
18 services office. I did not know what scabies was.
19 I did not know if it could -- what was it? Would it be
20 in the house? Could it be in the house? Was it like
21 a flea? I just did not know the answers to those
22 questions.
23 MR GARNHAM: That was the point of your conversation you say
24 to the Casualty Department.
25 PC JONES: That is why I rang.
104
1 MR GARNHAM: But all you enquired about was infection from
2 other people you said, and that risk would have been
3 identical whether you met them in the offices or at
4 their home.
5 PC JONES: Yes, I suppose it could have been. It would have
6 been.
7 MR GARNHAM: How does this explain why you decided not to
8 visit the home?
9 PC JONES: Well, at the time I was thinking if she has
10 scabies it would be in the home too. It might not be
11 logical but I did not know anything about scabies.
12 MR GARNHAM: But you did not enquire about catching scabies
13 off furniture?
14 PC JONES: No, I did not.
15 MR GARNHAM: You enquired about catching scabies off someone
16 else?
17 PC JONES: Yes I did.
18 MR GARNHAM: And you were proposing instead of meeting that
19 someone else in their home to meet them at your office?
20 PC JONES: Well, it is true, I could have got scabies if she
21 had had -- if she had it at the office.
22 MR GARNHAM: So what possible purpose was there in your
23 changing the arrangement in the light of that
24 conversation?
25 PC JONES: Well, from what the nurse was saying that you
105
1 have to come out and disinfect your clothes, change your
2 clothes.
3 MR GARNHAM: But you were inviting someone who you thought
4 might be a carrier into your office with the risk
5 presumably of infecting the office. How was that
6 better?
7 PC JONES: I just did not regard that.
8 MR GARNHAM: I have to suggest to you that there was no such
9 conversation at all with the Casualty Department.
10 PC JONES: Why would I make it up?
11 MR GARNHAM: I do not know.
12 PC JONES: There is absolutely no point in making it up.
13 MR GARNHAM: I will let you finish.
14 PC JONES: No, you carry on.
15 MR GARNHAM: We have had evidence from a lady called
16 Muriel Clark who told us she had spoken to all the
17 nursing staff who were on duty at that time. Not only
18 did none of them say what you say they said, but none of
19 them would have said that had they been asked because it
20 is not right.
21 PC JONES: Well, first of all I did read what Meriel Clarke
22 said on the Internet and she is asking nurses to recall
23 a conversation that took place two and a half years or
24 so ago.
25 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
106
1 PC JONES: Why would they remember it?
2 MR GARNHAM: Presumably it was because they might not that
3 she went on to ask the supplementary question, "What
4 would you say had you received such a request for
5 information?"
6 PC JONES: And then by then they must have known that she
7 was talking about scabies, about North Middlesex
8 Hospital, about the Victoria Climbie Inquiry and why
9 would they want to come here to subject themselves to
10 this Inquiry? Nobody would in their right mind. Why
11 would they remember? I am not accusing them of lying
12 but why would they even remember it? Why would I make
13 it up? There is not even a point in making it up. What
14 would be the point?
15 MR GARNHAM: To explain your decision not to visit
16 Victoria's home.
17 PC JONES: And lastly -- is it Muriel?
18 MR GARNHAM: Meriel Clarke, yes.
19 PC JONES: She gives some information but at the trial
20 Dr Mann gives completely different evidence to her.
21 MR GARNHAM: Yes, what I am interested in discovering is
22 what was going through your mind.
23 PC JONES: What was going through my mind was that I was
24 going to go to a home address that possibly was infected
25 with scabies. I do not know who had it. I assumed it
107
1 was on a person. I did not know how, I did not know
2 much about scabies. It was ignorance on my part. I did
3 not know anything about scabies. I rang the ward,
4 Casualty Department, and the nurse said --
5 MR GARNHAM: What you say she said.
6 PC JONES: Yes and so I said to Lisa, look -- I have told
7 Lisa this information and I asked could we make
8 alternative arrangements and she rang Mrs Kouao and
9 Mrs Kouao came into our department. I can still
10 complete my task, which was to inform her about child
11 protection.
12 MR GARNHAM: Although that would expose you to precisely the
13 same risk.
14 PC JONES: Quite possibly but it might be I felt more secure
15 there.
16 MR GARNHAM: In any event you say you reported this matter
17 to Sergeant Bird?
18 PC JONES: Yes.
19 MR GARNHAM: What was his response?
20 PC JONES: He told me to contact Occupational Health or
21 Health and Safety and to find out.
22 MR GARNHAM: He says that he fully expected you to do the
23 visit after you had got that information from Health and
24 Safety.
25 PC JONES: Well --
108
1 MR GARNHAM: Is that right first of all, did he express that
2 to you?
3 PC JONES: I cannot remember him expressing that to me at
4 that time but --
5 MR GARNHAM: It is right, is it not, that the police often
6 have to visit and search unpleasant places?
7 PC JONES: And I have done so myself.
8 MR GARNHAM: So what was different about this?
9 PC JONES: What was different was because I could complete
10 my task without going to the home address. My task was
11 to explain to Mrs Kouao the Child Protection Procedures,
12 police involvement, and I could do this at North
13 Tottenham District Office equally as well as I could do
14 it anywhere else.
15 MR GARNHAM: Because no part of what you proposed to do
16 amounted to an investigation of a crime.
17 PC JONES: Sorry, I do not understand.
18 MR GARNHAM: Your purpose in speaking to Kouao was to
19 explain procedures and the like.
20 PC JONES: Yes.
21 MR GARNHAM: It was no part of your purpose to investigate
22 a crime, is that right?
23 PC JONES: Yes.
24 MR GARNHAM: You were contemplating, were you not,
25 circumstances in which Victoria would have to be
109
1 returned to her home?
2 PC JONES: Yes.
3 MR GARNHAM: And you have told us earlier that one of the
4 reasons, perhaps the reason for visiting the home was to
5 assess its suitability.
6 PC JONES: Yes. Not by myself but by social services.
7 MR GARNHAM: With Lisa Arthurworrey as well?
8 PC JONES: It was her role to assess, not mine.
9 MR GARNHAM: How could you be content for this eight year
10 old girl to return to live in a place that you were not
11 even prepared to visit?
12 PC JONES: Well, if I can explain. After speaking to the
13 Casualty Department, and I have had that information, we
14 did eventually meet up with Kouao. It was a day late
15 because I rang Lisa, she rang Mrs Kouao and she said,
16 "Could you come in on the 5th to North Tottenham
17 District Office." Mrs Kouao arrived and when she got
18 there it was clear that she did not have scabies.
