UK - Constance Marten & Mark Gordon charged, Newborn (found deceased), Bolton Greater Manchester, 5 Jan 2023 #7

Status
Not open for further replies.

Baby Victoria was caught in the middle of a ‘toxic relationship’, court told​

Mr Little KC tells a packed courtroom that baby Victoria was neglected amid her parent’s ‘toxic relationship’.

Marten, 36, is wearing a white blouse and a plum scarf in the dock alongside Gordon, 49, wearing a blue shirt and navy tie.

Mr Little continued: “This was on the evidence, we say, a self-absorbed relationship between two selfish and arrogant individuals and caught in the middle of that toxic relationship was a baby who was manifestly not cared for properly.
“She was neglected and was exposed to dangerous conditions.
A freezing cold baby girl with just – we say – a single baby grow and one vest. No hat. A hat is never seen, a hat has never been found.”



Mark Gordon’s silence during trial was ‘deafening’, court told​

The prosecutor claimed Mark Gordon “didn’t dare” give evidence because he did not want to face cross examination.

“His silence was, we say, deafening in this case,” Mr Little told the jury.

Referring to Gordon’s police interviews, which were played to the jury at the start of the trial, he said:
“I lost count of the number of times that he told the police that he would leave his version to you and you alone…
“And when his time came to tell you, his jury, what had happened he said absolutely nothing. Nothing. Zip. Nada. Nothing about the death of his own daughter.”



 

Marten is an ‘utterly unreliable’ witness, prosecutor tells jury​

We’re in today’s hearing and just hearing the start of the closing remarks of prosecutor Tom Little KC.

He tells the jury he will reveal “the lies, inconsistencies and fabrications that lie at the heart of the shadow and sham defences” put forward during the trial.
Referring to Constance Marten’s evidence, he told the Old Bailey: “Lies fell from her mouth like confetti in the wind as she gave evidence.
“We suggest that the notion that she is a reliable, let alone honest, witness is risible.
“Her evidence comes with a monumental health warning. She was and is an utterly unreliable witness.”



So the crown is saying she told lots and lots of little lies - "confetti". He might do better if he could nail two big ones. Hopefully the rest of his closing speech will be well reported.

The idea that a witness is not reliable, let alone honest, is a bit weird. Surely reliability is a subset of honesty rather than the other way around?

I wonder whether the crown did a forensic analysis of the video of the defendants walking along after they dumped the buggy? If I were on the jury I'd want to assess the relative likelihood that Victoria was in the bag at that time, rather than being under MG's jacket. As far as we know, the crown didn't adduce such an analysis...but if they had instructed one and decided not to adduce it they still would have had to disclose it to the defence, so...?
 
Last edited:

Baby Victoria was caught in the middle of a ‘toxic relationship’, court told​

Mr Little KC tells a packed courtroom that baby Victoria was neglected amid her parent’s ‘toxic relationship’.

Marten, 36, is wearing a white blouse and a plum scarf in the dock alongside Gordon, 49, wearing a blue shirt and navy tie.

Mr Little continued: “This was on the evidence, we say, a self-absorbed relationship between two selfish and arrogant individuals and caught in the middle of that toxic relationship was a baby who was manifestly not cared for properly.
“She was neglected and was exposed to dangerous conditions.
A freezing cold baby girl with just – we say – a single baby grow and one vest. No hat. A hat is never seen, a hat has never been found.”



Mark Gordon’s silence during trial was ‘deafening’, court told​

The prosecutor claimed Mark Gordon “didn’t dare” give evidence because he did not want to face cross examination.

“His silence was, we say, deafening in this case,” Mr Little told the jury.

Referring to Gordon’s police interviews, which were played to the jury at the start of the trial, he said:
“I lost count of the number of times that he told the police that he would leave his version to you and you alone…
“And when his time came to tell you, his jury, what had happened he said absolutely nothing. Nothing. Zip. Nada. Nothing about the death of his own daughter.”




I didn't think not testifying could be used against him like that? Will the Judge explain that in his summing up or is that not a thing in UK law?
 
I didn't think not testifying could be used against him like that? Will the Judge explain that in his summing up or is that not a thing in UK law?
In court, Gordon’s barrister John Femi-Ola KC told jurors on Monday morning: “I do not call the defendant.”

Judge Mark Lucraft KC, the Recorder of London, confirmed that Gordon has been advised that this is his chance to give evidence in the trial, and that jurors “may draw any inferences as appear proper from his failure to do so”.

 
I didn't think not testifying could be used against him like that? Will the Judge explain that in his summing up or is that not a thing in UK law?

If he had not said anything pre trial, it would not be an issue. But by making those remarks, several times, to the police, about how he would only speak to his Jury, the people who would understand him - he has made it an issue - and it can be referenced in court.
 
I don’t know about anyone else, but despite the length of this trial, it seems somewhat vague in substance. I wonder if a lot more has been disclosed but can’t be reported until after the case? Or maybe this is just my stupidity in thinking the trail would explain more about why they lived such chaotic lives
Their chaotic lifestyle isn't on trial though, so will only be referenced or interrogated where it impacts the case, defence or prosecution.

Also most details about the removal of the other children would not be disclosed.

But plenty was said to indicate some causes of their lack of stable living conditions etc. CM referred to wanting to evade private investigators, declining to keep up contact visits because the contact centre did not have CCTV, their method of finding accommodation to be paid by cash, her family's alleged disapproval of the relationship, her lack of trust in NHS hospitals to support childbirth etc.
 
