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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc said:
RBBMFF
... class.
It's not behaviour; it has to do with class.
The British class social system has been in place for centuries.
Yes, CM's brother married a person of colour, but if you read the 'Vogue' like article, you will read that the bride was from a wealthy family that was close 'family friends' from when they were six years old.
MG came from a Windrush Generation family moving to Britain from the Caribbean after WWII.
He was not from a wealthy family.
He was then taken to the U.S. when he was young, then from the age of 14, lived in the penal system. After he had served his time, he was deported back to a country he did not remember.
He was not from a wealthy family.

This has nothing to do with colour and everything to do with class.
Click to expand...

I don't think CM's family's distaste for MG can be blamed purely on class, I grew up in a working class family, living in a council house. I gaurantee you y mother wouldn't be rolling out the welcome mat and sticking the kettle on for a registered sex offender.

That's not class, that's parenting!.
 
Baby baby Jane said:
For example, finding it unlikely that CM’s family, hired people, thru Private Investigators, to tamper with their 14 vehicles to get them to explode. If they wanted to get them killed, think the hired specialists would realise the exploding cars weren’t working, no way would try it 14 times, or even two times. What purpose do exploding cars serve her Family?
It’s possible her whole family is as wacky as she, and maybe they are hiring people to blow up every car.
IMO they are not maintaining vehicles, or else doing non-standard maintenance which is dangerous. Anyone else in this chat have dozen cars go on fire/explode??
Click to expand...

Maybe she's got a Princess Diana conspiracy complex going on? There were plenty of people (and still are) who thought Diana was taken out because of her lifestyle and preferences etc. Is she trying to imply she's in a situation of a powerful family wanting to protect themselves from being sullied by an inappropriate love interest simply on the basis of someone's skin colour?

If so, that's not going to fly because a) her family might (have been) wealthy / socialites / tenuously connected to the royal family but they're not some powerful institution; b) they're not royalty or even any distant relative of royalty; c) the house has long gone; d) the big money has gone; e) the relevant ancestors who played with the royals are now deceased; f) there's zero indication the family are prejudiced and evidence they aren't. So she's got a couple of trust funds, that's what averagely wealthy people do with their money, it's not an indicator of anything exceptional and not a reason why a person would be 'taken out' of their bloodline in some undercover plot LOL

JMO MOO
 
Cherwell said:
I think she meant that she didn't know if it was a ferry port. Not all ports have passenger ferries, eg Southampton used to but no longer does.

I haven't been following this case closely so have just been skimming through.
Click to expand...

JMO but anyone who knows the first thing about traveling to Ireland knows that the Hollyhead to Dunlaoghaire ferry is a major route. Most Brits know inherently that Liverpool is Ireland adjacent JMO MOO
 
ShadowPuppet said:
Its worth remembering though that children almost always have to be removed to investigate an allegation, so the removal isn’t evidence in itself. Most allegations against foster carers are false and it means the child goes through more disruption for no reason.

I hope, for the children’s sake, they weren’t being abused. It’s unlikely, but not impossible. I think if all of what CM says is true it would be a truly astounding case and life - hunted by private detectives who sabotage their cars in repeated attempts to kill them, driven into poverty whilst fleeing a traumatising aristocratic family, seeking an alternative lifestyle and wrongly judged after accidentally falling from a window and culminating in permanent removal following abuse within care. It seems highly unlikely, again not impossible, but JMO that I think the truth is in between. I don’t doubt there were family traumas and we perhaps don’t know the half of that, I don’t doubt she suffered in the cult or that she loved her children and was devastated to have them removed. I do, however, doubt that their relationship is honey and flowers and that she could show her children love through consistent parenting that understood the importance of a safe non- violent environment. I think they’ve both come across as being difficult to engage with at different points and the abuse allegations could be part of that, as it is for many birth parents. It’s difficult to know without clear confirmation.