19 Also she had been living in the home address since
20 the 24th, before that, but I say since the 24th because
21 that was the day that Victoria had been admitted to
22 hospital. So she had been in the home address since the
23 24th and it was now the 5th, thirteen days or so she did
24 not have scabies, so it was obvious there was no scabies
25 in the household or she would have it, and so when we
110
1 went to visit Victoria Victoria did not have scabies.
2 So Victoria did not have scabies, the household did not
3 have scabies and Mrs Kouao did not have scabies, so
4 there was no scabies in the house.
5 MR GARNHAM: Two points arise from that. The first is that
6 thereafter you could have made a home visit.
7 PC JONES: Yes.
8 MR GARNHAM: Why did you not?
9 PC JONES: Right. Well, thereafter we had no indication
10 that a crime had taken place because a doctor had failed
11 to tell us what they had seen and no nurse when I was on
12 the ward had made any comments or brought to me any of
13 their concerns about Victoria. So at that stage after
14 speaking to Mrs Kouao and after speaking to Victoria
15 I was not dealing with a crime and so there was no need
16 for me to go to that home address.
17 MR GARNHAM: The second point that arises from that, that
18 explanation that you just gave me for why you were
19 content that Victoria should go home whereas you were
20 only prepared to see Kouao in the office, depends on
21 what you found out thereafter.
22 PC JONES: I do not understand.
23 MR GARNHAM: You were able to reach that conclusion that it
24 would be safe to send Victoria home after you had met
25 Kouao.
111
1 PC JONES: Yes.
2 MR GARNHAM: Prior to that, when you were deciding on
3 3rd August whether or not you could visit the home, you
4 had in mind Victoria being returned there.
5 PC JONES: No, I had not in mind Victoria being returned
6 there because that was the whole point. The hospital
7 said they wanted to release Victoria but we did not know
8 anything about the home conditions and so we went to
9 find out.
10 MR GARNHAM: But you did not find out.
11 PC JONES: I did find out. I found out that the house did
12 not have scabies.
13 MR GARNHAM: But did you not find out anything else about
14 the home conditions?
15 PC JONES: That is not my job.
16 MR GARNHAM: Your purpose when you were considering whether
17 or not to visit Victoria's home was to make an
18 assessment as to its suitability.
19 PC JONES: No.
20 MR GARNHAM: I thought that is what you told us a little
21 while ago.
22 PC JONES: No, I did not. If I did I am sorry to have
23 misled you. My purpose of visiting the home address was
24 to speak to Mrs Kouao about police involvement and how
25 the child protection procedure would work, to explain to
112
1 her. It says so in the strategy meeting as well, to
2 explain Child Protection Procedures. Lisa would also
3 explain the Child Protection Procedures from a social
4 worker's point of view but she would do her assessment
5 at the same time of the home. That is what
6 I understood. It is not police's job to do assessments
7 of the home, it is the social worker's job, social
8 services' job.
9 MR GARNHAM: That leads to the question what were you doing
10 being involved in this at all?
11 PC JONES: Because of the suspicion there was a crime,
12 somebody had made an allegation.
13 MR GARNHAM: I thought by this time you had decided that
14 there was not.
15 PC JONES: By the 3rd, no, I had not, because I had not seen
16 the report.
17 MR GARNHAM: All right, we will come on to that in a moment.
18 For your purposes, namely explaining to Kouao Child
19 Protection Procedures, a visit to the social services
20 office was sufficient?
21 PC JONES: Yes, it was quite suitable.
22 MR GARNHAM: If you were investigating a crime it was
23 hopeless, was it not?
24 PC JONES: How do you mean?
25 MR GARNHAM: If you were still investigating a crime, having
113
1 Kouao in for a chat about Child Protection Procedures
2 was of little value?
3 PC JONES: No, it was not of little value. It is important
4 because even if your person is going to be a criminal,
5 is going to be regarded as a criminal or not, they still
6 need to be told about the procedures.
7 MR GARNHAM: You were going to gain no further intelligence
8 about the likelihood of Victoria having been the victim
9 of an assault from that meeting, were you?
10 PC JONES: I would not have thought so. I would not have
11 thought that she would say "It was me, I did it, I put
12 my hands up," if that is what you mean.
13 MR GARNHAM: You were not going to find out anything more
14 relevant to the criminal investigation, were you?
15 PC JONES: Well, what we had asked for was for a doctor to
16 examine Victoria and give his or her opinion about the
17 injuries that were seen on Victoria and that is what we
18 were hoping for. That was the information we were
19 hoping for. It did not come. The doctors did not make
20 clear their concerns.
21 MR GARNHAM: You say that you needed Kouao's permission to
22 speak to Victoria.
23 PC JONES: Yes.
24 MR GARNHAM: Why?
25 PC JONES: Because that is from "Working Together", that is
114
1 what we are told in our manual.
2 MR GARNHAM: If she was properly regarded as a suspect would
3 you need Kouao's permission to speak to Victoria?
4 PC JONES: Yes, but if she would not give it, the social
5 services -- or anyone, but usually social services say
6 generally if that did not happen, social services would
7 get an EPO.
8 MR GARNHAM: So at any point you could ask for consent to
9 talk to Victoria and if it was not given you had other
10 remedies available to you?
11 PC JONES: Possibly. Obviously if you felt the child would
12 be likely to come to significant harm.
13 MR GARNHAM: On 5th August, the next day, you attended North
14 Tottenham District Office again with Lisa Arthurworrey.
15 PC JONES: Yes.
16 MR GARNHAM: What was the time of that meeting? Morning,
17 afternoon?
18 PC JONES: It was afternoon.
19 MR GARNHAM: You were shown a copy of this doctor's
20 statement.
21 PC JONES: Yes, it was Nurse Quinn's report that contained
22 a doctor's diagnosis.
23 MR GARNHAM: In your statement you say that you cannot
24 remember what statement it was. You have remembered
25 since, have you?
115
1 PC JONES: Yes, I was not able -- I did not have the
2 documents, any documents available to me except I think
3 my CRIS report and it was quite difficult to --
4 MR GARNHAM: You have now gone through the documents,
5 perhaps the Inquiry's documents.
6 PC JONES: Yes.
7 MR GARNHAM: And you have been able to locate the doctor's
8 report that you are referring to?
9 PC JONES: Yes, yes, Nurse Quinn's report.
10 MR GARNHAM: Could you have volume 37 please, page 73. Is
11 that the memo?
12 PC JONES: Yes.
13 MR GARNHAM: This is the doctor's report that you describe
14 in the --
15 PC JONES: Yes.
16 MR GARNHAM: -- statement, is it?
17 PC JONES: Yes.
18 MR GARNHAM: Can we have a look at it, memo of 3rd August
19 1999 to Lisa Arthurworrey from Isobel Quinn.
