UK - Constance Marten & Mark Gordon charged, Newborn (found deceased), Bolton Greater Manchester, 5 Jan 2023 #6

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't see what kind of experts are going to help their case - who on earth would risk their reputation saying what they did was OK?
They may well not have experts who say that what they did was "OK". But it would certainly help their defence if experts said (as they might conceivably do) that (a) while exposing a small baby to such conditions is not optimal, it would be unlikely to be fatal in itself, (b) that cause of death cannot be determined (although I think this is essentially agreed) and/or (c) that co-sleeping is not advised but is in fact fairly common and ultimately the risk is low.
 
Regarding CM pretending to be an Irish Traveller, (because we're still going on about that!) IMO it was to provide a credible reason to the midwives for them not having a home and not having any medical records so that they could disappear quickly after the birth. Obviously, we live in an age of safeguarding not Call The Midwife so that didn't happen.

Lying so they could get social housing was what they said to make it sound slightly better when they were found out. For whatever reason, she wanted a safe hospital birth, but she obviously didn't want any home visits or health visitors involved after the birth so she made something up. I think CM makes a lot of things up.

JMO.
 
I've no idea how well he would come across, or what the likelihood would be that he'd have an impact in either direction on the crown case. Is it even clear that the prosecutor would call him a liar about something?<modsni - sub judice>

It's easy to imagine that the defendants believe CM to be the more intelligent one and that therefore they want her to go first, breaking the alphabetical rule, so that he can hear how she fares and adjust accordingly. Whether she actually is the more intelligent one, who knows?
CM is probably more articulate, but from the exerpts of his interviews, he did seem to have a better vocabulary than I had expected. My take from today, is that he doesn't really believe in their belief system and IMO, he wisely chose not to be caught out in cross-examination. It will be intersting to see if CM does take the stand and how she will fair if she does.
 
They may well not have experts who say that what they did was "OK". But it would certainly help their defence if experts said (as they might conceivably do) that (a) while exposing a small baby to such conditions is not optimal, it would be unlikely to be fatal in itself, (b) that cause of death cannot be determined (although I think this is essentially agreed) and/or (c) that co-sleeping is not advised but is in fact fairly common and ultimately the risk is low.
Surely they’d be bonkers experts, though? They’d be going against NHS and WHO guidance for neonates and young infants to argue long exposure to cold is not a fatality risk or, really, that an adult who was very cold themselves could adequately regulate the body temperature of a neonate or infant.

Equally, CM wasn’t co-sleeping. She was (according to her) accidentally falling asleep holding the baby or sleeping in a tent with a very young baby in an adult sleeping bag between two adults - one of whom was so exhausted she was prone to falling asleep sitting up with no back support or otherwise, and the other who was an equally tired and apparently quite unwell man with health problems who was even more unlikely to sleep lightly. This type of sleeping with a baby is often misrepresented as co-sleeping and is often associated with deaths, so it’s difficult to see how they could disagree with that. It’s not purely this, but the multiple factors - exhaustion, dangerous adult position, no safe mattress, next to two adults (not just breastfeeding mother), extreme cold yet lots of loose warm material and potential of adults wearing sofa stuffing beside baby while sleeping, unconfirmed if baby ever put to sleep on back, unconfirmed if smokers, unconfirmed if adults had drunk alcohol, unconfirmed if low birth weight etc. Lots of mums fall asleep for a moment in a chair while breastfeeding. They tend to be in a suitably heated house with a well-fed, appropriately dressed baby who has had medical assessments at birth. It’s still a risk, but obviously a lesser one due to lesser complexity. (This is often why safe co-sleeping is recommended, though, and less so breastfeeding chairs for night time.) The most complex situations where co-sleeping rules aren’t safely followed tend to be the most risky.

I’m really struggling to see how any medical expert can persuade me against the reasons that medical guidance is put in place - it’s essentially a catalyst of risks. They may well confirm no medical expert can tell how Victoria died, but to me, all they’re confirming is that the parents who wished for a post mortem let Victoria decompose to a point where that was impossible - all JMOO, of course.

At this point, it wouldn’t surprise me if they came in to testify that soil really does preserve a body. I don’t envy the jury. I hope they’ve heard far more than has been reported to us.
 