(I haven’t listened to the podcast yet, so assuming it wasn’t confirmed by anyone by CM?)
Click to expand...
I was just reporting what was on the podcast. As CM is still testifying, if there are any defence witnesses, they will be called when she has finished.
 
DavidAT said:
www.theargus.co.uk

Recap: Constance Marten cross-examined at baby death trial

Constance Marten is to continue giving evidence in the trial centring around the death of her baby daughter
www.theargus.co.uk www.theargus.co.uk

OMG...





DavidAT said:
Those who incline towards the prosecution side in this hearing should note well that the real human individuals in state positions who decided to capture CM and MG's children, and who hunted them with a view to seizing their fifth child as soon as she was born, haven't come to court to explain themselves.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
DavidAT said:
Those who incline towards the prosecution side in this hearing should note well that the real human individuals in state positions who decided to capture CM and MG's children, and who hunted them with a view to seizing their fifth child as soon as she was born, haven't come to court to explain themselves.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that if CM or her defence had requested them to do so, they would have willingly explained how they would like to have saved Victoria's life if given the chance.
 
DavidAT said:
www.theargus.co.uk

Recap: Constance Marten cross-examined at baby death trial

Constance Marten is to continue giving evidence in the trial centring around the death of her baby daughter
www.theargus.co.uk www.theargus.co.uk

OMG...

"Court proceedings were going ahead about her other children.

The hospital said Marten could have a video link but if she left the hospital that would count as "abandoning" her child because there would be difficulty getting back on the ward due to Covid.

"It wasn't an easy decision," said Marten, who said she was trying to get her children back."

So she had to leave the hospital within a day or so of giving birth to try to get her other children back, and officials in NHS posts told her such an action would count as "abandoning" her newborn and...something to do with Covid. One might easily suppose that if it wasn't to do with Covid it would be to do with climate change.

Other officials may have told her that if she didn't attend the event outside the hospital, then it would be even less likely she'd be allowed to keep those children too.

What is a woman whom the state puts in such a position supposed to do?

<modsnip - off topic>

From the evidence as it's been reported, it seems IMO that the idea that CM "abandoned" a newborn in the past is a lie, or what is known as a state truth because it's recorded using that word in a state file.

Those who incline towards the prosecution side in this hearing should note well that the real human individuals in state positions who decided to capture CM and MG's children, and who hunted them with a view to seizing their fifth child as soon as she was born, haven't come to court to explain themselves.
Click to expand...
RBBM

This is because the courts that made the decisions on those Care Orders did so on the evidence provided not just by Social Services, but all the other professionals involved with the family and the children's independent guardian. Social Workers do not remove children, courts do. Only a judge can make a care order. Should the judge be in court to defend their decision making??
 
BackseatDriver said:
I don't think so. She chose time and time again to live as though in poverty despite having access to thousands of pounds (this was true before any SS input - prior to children they were living in the tent with urine filled bottles IIRC). I don't think money has ever been a factor IMO
Click to expand...
I don't think it would have been CM who wanted the money for herself.
If it was for someone else that could explain the unpaid rent etc.
 
Lucy6226 said:
RBBM

This is because the courts that made the decisions on those Care Orders did so on the evidence provided not just by Social Services, but all the other professionals involved with the family and the children's independent guardian. Social Workers do not remove children, courts do. Only a judge can make a care order. Should the judge be in court to defend their decision making??
Click to expand...
A professional is someone who is paid to do a job, and a tighter definition is someone who belongs to an association and is insured on that basis. If it's part of CM's case that such individuals lied, and given that we know that their actions had an effect on what happened even if this is not to deny CM's responsibility for her own actions, then she ought to be able to have them brought to court so that they can be cross-examined and have it put to them that they lied and otherwise acted wrongly. She should be able to put her case, yes? CM's contention is that the system is corrupt, which presumably involves accusations of SS lying and corruption and may also involve accusation of the use of "professional loser" lawyers, as has been alleged by others who have criticised the system. What's the problem with that? The same applies even if 10 or 20 paid officials ("Paid Officials"?) said stuff against CM on oath. If a system is corrupt it should be got rid of... How can that happen if victims are not allowed to argue in court that it is corrupt? If it is not corrupt then fine, come to the witness box and answer the questions and show the jury that it's not corrupt. Better that than an apology from the social security minister for 10000 cases, issued in year 2074, that couldn't be issued earlier because of deference to professionalism, or the priesthood, or indeed to anyone. It is similar to if someone accused of say shoplifting wishes to accuse a police officer of lying. That doesn't mean the police officer lied. The police officer may have been honest all the way through. But the defendant ought to be able to put their case. Remember that a judge is allowed to take it into account when sentencing if he believes a defendant has been taking the p***.
 