20 PC JONES: Yes.
21 MR GARNHAM: It consists of four entries referring to
22 different events on different dates.
23 PC JONES: Yes.
24 MR GARNHAM: The first one is at 9 pm on 25th July:
25 "Staff Nurse Pereira observed mother and Anna
116
1 together. Noted that although Anna was in bed when mum
2 arrived she jumped out of bed and stood to attention.
3 Master and servant attitude."
4 PC JONES: Yes.
5 MR GARNHAM: Second entry later that same day:
6 "Staff Nurse Quinn speaking to mum when she noticed
7 that Anna's dress was wet. Asked if Anna wanted to do
8 a wee, Anna's mother told her she had already done one
9 and that the bed was wet. She said that Anna was a good
10 girl and had not given mum a cuddle as she had 'made a
11 wee wee'. Mum had made no effort to tell nurse that bed
12 and Anna were wet or to change Anna. Mother has brought
13 in no clothes or toiletries or treats, drinks for Anna."
14 PC JONES: Yes.
15 MR GARNHAM: Third entry:
16 "1st August, Dr Rossiter ward round notes, evidence
17 of emotional abuse, anxious attachment, polyphagia?
18 Short, self treatment boiling water prior to admission
19 and whilst in hospital put Hibiscrub on her head ? Is
20 this evidence of emotional neglect?
21 "3rd August, 10.30 mum visiting. When leaving Anna
22 started to cry but there were no tears in her eyes and
23 she recovered very quickly once mum left. Anna also
24 observed to eat very large amounts of food. One morning
25 had 5 bowls of cereals." Signed Quinn.
117
1 PC JONES: Yes.
2 MR GARNHAM: That is the letter, is it, which you say
3 indicates that the doctors had taken a view there was no
4 evidence of physical abuse?
5 PC JONES: Yes.
6 MR GARNHAM: Where exactly do we find that?
7 PC JONES: Dr Rossiter -- on the first page Nurse Quinn
8 writes about Dr Rossiter's diagnosis here.
9 MR GARNHAM: Well, look at what it said:
10 "Dr Rossiter ward round notes, evidence of emotional
11 abuse".
12 PC JONES: Yes.
13 MR GARNHAM: Does emotional abuse necessarily exclude
14 physical abuse as well?
15 PC JONES: Yes.
16 MR GARNHAM: So if you have a child with emotional abuse it
17 is impossible that the child has also got physical
18 abuse?
19 PC JONES: If you have a child, if I can explain, if you
20 have a child with a physical abuse she may also be
21 subject to emotional abuse.
22 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
23 PC JONES: But here Dr Rossiter is saying emotional abuse,
24 she is not talking about physical abuse. She would
25 include it if she had seen it.
118
1 MR GARNHAM: It rather depends on what she is asked, does it
2 not?
3 PC JONES: Well, she was asked -- the hospital had brought
4 the referral to social services, they knew what the
5 referral or the investigation was all about, an ABH.
6 She does not mention it.
7 MR GARNHAM: No, but it depends on whether by the query to
8 which Quinn replies she was asked to give evidence about
9 emotional abuse or whether she was asked to give
10 evidence about all evidence of abuse, does it not?
11 PC JONES: Well, I would not agree. What I would say is
12 that as I said before, the hospital were the ones that
13 had brought this, referred this matter to social
14 services. They knew that Victoria had been seen with
15 marks on her body and that it was a possible ABH. So
16 they knew what they should be looking for. They knew
17 that if there were marks on Victoria they should examine
18 them and if they were as a result of non-accidental
19 injury then that should be recorded.
20 MR GARNHAM: Would you go to volume 5, page 254. Those
21 again are part of Karen Johns' notes and she deals with
22 the strategy meeting in the middle of that page, do you
23 see it?
24 PC JONES: Yes.
25 MR GARNHAM: Under "Karen Johns", 2, setting out her tasks,
119
1 the first task that she had was to seek report from the
2 ward staff regarding neglect.
3 PC JONES: Yes.
4 MR GARNHAM: If the memo from Quinn to which you refer is
5 the response to that, one would not expect there to be
6 evidence there of physical abuse, because the doctor is
7 being asked to give evidence of neglect.
8 PC JONES: I would not -- I do not agree with that. I know
9 what it says, she says to see the report, she says about
10 regarding neglect, but Dr Rossiter, or the hospital were
11 the people that made the allegation in the first place.
12 Why would they overlook the ABH just to -- and report on
13 neglect?
14 MR GARNHAM: Because they had already given information
15 about the physical abuse.
16 PC JONES: But who did they give it to?
17 MR GARNHAM: Simone Forlee gave to it to Karen Johns and it
18 was reported at the strategy meeting. What she was
19 being asked to do here was to provide a supplementary
20 report dealing with emotional abuse.
21 PC JONES: No, that is not correct.
22 MR GARNHAM: What --
23 PC JONES: I was going to say could I have a look at the
24 strategy meeting minutes again please?
25 MR GARNHAM: Page 4, volume 30.
120
1 PC JONES: Could I ask you to ask me the question again
2 please?
3 MR GARNHAM: What I was suggesting to you was that the memo
4 you referred to from Quinn was the response to the
5 request for information relating to emotional abuse.
6 PC JONES: And you said about Dr Forlee.
7 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
8 PC JONES: In the strategy meeting it says to obtain medical
9 reports re the concern as well.
10 MR GARNHAM: Yes, it does.
11 PC JONES: Not just -- and also neglect, the concerns were
12 belt buckle mark or marks on Victoria's body. So why
13 would Dr Rossiter miss one out and only deal with the
14 other?
15 MR GARNHAM: If you could look back at the notes of
16 Karen Johns I think you will see the answer to that.
17 According to those notes Haringey were to request
18 a medical report regarding skeletal survey and old
19 injuries whereas Karen Johns was to seek a report from
20 the ward staff regarding neglect, so that the task had
21 been divided into two parts, ward staff were to describe
22 neglect, the doctor was to describe the old injuries.
23 What you were shown from Quinn was a statement from
24 a nurse relating to neglect, not a statement from
25 a doctor relating to physical abuse.
121
1 PC JONES: Well, at the strategy meeting I understood that
2 Karen Johns would go back and liaise with the hospital
3 and get a doctor's report about the concerns that they
4 had raised which was Victoria's -- the marks on Victoria
5 and that that would be sent back to social services.
6 MR GARNHAM: You see, I have to suggest to you that what it
7 appears happened here is that you wrongly assumed that
8 the memo you got from a nurse was the answer to the
9 request for a statement from the doctor dealing with
10 physical injuries.