CM is probably more articulate, but from the exerpts of his interviews, he did seem to have a better vocabulary than I had expected. My take from today, is that he doesn't really believe in their belief system and IMO, he wisely chose not to be caught out in cross-examination. It will be intersting to see if CM does take the stand and how she will fair if she does.
I would have to comb through everything he's said to give examples, but it's struck me from the start that MG speaks a sort of 'officialspeak' that does not scan like normal spoken language. More like repeating buzz words and phrases used by SS and LE etc. and more like the written than the spoken word - in other words literally - a complete facade, the language is not his own.CM does much of the same too.
Both hiding from the law, homeless, but 'parenting' the 'well-fed' Victoria in a tent in the freezing cold, then desiring 'an autopsy' as opposed to wanting to know what caused her death.
I don't think there is a clue to his own thoughts anywhere in what he says, and there is no way to win a discussion or an argument with someone like him. Where he doesn't have an answer he will deflect and distract and refuse, and where he has no defence he will accuse and blame, I cannot imagine that he would ever see himself as being in the wrong, I do not think it possible to reason with him.
 
I would have to comb through everything he's said to give examples, but it's struck me from the start that MG speaks a sort of 'officialspeak' that does not scan like normal spoken language. More like repeating buzz words and phrases used by SS and LE etc. and more like the written than the spoken word - in other words literally - a complete facade, the language is not his own.CM does much of the same too.
Both hiding from the law, homeless, but 'parenting' the 'well-fed' Victoria in a tent in the freezing cold, then desiring 'an autopsy' as opposed to wanting to know what caused her death.
You've put into words the same feeling I was getting but couldn't think how to describe
 
Surely they’d be bonkers experts, though? They’d be going against NHS and WHO guidance for neonates and young infants to argue long exposure to cold is not a fatality risk or, really, that an adult who was very cold themselves could adequately regulate the body temperature of a neonate or infant.

Equally, CM wasn’t co-sleeping. She was (according to her) accidentally falling asleep holding the baby or sleeping in a tent with a very young baby in an adult sleeping bag between two adults - one of whom was so exhausted she was prone to falling asleep sitting up with no back support or otherwise, and the other who was an equally tired and apparently quite unwell man with health problems who was even more unlikely to sleep lightly. This type of sleeping with a baby is often misrepresented as co-sleeping and is often associated with deaths, so it’s difficult to see how they could disagree with that. It’s not purely this, but the multiple factors - exhaustion, dangerous adult position, no safe mattress, next to two adults (not just breastfeeding mother), extreme cold yet lots of loose warm material and potential of adults wearing sofa stuffing beside baby while sleeping, unconfirmed if baby ever put to sleep on back, unconfirmed if smokers, unconfirmed if adults had drunk alcohol, unconfirmed if low birth weight etc. Lots of mums fall asleep for a moment in a chair while breastfeeding. They tend to be in a suitably heated house with a well-fed, appropriately dressed baby who has had medical assessments at birth. It’s still a risk, but obviously a lesser one due to lesser complexity. (This is often why safe co-sleeping is recommended, though, and less so breastfeeding chairs for night time.) The most complex situations where co-sleeping rules aren’t safely followed tend to be the most risky.

I’m really struggling to see how any medical expert can persuade me against the reasons that medical guidance is put in place - it’s essentially a catalyst of risks. They may well confirm no medical expert can tell how Victoria died, but to me, all they’re confirming is that the parents who wished for a post mortem let Victoria decompose to a point where that was impossible - all JMOO, of course.

At this point, it wouldn’t surprise me if they came in to testify that soil really does preserve a body. I don’t envy the jury. I hope they’ve heard far more than has been reported to us.

Since the specifics of baby Victoria's death are not known and cannot be forensically determined, IMO (and IANAL), it is verging on recklessness and outrageous for any expert to come forwards and speculate on what may or may not have happened in defence. Especially when we already have the statement from CM, the only person who was holding the baby at the time.

Also, what cases would an expert witness compare with? Other couples on the run who camped out in the middle of a freezing winter and fell asleep but their baby *didn't* die? Perhaps the expert has experience of analysing infant mortality rates in mothers and babies of desperate situations such as displaced persons, homeless populations, poverty stricken or starving peoples, hostages, war torn countries etc. We shall have to wait and see.

JMO MOO
 
He sounds grandiose and pompous.

From the transcript of his police interviews. When he is accusing them of not treating him with respect and trying to evade giving answers.

“I know my rights” bluster.
I was particularly taken with him lying down on the floor then complaining that he was fed up of 'being looked down on'.
But unfortunately I can't find him funny at all.
 
They may well not have experts who say that what they did was "OK". But it would certainly help their defence if experts said (as they might conceivably do) that (a) while exposing a small baby to such conditions is not optimal, it would be unlikely to be fatal in itself, (b) that cause of death cannot be determined (although I think this is essentially agreed) and/or (c) that co-sleeping is not advised but is in fact fairly common and ultimately the risk is low.

I'm not sure I find it conceivable tbh.

a) surely they wouldn't be an expert if they said that, since it's common knowledge that it *can* be fatal and you don't even need to be an expert to know it

B) didn't the pathologist already say this?