Last edited:
crespo29 said:
Going back over the case, I think I have worked out how the spilt between Constance and her family may have come about. The Grandmother died in 2010, I think she was the anchor for the family. Constance's father seemed to go off the rails and passed on the estate to his eldest son Max. Constance was the oldest child but possibly things were said about her being like her father, possibly going off the rails. She had the reputation of a wild child and come under the influence of a cult in Africa, so maybe Private Eyes were tracking her to dig up more dirt. Who was the one to profit from this? Max her younger brother, and he wanted to sell the estate whereas Constance thought that it was her beloved grandmother who wanted to keep it. I think she fell out big-time with Max.
Click to expand...
Inheritance tradition in “aristocrat” families is for estate and title go to oldest male, not first born. Selling was probably practical decision as maintaining those homes nearly impossible without regular large income. Not to mention “transfer” duties on the value of the property, and contents. A huge chunk likely required to be sold to pay the taxes, which may have driven decision to sell entire estate. If it’s true, that the brothers who had properties “bought for them”, could be that they had been given properties of the estate when father transferred it and they were replaced.
Not sure if transfers at death would have been more tax effective, as father is still alive this transfer could a been a costly unplanned mess.
No idea what provisions / conditions were for CM.
The sale was probably unavoidable given taxes due on transfer to son.
 
11:41am

Marten says 'I am an excellent mother'​

Marten is being questioned about her plans to smuggle her baby daughter abroad.
She said: "I wasn’t able to register her because they would take them away.
"She deserves to be with me. I am a good mother, I am an excellent mother and she deserves to be with me."
11:31am

Marten 'can't give exact time frame' of when she found out she was pregnant​

Marten is being cross-examined by prosecutor Joel Smith.
She has been asked when she found out she was pregnant with baby Victoria, her fifth child with Gordon.
Marten said: "It was between March and May 2022. I can't give you an exact time frame.
"I was in Greenwich. I was fighting to get my children back which were stolen by the state."
_________________________________________________________________________________________

I feel as though CM has come back 'all guns blazing'. She has had a weekend to ponder on the questioning put to her in cross examination last week and get the feeling her anger is building up.
I really don't think it will do her any favours though. There is a complete and obvious lack of self-awareness!
 
11:54am

Marten planned to pay someone to smuggle her child​

Joel Smith, prosecuting, asked: "You wanted to find someone and pay them to smuggle your child abroad?"
Marten confirmed and said she would like to use a nanny.
Mr Smith asked: "Do you think nannies take money to smuggle people abroad?"
Marten said: "Where there’s a will there’s a way.
"There are plenty of people you can find. You can go and live with them and see how they look after people.
"You can find people online on gumtree. You can see how they take care of children."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus! Is she actually saying in a court of law that she would be happy to find someone on Gumtree to look after her child and smuggle them abroad! And yet she is an 'excellent mother'. It just gets more and more bizarre. Gumtree is a known cesspit of sharks looking to make a quick buck. She's insane - my last shred of any sympathy just vanished!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 157 more.
Total: 1,812 (members: 158, guests: 1,654)

Online statistics

Members online
158
Guests online
1,654
Total visitors
1,812
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
595,795
Messages
18,034,275
Members
229,780
Latest member
ambermotko
Back
Top