11 PC JONES: Well, if that was the case why did the hospital
12 not then come forward again and say, "Look, these are
13 the concerns. What are you doing about it"?
14 MR GARNHAM: But it is your job, is it not, to make sure the
15 investigations of all the aspects relevant in Victoria's
16 case are properly pursued?
17 PC JONES: I had thought it was properly pursued.
18 MR GARNHAM: You were expecting a report from a doctor, you
19 got a memo from a nurse.
20 PC JONES: And it contained the doctor's diagnosis. I would
21 not have imagined that Dr Rossiter would examine
22 a child, see the marks and just ignore them just to
23 report on an emotional abuse.
24 MR GARNHAM: How could you possibly assume that is what she
25 had done?
122
1 PC JONES: It is her notes.
2 MR GARNHAM: Yes, but all her notes are directed to, they
3 are a transcription by a nurse addressing a particular
4 issue.
5 PC JONES: But she would have had to if that was
6 a particular issue, then the particular issue of the ABH
7 should also have come up as well.
8 MR GARNHAM: But it did not and you were content to simply
9 assume that that meant the doctors had changed their
10 views on what had happened to this little girl?
11 PC JONES: No, I assumed that what had happened was a nurse
12 had seen marks on Victoria which she thought resembled
13 a belt buckle mark, that Victoria was in hospital with
14 scabies, a skin condition of some kind, and that the
15 doctor had now examined Victoria and had not found --
16 and had found that these marks were not as a result of
17 non-accidental injury but there were concerns of other
18 issues, but not ABH.
19 MR GARNHAM: Surely, Ms Jones, if you had seriously thought
20 that the doctors had changed their minds about what had
21 been said about belt buckle marks, you would have
22 expected them to say so, not just leave it blank?
23 PC JONES: I did not know if they had changed their minds
24 because what had happened was a nurse had seen these
25 marks and it was for a doctor to now have a look at
123
1 them.
2 MR GARNHAM: But there is nothing in that memo from Quinn to
3 say, "We have looked at these marks and they are
4 explainable by something other than assault", is there?
5 PC JONES: That is because there were no marks for them to
6 explain about.
7 MR GARNHAM: I see. You are saying that --
8 PC JONES: I am not saying there were no marks. The marks
9 were not caused by non-accidental injury.
10 MR GARNHAM: But surely if that were the position you would
11 have expected the doctor to say so, not just say nothing
12 about it? You were making the most enormous assumption,
13 were you not?
14 PC JONES: I would expect, if the doctors had seen something
15 I would expect them to write about it. As they had not,
16 then I would not expect them to write about what they
17 had not seen, if I am making sense.
18 MR GARNHAM: It would have been an assertion that what had
19 previously been prompting the referral to social
20 services was unjustified. You would have expected,
21 would you not, a doctor to say so?
22 PC JONES: No, not necessarily.
23 MR GARNHAM: In any event you cannot conceivably run an
24 investigation of this sort based on your assumptions,
25 can you?
124
1 PC JONES: It was not based on my assumption.
2 MR GARNHAM: You did not check it?
3 PC JONES: It came from the hospital.
4 MR GARNHAM: But you did not phone up and say, "Why have you
5 not addressed the belt buckle marks?" You just assumed,
6 did you not?
7 PC JONES: No, I was quite happy with what I had seen from
8 what Nurse Quinn wrote.
9 MR GARNHAM: When you read what Nurse Quinn wrote did you or
10 did you not assume that that meant Rossiter had reached
11 a conclusion about the physical injuries not being from
12 assault?
13 PC JONES: It was not an assumption, it was what she had
14 written.
15 MR GARNHAM: She did not mention it.
16 PC JONES: That is right, there was nothing to say.
17 MR GARNHAM: So it was an assumption.
18 PC JONES: If she had said -- if there were no belt buckle
19 marks then why would she write about it? Why would she
20 say there is no belt buckle mark? If there was I would
21 expect her to write about it.
22 MR GARNHAM: That is precisely the assumption you make that
23 because she did not write about it she must have
24 considered it and rejected it as a possibility.
25 PC JONES: You can call it an assumption if you put it like
125
1 that.
2 MR GARNHAM: There is nothing else. There is no other
3 proper description of it. It is plainly an assumption.
4 PC JONES: No, it is what there. It is fact. It is what
5 I read. It is not assuming.
6 MR GARNHAM: You proceeded from that understanding of the
7 material to a conclusion that you could forget this as
8 an allegation of crime.
9 PC JONES: There was no evidence at that stage that that
10 crime had taken place. But I went on to speak to
11 Marie-Therese Kouao and then to Victoria.
12 MR GARNHAM: You failed to check with the doctor whether you
13 were right in reading the nurse's notes as you should
14 have done, did you not?
15 PC JONES: No, I would not say I failed to check with the
16 doctor.
17 MR GARNHAM: Did you check with the doctor?
18 PC JONES: No, there was no need to check with the doctor.
19 It was written.
20 MR GARNHAM: No, the whole point is that it was not written
21 and you proceeded on the basis of what had not been
22 written.
23 PC JONES: That is not correct.
24 MR GARNHAM: Tell us what it is then.
25 PC JONES: Well, what was -- I looked at what was written
126
1 and the concerns were about emotional abuse. They were
2 not about non-accidental injury or bruising or anything
3 of that nature.
4 MR GARNHAM: Did you ask Lisa Arthurworrey what she thought
5 of this?
6 PC JONES: We had a discussion about it but I cannot
7 remember fully what it was.
8 MR GARNHAM: You say in paragraph 29 of your statement that
9 you assumed that Lisa had been confused about the belt
10 buckle being the cause of the injuries.
11 PC JONES: Well, I say that because when I saw Lisa on the
12 3rd I thought that she had said that one of the
13 statement or statements had tainted, had said that
14 Victoria had a belt buckle injury and that is why
15 I assumed, that is why I wrote "assumed" in there.
16 MR GARNHAM: Because she had previously mentioned a belt
17 buckle injury and there was nothing in the Quinn
18 statement, you assumed that Arthurworrey must have
19 misunderstood?
20 PC JONES: Yes.
21 MR GARNHAM: Did you talk to her about it?
22 PC JONES: Yes, we sat there, we looked at the statement and
23 we discussed it but I cannot remember exactly what was
24 discussed.
25 MR GARNHAM: Did you say to her, "My goodness, look, all
127
1 those fears you had about belt buckle marks turn out not
2 to be true because the doctor has not mentioned them"?