C) CM wasn't practising Co sleeping, and however much the defence want to pretend that she was, id be dubious of any expert who said it's "low risk" to fall asleep on top of a newborn baby who is zipped up inside your coat.

TBH I don't really fancy being zipped inside a coat while someone who weighs 15 times my body weight falls asleep on top of me :(

For me that's the equivalent of being slept on by a 900lb human.

Do you even have to be a baby for that to be dangerous?!
 
@Observe_dont_Absorb Yes, you're right. I can only think of a few corresponding cases, but drugs and alcohol were involved in those too and all were deemed unsafe for multiple factors including living situation. One was the couple featured in Protecting Our Children (Marva and Shaun - Ep2, I think). There are differences, but a couple with multiple children removed who had been living in a tent and were very removed from society.

Equally, I’m not sure desperate situations are a good comparison. Most parents try desperately to access the food and shelter they can for children, seeking whatever scant medical care is available when it’s available and the death rates are high. You’re right, we’ll just have to wait and see.

@Schlitze Is that a confirmed thing? I thought he came across as extremely self-focused and as disruptive via manipulation, but it was difficult to hear enough of anything to understand how intelligent he was because it was so focused around his immediate needs/wants. He’s obviously had a disrupted education, but that doesn’t mean someone’s unintelligent.

I do agree with parroting heard phrases though, the ‘well-fed’ and the ‘warm and dry’ - for both of them. Usually when someone has done these things, it’s a more natural phrasing. The ‘warm and dry’ always stood out to me as I’ve many memories of soggy camping trips where we were well-prepared with waterproofs and a good tent. JMOO.
 
They may well not have experts who say that what they did was "OK". But it would certainly help their defence if experts said (as they might conceivably do) that (a) while exposing a small baby to such conditions is not optimal, it would be unlikely to be fatal in itself, (b) that cause of death cannot be determined (although I think this is essentially agreed) and/or (c) that co-sleeping is not advised but is in fact fairly common and ultimately the risk is low.
Regarding a) and c), the prosecution could be expected to go Bayesian and ask the jury to consider the likelihood of fatality in the absence of "such conditions" or co-sleeping. Not that that would necessarily clinch it, given that no answer to "What's most likely to have happened?" is sufficient to produce sureness of guilt. Femi-Ola, FitzGibbon, and Lucraft can all be assumed to be up on the appeal court's second decision in the Sally Clark case.


Re. co-sleeping, there's a big difference between having a light nap or doze next to a baby and falling asleep next to them absolutely dog tired.
 
Shortly after he's arrested, when the police officer repeatedly asks "Where's the child?" and "Where's your child", does MG reply "I'm not guilty"?

Start at 00:17 here:

He says "Can I have my food please?" and then says "Can I have some food please?" in a weaker voice. The Miami accent may make it sound a little different.
 
Last edited:
Regarding a) and c), the prosecution could be expected to go Bayesian and ask the jury to consider the likelihood of fatality in the absence of "such conditions" or co-sleeping. Not that that would necessarily clinch it, given that no answer to "What's most likely to have happened?" is sufficient to produce sureness of guilt. Femi-Ola, FitzGibbon, and Lucraft can all be assumed to be up on the appeal court's second decision in the Sally Clark case.


Re. co-sleeping, there's a big difference between having a light nap or doze next to a baby and falling asleep next to them absolutely dog tired.
Sally's case is the one that haunts me the most. This was a case of medical evidence not being part of the original prosecution and the case of 'expert' testimonies that the second (and probably the first baby) both died by shaking. The 'expert' testimony was later found to be flawed and Sally was released on appeal.

Sally never recovered from her ordeal of being found (wrongly) guilty of killing her babies.
RIP Sally, I think of you often.
 
Sally's case is the one that haunts me the most. This was a case of medical evidence not being part of the original prosecution and the case of 'expert' testimonies that the second (and probably the first baby) both died by shaking. The 'expert' testimony was later found to be flawed and Sally was released on appeal.

Sally never recovered from her ordeal of being found (wrongly) guilty of killing her babies.
RIP Sally, I think of you often.

Absolutely this.

Professor Meadow has a lot to answer for.

RIP Sally x
 
My take on these two. Constance lost 4 kids and then got irrational in her head thinking what was best for her new born Victoria.

Gordon was not a voice of reason (mabe he tried) but it seems he just went with the flow.

A classic example of two people who were the worst for each other..

IMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
186
Guests online
3,312
Total visitors
3,498

Forum statistics

Threads
595,757
Messages
18,032,780
Members
229,761
Latest member
Loria4mi5
Back
Top