If anything has been disclosed to the jury that they will find highly relevant, the reason it hasn't been reported is more likely to be that journalists weren't paying much attention, or didn't want to cover it, than a reporting ban.

To judge from what's been in the media, ISTM the crown's case is weak on all three harm charges and the perversion of the course of justice too.
The defence haven't been exactly deafening in their evidence against the charges of concealing the birth of a child.
 

Prosecution claims Marten told ‘big fat lies’​

Mr Little KC accused Marten of “grandstanding on a premier league level” in the witness box.
“Perhaps most gratuitously on her part throwing everyone outrageously under the bus apart from her and her wonderful husband,” he said.
“Everyone is evil and bad apart from her and Mr Gordon in Constance Marten land.”
He told the jury this afternoon he will address a “big fat lies” told by Marten.
“After the break I will deal with what I call a number of big fat lies told by Constance Marten.
They are not white lies, they are not fibs,” he told the court.
“They are demonstrable lies that go to the core of the issues in this case.”




 

Prosecutor shows pram to jurors​

Lead prosecutor Tom Little KC has just brought a pram into the courtoom to show jurors the type that was purchased by the couple for baby Victoria, which he claims exposes an “obvious lie” told by Marten.

He invited jurors to recall Marten’s “indignation” as she insisted the prosecution had the wrong pram – adding it came with “sub zero sleeping bag” and a muff.
“We know it was the only buggy purchased,” Mr Little told the court.
“This is the buggy. It doesn’t have a sub zero sleeping bag. It doesn’t have a muff with a zip.”
He said her version was a “demonstrable lie”, adding: “This is important because the level of warmth the level of clothing the levels of protection is important in this case.”

The buggy was dumped in London shortly after they purchased it because they knew it would not fit inside the small tent they used to camp off grid in Sussex, he added.



 

Prosecutor shows pram to jurors​

Lead prosecutor Tom Little KC has just brought a pram into the courtoom to show jurors the type that was purchased by the couple for baby Victoria, which he claims exposes an “obvious lie” told by Marten.

He invited jurors to recall Marten’s “indignation” as she insisted the prosecution had the wrong pram – adding it came with “sub zero sleeping bag” and a muff.
“We know it was the only buggy purchased,” Mr Little told the court.
“This is the buggy. It doesn’t have a sub zero sleeping bag. It doesn’t have a muff with a zip.”
He said her version was a “demonstrable lie”, adding: “This is important because the level of warmth the level of clothing the levels of protection is important in this case.”

The buggy was dumped in London shortly after they purchased it because they knew it would not fit inside the small tent they used to camp off grid in Sussex, he added.



there was definately a liner for the buggy because we saw it in the kebab shop, didn't we?
 
there was definately a liner for the buggy because we saw it in the kebab shop, didn't we?
I thought the same, but the latest post on the Independent shows the CCTV, and I don't think that there is. I've tried to screenshot but it's clearer on the video itself.1713192637713.png

 
here at 20s
I thought I'd seen something, thank you! So it does have some kind of covering, but not a 'sub-zero sleeping bag'. The prosecutor says this, which I suppose is technically correct as it was just placed over baby Victoria rather than her being inside of it :

“This is the buggy. It doesn’t have a sub zero sleeping bag. It doesn’t have a muff with a zip.”
 

Couple 'lied' about using car seat for baby Victoria, court told​

Lead prosecutor Tom Little KC alleged the couple also lied about using a car seat for baby Victoria, adding the car seat is another “imaginary item” invented by the defendants.
He said there was no car seat found in the couple’s burnt-out car, which they abandoned after it caught fire on the M61 on 5 January.
“Why lie about the car seat unless the impression was meant to be that they were more caring parents than was the reality,” he told the jury.
He later added: “The reality is that Victoria must have been carried around in cars by one or other of the defendants. How is that safe?”




 

Marten admitted she was happy to lie​

Lead prosecutor Tom Little KC reminded the jury that Marten had admitted in evidence that she was willing to lie.
During the six days of her giving evidence during the trial, she said she thought lying was OK on two occasions.

“Twice in evidence she suggested she was happy to lie to protect herself and her family and that’s precisely what she’s doing in this trial,” he told the court.
“She’s told you sometimes you have to lie.”



 
Mr Little said: “A freezing cold baby girl with just a single babygrow and one vest. No hat.”

It was no coincidence the only clothes found by police with Victoria’s body were those she was seen wearing on CCTV, he said.

He said the “freezing cold” baby was heard crying on two nights in January when it was “bitterly cold” and at least a week after Marten claimed she had died.




 

Trump-esque rhetoric’ from Gordon in police interview​

Lead prosecutor Tom Little KC tells the jury that Gordon had referred to having his moment in front of the jury
“on at least 100 occasions” during his police interview in a rant which he described as “Trump-esque rhetoric”.

However, Gordon then decided not to give evidence during the trial.

“Why hasn’t he told you, his jury, what’s happened unless there is a problem,” Mr Little told the court.
He later added: “He must have felt it was better and safer to leave the more articulate liar on her own.”




 
The defence haven't been exactly deafening in their evidence against the charges of concealing the birth of a child.
Indeed. I think that's the offence they're most likely to be convicted of. I'd like to hear what's said in all three closing speeches and the judge's summation about that charge, and what their defence to it consists of, but I doubt this will be reported well because it's fairly "legal" and not sensational.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
196
Guests online
2,152
Total visitors
2,348

Forum statistics

Threads
593,929
Messages
17,995,907
Members
229,277
Latest member
anon123123
Back
Top