3 PC JONES: No, I did not say that.
4 MR GARNHAM: Did you say anything to that effect?
5 PC JONES: I cannot remember.
6 MR GARNHAM: Did you ask Lisa Arthurworrey, "There is
7 nothing in here about belt buckle marks; have you got it
8 wrong"?
9 PC JONES: Definitely we would have discussed belt buckle
10 marks.
11 MR GARNHAM: In the light of this Quinn statement you
12 discussed belt buckle marks.
13 PC JONES: I am sure we would have.
14 MR GARNHAM: What did she say to you about it?
15 PC JONES: I cannot remember for sure.
16 MR GARNHAM: Because that issue had been raised at
17 a strategy meeting which you had attended and
18 Lisa Arthurworrey had not.
19 PC JONES: Yes.
20 MR GARNHAM: So was it not incumbent upon you as part of
21 this joint investigation to discuss with her those
22 concerns and how they ought to be regarded in the light
23 of this statement?
24 PC JONES: Sorry, say that again.
25 MR GARNHAM: You had been at the strategy meeting,
128
1 Arthurworrey had not.
2 PC JONES: Right, yes.
3 MR GARNHAM: The belt buckle marks had been raised at the
4 strategy meeting.
5 PC JONES: Yes.
6 MR GARNHAM: You now had a report which you thought disposed
7 of that as an issue.
8 PC JONES: Yes.
9 MR GARNHAM: Did you say to Lisa Arthurworrey, "Well, we
10 discussed belt buckle marks in the strategy meeting and
11 now that is no longer mentioned"?
12 PC JONES: I cannot remember saying that but Lisa would have
13 known about it. She would have known about the strategy
14 meeting.
15 MR GARNHAM: You do recall, according to your statement,
16 exclaiming "This does not say anything".
17 PC JONES: Yes.
18 MR GARNHAM: What was Lisa Arthurworrey's reaction to that?
19 PC JONES: I cannot remember. I think that she was of the
20 same opinion as me. We did not have any evidence.
21 MR GARNHAM: Your understanding was that she too thought
22 that this disposed of the question of physical marks to
23 Victoria's body.
24 PC JONES: Yes.
25 MR GARNHAM: You go on to say in paragraph 30 that the two
129
1 of you decided that an interview with Kouao would be no
2 more than a fishing expedition.
3 PC JONES: Yes.
4 MR GARNHAM: And you say that for two reasons. First, as
5 you put it in your statement, because of what the doctor
6 had recorded in his statement?
7 PC JONES: Yes.
8 MR GARNHAM: I suppose we are now to interpret that as
9 meaning first because of what Nurse Quinn said the
10 doctor had said to her in that memo?
11 PC JONES: Yes.
12 MR GARNHAM: And second the fact that the hospital were
13 satisfied with the explanation provided for Victoria's
14 head injuries?
15 PC JONES: Yes.
16 MR GARNHAM: The basis for your understanding about that,
17 you say, is the observation of Cooper-Bland, is that
18 right?
19 PC JONES: Sorry, I did not get that.
20 MR GARNHAM: The basis for your concluding that the hospital
21 were satisfied about the explanation for the scalds was
22 what you were told by Cooper-Bland?
23 PC JONES: No, I was told at the strategy meeting as well.
24 MR GARNHAM: You tell us that you wanted to hear Victoria's
25 version of events.
130
1 PC JONES: Yes.
2 MR GARNHAM: Why?
3 PC JONES: I just wanted to speak to Victoria as well and to
4 hear what she wanted -- just to hear what she said had
5 happened to her, to find out what she wanted to happen,
6 if she had anything she wanted to speak to me about.
7 MR GARNHAM: Why did you want to find out what she said
8 about what had happened?
9 PC JONES: It could have been that she may have said
10 something different.
11 MR GARNHAM: Than what?
12 PC JONES: Than what Marie-Therese would have told -- had
13 told me.
14 MR GARNHAM: But you had now got evidence as far as you were
15 concerned that there was no evidence of signs of
16 physical abuse?
17 PC JONES: That is right, but if I could get permission
18 there was nothing to stop me from speaking to Victoria.
19 MR GARNHAM: What was going through your mind when you had
20 that thought? Were you still contemplating the
21 possibility that there might be a crime?
22 PC JONES: No, I was not.
23 MR GARNHAM: So why bother to ask Victoria what her
24 investigation of events was?
25 PC JONES: It would not have been harmful, and I could have
131
1 done it. There was nothing to stop me from doing it.
2 MR GARNHAM: But why bother?
3 PC JONES: Just in case it was different. She may have
4 wanted to tell me something.
5 MR GARNHAM: So you were still contemplating the possibility
6 that there was a crime here?
7 PC JONES: I would not put it in that way. I had no
8 evidence of a crime at this stage and that is why I call
9 it a fishing expedition.
10 MR GARNHAM: I am trying to understand what was in your
11 mind. Did you regard the matter of an assault against
12 Victoria as being closed and finished or did you still
13 regard it as something that was still worthy of
14 investigation?
15 PC JONES: No, I regarded it as closed and finished unless
16 further evidence comes to light.
17 MR GARNHAM: And that was what you were going to ask
18 Victoria about?
19 PC JONES: I was just going to speak to Victoria. It might
20 be that from speaking to her something came about.
21 MR GARNHAM: A matter of happenstance, chance?
22 PC JONES: Yes, there is nothing wrong with that. There was
23 nothing wrong with that.
24 MR GARNHAM: But that was the limit of any further
25 investigations you were going to do in this case?
132
1 PC JONES: I also spoke to Marie-Therese. I also visited
2 the ward. No nurse had made any of their concerns known
3 to me.
4 MR GARNHAM: Did you consider the possibility that Victoria
5 might during the conversation you were proposing to have
6 with her have sought to protect Kouao, her "mother"?
7 PC JONES: Yes, children can sometimes do that.
8 MR GARNHAM: So what she said was not going to be definitive
9 of the question whether or not Victoria had been
10 physically abused.
11 PC JONES: No.
12 MR GARNHAM: So again what was the point of the
13 conversation? Just in case she happened to mention
14 something and she had not been threatened or coerced
15 into saying nothing?
16 PC JONES: Well it might be that she spoke freely to me.
17 MR GARNHAM: But she might not have done because she was
18 frightened of Kouao.
19 PC JONES: But she might have done as well.
20 MR GARNHAM: I can see that if she does that might reopen
21 the matter, but if she does not that does not mean you
22 can close it, does it?
23 PC JONES: Unless further evidence comes to light, yes.
24 MR GARNHAM: So the prospect of this little girl's case
25 being investigated turns entirely on whether or not she
133
1 happens to have been coerced into silence?
