A Metropolitan Police officer who lied about her newborn daughter’s real father was caught out speaking to her lover by a dog camera in the family home.
Not skilled in surveillance techniques and how to ensure against them then!
The sergeant’s firefighter husband “did not question paternity” when she suddenly announced she was pregnant in January 2022, a gross misconduct hearing was told.But in June of the following year, he logged on to the “doggy cam” while at work and saw her talking to a male colleague on FaceTime. He overheard the word “daddy”. It later emerged she had sent the love rat policeman a Father’s Day card.
/facepalm
When confronted by her husband, the officer said she “had an idea” of the true biological parent - but “wanted an easy life” and hoped her husband “would never find out”. But a disciplinary panel chaired by Matt Simmons heard a midwife nearly gave the game away when she revealed her exact conception date.Officer A tried to convince the nurse this was impossible as her embarrased other half - who attended the 12-week hospital scan - would have been working a night shift so they couldn’t have slept together.Despite their child being born a week earlier than the October due date, he still had no suspicions and agreed there was a physical resemblance.
How naive was he!?
A devastating DNA test revealed the truth in July.
i wonder who requested it..?
Mr Simmons found Officer A wilfully provided false information at the Registry Office about her daughter’s father on November 17, 2022 and again on April 14, 2023 after the marriage. After finding discreditable conduct proved at a gross misconduct level, she was dismissed without notice.
Another vacancy at the Met….
‘…a midwife nearly gave the game away when she revealed her exact conception date.Officer A tried to convince the nurse this was impossible as her embarrased other half…would have been working a night shift so they couldn’t have slept together.’
ReplyDeleteShould be filed under puzzling items - retrospectively calculation conception dates is hardly an exact science and as for ‘sleeping together’ being ‘impossible’ because the husband was working on the night shift….? I suppose someone was struggling to find a suitable way of saying that the couple had not met the necessary conditions for conception for some time either side of the presumed date.
I’m reminded reminded of Terry Pratchett’s fictional night watch:
“Sergeant Colon owed thirty years of happy marriage to the fact that Mrs. Colon worked all day and Sergeant Colon worked all night. They communicated by means of notes. They had three grown-up children, all born, Vimes had assumed, as a result of extremely persuasive handwriting.”
He really is an author much missed…
Delete