2 PC JONES: No.
3 MR GARNHAM: And the police will only investigate if it
4 happens that this little girl is brave enough to tell
5 them?
6 PC JONES: No, because sometimes you have different other
7 evidence as well, sometimes you have --
8 MR GARNHAM: But you were not going to pursue the gathering
9 of any other evidence.
10 PC JONES: Well I pursued the gathering of the evidence that
11 I felt I fielded but it was not forthcoming. I never
12 got it.
13 MR GARNHAM: Yes. Sir, would that be a convenient moment?
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed. Ladies and
15 gentlemen we will break until 10 minutes to 2. Ms Jones
16 you must not discuss your evidence with anyone during
17 this break and that includes your advocate.
18 PC JONES: Yes, okay.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: 10 minutes to 2.
20 (1.05 pm)
21 (The short adjournment)
22 (1.50 pm)
23 MR GARNHAM: Sir, before I ask Ms Jones to return to the
24 witness table, there is one matter I should raise.
25 I have mentioned to you sir before the numerous
134
1 pleasures in sitting close to my learned friend for
2 Haringey. Miss Wilson has said that she thinks our time
3 estimate for today is optimistic. Given where we have
4 got to, I think she is probably right. I have as
5 a result asked the second of our two sergeants listed
6 this afternoon to be told that we are most unlikely to
7 reach him and he need not wait. I have warned the first
8 of the two it is possible we may not even get to him.
9 So I am grateful again for that comment.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Garnham. Thank you.
11 MR GARNHAM: Ms Jones, you will recall that before the lunch
12 break we were discussing events of 5th August 1999.
13 PC JONES: Yes.
14 MR GARNHAM: And the occasion of your meeting with
15 Lisa Arthurworrey.
16 PC JONES: Yes.
17 MR GARNHAM: She is going to be called to give evidence
18 later this week and we have a statement from her.
19 I want to read you just two sentences of what she says
20 about this meeting, to get your views on it. She says:
21 "It was agreed between Constable Jones and myself
22 that we were focusing firstly on the recent injury,
23 secondly on old marks that had been observed on
24 Victoria, and thirdly on neglect issues. By neglect
25 issues I mean the matters that were raised in
135
1 Nurse Quinn's fax to me."
2 What I want to suggest to you is that it appears to
3 have been Miss Arthurworrey's understanding that
4 Nurse Quinn's statement focused just on the neglect
5 issues and that there were still the two other matters
6 of the old injuries and the new ones that need to be
7 dealt with. What do you say to that?
8 PC JONES: I say, no, that is not right.
9 MR GARNHAM: Because you say that at the meeting the
10 statement from Nurse Quinn was discussed, and it was
11 apparent to both of you from that that the only thing
12 that was left outstanding was the matters that Quinn
13 deals with.
14 PC JONES: Yes.
15 MR GARNHAM: You maintain throughout your evidence this
16 morning that certainly up until the meeting with
17 Lisa Arthurworrey that day, you believed that the
18 hospital had concluded that the scalding injuries were
19 accidental.
20 PC JONES: Yes.
21 MR GARNHAM: And there had been nothing, as I understand
22 your evidence, at any point along that route up to that
23 day that had suggested the contrary?
24 PC JONES: That is right.
25 MR GARNHAM: Nothing said at the strategy meeting at North
136
1 Tottenham District Office and nothing said to the police
2 otherwise that you were aware of?
3 PC JONES: That is right.
4 MR GARNHAM: I have already suggested to you that we heard
5 evidence to the effect that you at the strategy meeting
6 were told of Dr Forlee's views and you have told me that
7 they were not reported.
8 PC JONES: No.
9 MR GARNHAM: I wonder please if you could have a look at
10 volume 30, at page 8. I put this to you because I want
11 to make it clear I am not just suggesting that it has
12 been said in this Inquiry that those matters were raised
13 at the strategy meeting, but that it is in the minutes.
14 Do you have 30/008?
15 PC JONES: Yes.
16 MR GARNHAM: Under 5.1, "What work needs to be
17 undertaken" -- this is in the notes.
18 PC JONES: Yes.
19 MR GARNHAM: "Forlee, examining paediatrician, expressing
20 concern re previous NAI shaped like belt buckle."
21 PC JONES: I have read that but that was not what was
22 expressed at the strategy meeting and I did not have
23 a copy of this strategy meeting at the time and I do not
24 know when these were written.
25 MR GARNHAM: Go back to the previous page, please, "Current
137
1 Incidents or Concerns". About three-quarters of the way
2 down that paragraph:
3 "Dr Forlee suggests they look like a belt buckle
4 mark."
5 Do you remember I put that to you before? You see
6 it anyway now.
7 PC JONES: I see it, yes.
8 MR GARNHAM: It appears these minutes record what
9 I suggested to you had occurred in the strategy meeting
10 but you would say the minutes are wrong?
11 PC JONES: That definitely was not said in the strategy
12 meeting and also if you -- could I have a look at the
13 document please? Could I have a look at the CRIS report
14 that Sergeant Cooper-Bland opened up? It might be in
15 here.
16 MR GARNHAM: Yes, volume 30 --
17 PC JONES: I think I have found it.
18 MR GARNHAM: I suspect what you are looking for is 131.504.
19 PC JONES: I have found it, thank you. Just give me
20 a moment.
21 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
22 PC JONES: Sorry, it is what I recorded. If you look at
23 30/131.505 at the top I have put here:
24 "At hospital mother told Dr Forlee that on 27th
25 about twelve midday Anna had been itching and went to
138
1 the bathroom."
2 When Dr Forlee came up that was the information
3 I was told she had and not --
4 MR GARNHAM: Not about belt buckle marks?
5 PC JONES: That is right.
6 MR GARNHAM: While we are in those CRIS reports, can you go
7 back two pages, please, to 503. You have just repeated
8 for us that you had never been told that it was
9 suspected that the scalding could have been deliberate.
10 PC JONES: Yes.
11 MR GARNHAM: Have a look, will you, at the second entry on
12 that page just below halfway down. That appears to be
13 the continuation of the note from the top of the page,
14 does it not?
15 PC JONES: You are looking at page 503 --
16 MR GARNHAM: 131.503. At the top of the page there is an
17 entry there which I think is -- sorry, I am looking to
18 see who completed that. Cooper-Bland. Do you see that?
19 PC JONES: Yes.
20 MR GARNHAM: 28th July, is that when he completed it?
21 PC JONES: Yes.
22 MR GARNHAM: Yes, well I am afraid I did not appreciate this
23 at the time, but does the second page on that page, the
24 second half of that page, amount to a continuation of
25 the entry on the first half?
139
1 PC JONES: No -- well, no. That is a completely separate
2 page.
3 MR GARNHAM: That is a separate page?
4 PC JONES: Yes.
5 MR GARNHAM: All right. Tell us about the second page, when
6 was that completed?
7 PC JONES: He would have opened the CRIS report, completed
8 the first page, turned the page over and started
9 completing the next page I would say almost immediately
10 following on.
11 MR GARNHAM: Yes, because what we see there, do we not, and
12 the first line of the second entry on that page I think
13 it is: "Current position ..." I cannot read the next
14 word, "[something] reason".
15 PC JONES: It may be "... holding reason, method."
16 MR GARNHAM: "By suspect as yet unknown pouring hot water
17 over child's head."
18 PC JONES: Yes, I see that.
19 MR GARNHAM: There was at least on the face of that CRIS
20 report an assertion that the scald was deliberate?
21 PC JONES: Well --
22 MR GARNHAM: You are going to ask me to turn over the page
23 and I will take you to that. But so far as I have got,
24 is that correct?
25 PC JONES: Sergeant Cooper-Bland wrote these things. I do
140
1 not know what he was told so I cannot really answer --
2 MR GARNHAM: Did you see that entry?
3 PC JONES: I would have when I returned, yes.
4 MR GARNHAM: You would have known at that stage, at least,
5 it was being suggested the scalding was deliberate?
6 PC JONES: No, because when I attended the strategy meeting
7 I had the first hand information. Sergeant Cooper-Bland
8 had a referral from Shanti Jacobs on the telephone,
9 Shanti Jacobs was not even in the meeting.
10 MR GARNHAM: But it is right, is it not, when you went back
11 to the CRIS report after the meeting you would have seen
12 that was an assertion?
13 PC JONES: I would have seen that, yes.
14 MR GARNHAM: If you go over the page, the description there
15 again by Cooper-Bland I think --
16 PC JONES: Yes.
17 MR GARNHAM: Completed on ...
18 PC JONES: 28th July.
19 MR GARNHAM: 28th July, so the same day?
20 PC JONES: Yes. And if I can just say, he says in his
21 details, in the detailed screen there, that:
22 "Mother saw Anna had poured hot water over her own
23 head to ease the irritation. This explanation was
24 accepted by hospital staff."
25 MR GARNHAM: That was the passage I was going to bring to
141
1 you. So on the face of looking at those two entries,
2 there appears to be a difference?
3 PC JONES: Yes.
4 MR GARNHAM: The first one suggesting it might be an assault
5 by means of hot water being tipped over the head?
6 PC JONES: Yes.
7 MR GARNHAM: The second that Victoria had done it herself?
8 PC JONES: Yes.
9 MR GARNHAM: In any event, you having read those, it would
10 have been apparent there were two different versions of
11 events?
12 PC JONES: No.
13 MR GARNHAM: Why not?
14 PC JONES: I do understand what you are saying.
15 Sergeant Cooper-Bland, and I am sure you will ask me
16 about this, he would have started completing the pages,
17 page 1, page 2 and then he may have come down to the
18 det. screen and information was clear -- I do not know
19 if he was doing this whilst he was on the telephone, and
20 information became clearer and he has put:
21 "This explanation was accepted by the hospital
22 staff."
23 And that is the information I got when I went to the
24 strategy meeting as well.
25 MR GARNHAM: So would you say my questions to the contrary
142
1 are wrong?
2 PC JONES: I would say you would have to speak to Sergeant
3 Cooper-Bland about that.
4 MR GARNHAM: Very well. Let us go back to the meeting which
5 I was asking you about on 5th August. You tell us that
6 Kouao was late for that.
7 PC JONES: Yes.
8 MR GARNHAM: How late was she?
9 PC JONES: Maybe twenty minutes but I cannot say for sure.
10 MR GARNHAM: How long did the meeting last once she was
11 there?
12 PC JONES: I think the meeting must have lasted about an
13 hour. Again I am sorry, I cannot say for sure.
14 MR GARNHAM: Who was present?
15 PC JONES: Lisa Arthurworrey and me and an interpreter.
16 MR GARNHAM: Called ...
17 PC JONES: I cannot remember her name.
18 MR GARNHAM: Was it obvious that Kouao spoke English?
19 PC JONES: Yes.
20 MR GARNHAM: You say that she presented as "acting
21 concerned" about her daughter.
22 PC JONES: Yes.
23 MR GARNHAM: What do you mean by that?
24 PC JONES: Well, what I meant was -- that was based on
25 a feeling that I had, it was not -- she just --
143
1 MR GARNHAM: Gave you the impression --
2 PC JONES: Yes.
3 MR GARNHAM: -- that she was putting on an act?
4 PC JONES: Yes.
5 MR GARNHAM: But you nonetheless resisted the temptation to
6 judge her --
7 PC JONES: Yes.
8 MR GARNHAM: -- on that. Why?
9 PC JONES: Because it would not have been fair to judge her
10 if she was in a strange country, with strange
11 circumstances, social services and police were now
12 interviewing her about Victoria, who had been in
13 hospital. She may have been under stress, things like
14 that; that is why.
15 MR GARNHAM: Why might any of that explain her putting on an
16 act?
17 PC JONES: It might not have been an act. It might have
18 been that I got the whole thing wrong.
19 MR GARNHAM: But is your observation even in those
20 circumstances not a relevant you had to take into
21 account when assessing her evidence?
22 PC JONES: I was not assessing her evidence, I was having an
23 interview with her, verbal interview.
24 MR GARNHAM: What were you doing then?
25 PC JONES: Talking to her, trying to find out what had
144
1 happened.
2 MR GARNHAM: In assessing how much weight you could place on
3 what she said to you, was the fact that your impression
4 was that she was acting not relevant?
5 PC JONES: It may have been. I did not look at it that way.
6 MR GARNHAM: You go on in paragraph 34 to say:
7 "Kouao appeared anxious about Victoria."
8 PC JONES: Yes.
9 MR GARNHAM: But presumably you were cautious about taking
10 that into account, because you had already observed that
11 she appeared to be acting concerned?
12 PC JONES: Sorry, could you say that again?
13 MR GARNHAM: Yes, you note in paragraph 34 that Kouao
14 appeared anxious about Victoria.
15 PC JONES: Yes.
16 MR GARNHAM: But in deciding whether that was a true
17 picture, you would have had in mind the fact that your
18 original impression was that she was acting?
19 PC JONES: Yes.
20 MR GARNHAM: So you would have been somewhat cautious about
21 concluding that she was indeed anxious about Victoria
22 because it might just be part of her show?
23 PC JONES: That may have been, but also I was aware that
24 I may have been wrong.
25 MR GARNHAM: You took notes of the meeting?
145
1 PC JONES: Yes, I did.
2 MR GARNHAM: But they have either been destroyed or lost?
3 PC JONES: Yes.
4 MR GARNHAM: How does that come about?
5 PC JONES: I would have written something -- written my
6 notes down and then transferred it on to the crime
7 report, the CRIS machine and then discarded the notes.
8 MR GARNHAM: It being your habit to do that at that time?
9 PC JONES: Yes.
10 MR GARNHAM: Would that continue to be your habit
11 thereafter? Is it now your habit?
12 PC JONES: Well, no -- well, no.
13 MR GARNHAM: You would not now destroy your notes, would
14 you?
15 PC JONES: No.
16 MR GARNHAM: It is fairly poor practice, is it not?
17 PC JONES: Yes I would agree with that.
18 MR GARNHAM: The same question I asked you in respect of the
19 other occasion you destroyed your note: is the CRIS
20 report we have on this, at page 506 in that bundle, any
21 less detailed than your notes would have been?
22 PC JONES: It may be.
23 MR GARNHAM: It may be but you cannot say?
24 PC JONES: No.
25 MR GARNHAM: You then listened to Kouao's story?
146
1 PC JONES: Yes.
2 MR GARNHAM: Did you check any part of it?
3 PC JONES: Do you have any specific --
4 MR GARNHAM: Yes, say for example her assertion that she
5 arrived from Paris on 24th March 1999.
6 PC JONES: No.
7 MR GARNHAM: Asked for a passport?
8 PC JONES: No.
9 MR GARNHAM: It would have been easy to check that, would it
10 not?
11 PC JONES: She was not a suspect, she was a lady we were
12 speaking to to try to find things out about her
13 circumstances, what had happened to her. It was not
14 like a criminal interview, where I would be checking
15 every detail that she said.
16 MR GARNHAM: If she had been a suspect you would have
17 checked the details?
18 PC JONES: Yes, it would not have been that type of
19 interview anyway if she had been a suspect.
20 MR GARNHAM: So if I ask you whether you checked any element
21 of her story, you will say no, you took it as --
22 PC JONES: As face value, as if I was speaking to a parent
23 about a child who had come to the notice of social
24 services.
25 MR GARNHAM: Was there not any residual concern you had
147
1 about this woman?
2 PC JONES: Can you explain?
3 MR GARNHAM: You have come to a conclusion that the hospital
4 had decided that the scalds were accidental --
5 PC JONES: They had, they did.
6 MR GARNHAM: And you had come to the conclusion that Quinn's
7 memo meant that the doctors thought the other marks were
8 accidental.
9 PC JONES: Yes.
10 MR GARNHAM: But despite those two things, did you have any
11 remaining concerns in your mind that perhaps Kouao was
12 not all she seemed to be?
13 PC JONES: My concerns were that she may have had what
14 I call poor parenting skills, in that she had come over
15 to England from France with little money and with
16 a child as well. She had -- it seemed she had not
17 thought properly -- there was no proper thought process
18 about where she would live or if and when she would get
19 a job. She had not applied for a job before coming.
20 That type of thing.
21 MR GARNHAM: She explained she had taken Victoria to the
22 Central Middlesex Hospital.
23 PC JONES: Yes.
24 MR GARNHAM: And you asked her whether she meant the North
25 Middlesex because you had not heard of the Central
148
1 Middlesex.
2 PC JONES: No.
3 MR GARNHAM: She confirmed she meant what she said, the CMH,
4 did she?
5 PC JONES: Yes.
6 MR GARNHAM: By that stage did you have the CMH notes?
7 PC JONES: No.
8 MR GARNHAM: Did that prompt you to seek them?
9 PC JONES: No.
10 MR GARNHAM: Why not?
11 PC JONES: I was led to believe she had gone to the Central
12 Middlesex Hospital with Victoria because Victoria was
13 itching and was treated for scabies and I took it at
14 face value just it was -- it was just that.
15 MR GARNHAM: Because that is what she told you?
16 PC JONES: Yes.
17 MR GARNHAM: So you were not regarding anything she said
18 with any degree of suspicion?
19 PC JONES: No, because she was not a suspect, I was just
20 asking her.
21 MR GARNHAM: Did what she told you about scabies tally with
22 what you had learned from the A&E Department about
23 scabies?
24 PC JONES: Well, what she told me about scabies is that it
25 was itchy, basically. She did not really go into
149
1 details about scabies and that it was itchy.
2 MR GARNHAM: Paragraph 38 of your statement you say:
3 "[Kouao said] Victoria had poured hot water from the
4 tap onto her head."
5 PC JONES: Yes.
6 MR GARNHAM: Was that consistent with what you had learned
7 from the hospital at the strategy meeting?
8 PC JONES: Yes.
9 MR GARNHAM: Was it ever suggested that boiling water had
10 been tipped onto Victoria's head?
11 PC JONES: No.
12 MR GARNHAM: Or water from a kettle?
13 PC JONES: No.
14 MR GARNHAM: You say that Kouao said she had tried to wipe
15 Victoria's face with cold water and that the skin came
16 off in her hand.
17 PC JONES: She just said the skin came off, yes.
18 MR GARNHAM: Does that sound likely to you?
19 PC JONES: Well, yes.
20 MR GARNHAM: That a mother would treat a child who had
21 scalded herself with very hot water by wiping it with
22 cold water?
23 PC JONES: Yes, I did not think it was -- it sounded likely,
24 yes.
25 MR GARNHAM: You have a child?
150
1 PC JONES: Yes, I have.
2 MR GARNHAM: If he or she suffered a scald would you attempt
3 to wipe the mark?
4 PC JONES: Well, I would not regard my parenting skills as
5 poor as Mrs Kouao's.
6 MR GARNHAM: So you thought that was a poor thing to do but
7 not indicative of anything else?
8 PC JONES: Not everybody knows how to deal with things,
9 about first-aid. I do know a little bit more perhaps
10 than she knew, I do not know.
11 MR GARNHAM: But it did not strike you as a strange thing to
12 do?
13 PC JONES: No.
14 MR GARNHAM: Kouao said to you the incident happened at 3 pm
15 and she and Victoria then walked to hospital.
16 PC JONES: Yes.
17 MR GARNHAM: Did you compare that with what was in the
18 hospital notes?
19 PC JONES: No, as I said before --
20 MR GARNHAM: You were not checking.
21 PC JONES: I did not look at that, no.
22 MR GARNHAM: You would agree, would you not, if you had gone
23 either to the hospital notes or back to the CRIS reports
24 you would have seen that timing was not accurate?
25 PC JONES: Yes.
|
