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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yellowbelly said:
Are they really going to get the conclusion of the cross examination, any defence witness, judge's summing up and verdicts done in two days. I can't see it. This is rolling on into April.
Click to expand...
The judge's summation alone is likely to take more than two days. Meaning that if he starts first thing one morning, even if he could finish the next day it would be too late to send the jury out, so he would leave some of the summation over until the third morning.

I hope she is asked about the window incident. I mean so the jurors can decide how likely they think it is that she is telling the truth, lying her head off, or doing something in between.
 
Last edited:
dalsglen said:
I presume the kids don't get any of the trust upon being adopted?

I'm giving Napier the benefit of doubt, I'm 99% sure my parents would chuck me to the wolves for my kids sake, I bloody hope they would!
Click to expand...
It depends on the terms of the trust in relation to who are beneficiaries and those that are excluded. Either adoption excludes the children being beneficiaries of the trust or it doesn’t.

Adoption cuts the ties between biological parent and child and its is usually the case that adopted children cannot make a claim on their biological parents estate. That does not prevent biological parents leaving that child an interest in the estate though.
 
Maltesepuppy said:
Was there not a report from neighbours saying that CM and MG were heard having heated arguments? Just thinking that maybe there were arguments that raised concerns even before the window incident.
Pure speculation, JMO MOO
Click to expand...
Yes, but if there urgent safeguarding concerns you would want to alert someone immediately, not file an application and affidavit with the court. You would urgently call the police and/or social services.
 
Nikynoo said:
Yes, but if there urgent safeguarding concerns you would want to alert someone immediately, not file an application and affidavit with the court. You would urgently call the police and/or social services.
Click to expand...

Sure, and they may well have done that. We know there was extensive social services involvement. We also know that police and social services are massively underresourced and may not deal with everything as well as one would like.

People often use the civil courts to address things that should be/are also police matters - fraud, antisocial behaviour, harassment etc. Many cannot afford that but it's not regarded as wrong or abnormal to do so if you can.

If you are a wealthy family with serious concerns about your grandchildren, who have the resources, why wouldn't you use the family courts if you think that could improve the position?
 
EricAcaciaAvenue said:
Sure, and they may well have done that. We know there was extensive social services involvement. We also know that police and social services are massively underresourced and may not deal with everything as well as one would like.

People often use the civil courts to address things that should be/are also police matters - fraud, antisocial behaviour, harassment etc. Many cannot afford that but it's not regarded as wrong or abnormal to do so if you can.

If you are a wealthy family with serious concerns about your grandchildren, who have the resources, why wouldn't you use the family courts if you think that could improve the position?
Click to expand...
Because calling the police is quicker!! They will always act immediately if there are serious safeguarding issues.
 
Sherlockhames said:
This is what I would be wanting to know the answer to as a juror. If she felt so desperate as to be compelled to escape in such an extreme fashion then maybe going off grid was sort of kind of justified if the alternative was just having her children stolen. I still think she was negligent in terms of not having the appropriate kit to be sleeping out with her child such that she admitted that to keep her warm enough she had to knowingly fall asleep with her in her jacket. Which is how I think Victoria possibly died. But if the extremes that drive CM there are as unfair as she seems to think they are then I think at least she should get some sentencing mitigation. But I worry for her that by bringing all this up in court and diverging from agreed facts there might be more that is released that is most definitely not in her favour. And since it is all a sideshow to the actual matter that is being tried in court, ie was she or was she not responsible for the death of her death child I fear it’s only going to have made things worse for her - unless what comes out is really quite sensationally awful (in her favour I mean). (Although maybe she’s muddied the waters just enough to get a hung jury/mistrial and more stuff will come out? Although the judge attempting to reign her in for one good (according to the podcast) suggests this might not be a good tactic for her!)
Click to expand...
There are three charges alleging that they allowed harm to be caused: manslaughter, allowing death, and cruelty. The verdicts may not be the same on all three.

If I were on the jury I would like to hear from Napier Marten. The accusation against her family that they accused her of breeding babies to sell on the black market is peculiar. If it's not true about CM then it's a pretty hard-hittingly wacko thing for anyone to say about a family member, and I have heard some people make some very wacko (untrue) assertions about family members. (E.g. one woman when she received divorce papers through the post from the husband from whom she'd been separated for ~20 years strongly suspected it was their daughter who had forged the papers and sent them. She was psychotic as anyone who knew the family well could tell you, but she had never had a diagnosis as such.) Did Napier say this, and if so, when? Perhaps he didn't and another family member said it. Or of course perhaps nobody said it.

Has CM ever had any other children than the five mentioned in this case?
 
Last edited:
Nikynoo said:
IMO, (a) should result in concerns being raised with SS, (b) seems overkill for trust issues, you would change or clarify the class of beneficiaries if needed through trust documents?
Click to expand...
Depending on the terms of the trust the trustees might not have that authority, but there might be a term taking adoptees out of the class they'd otherwise be in and then they'd have little chance of successfully suing in the Chancery Division later.

ETA: Poor old Napier. I am suggesting he may be a control-freak breadhead to the point of being a nutcase, but it's quite possible he isn't any of those three things and is a responsible, sane, decent guy trying to do his best in difficult circumstances. Just pursuing a line of thought - that's all.
 
Last edited:
The Crown Court
at Central Criminal Court


Daily Courtroom List for Monday 25 March 2024​
FINAL 1


Court 5 - sitting at 10:30 am

THE RECORDER OF LONDON​




Trial (Part Heard)

T20237104GORDON Mark A01MP1072723SUSWMCPS
MARTEN Constance01MP1072723

DTA, Order made under Contempt of Court Act 1981

www.courtserve.net​
 
Is it just the Argus or is any other news site covering events in Court 5 live today?
The Independent doesn't seem to be.
 
www.theargus.co.uk

Constance Marten told Mark Gordon to lie to police, court hears

Live updates as the trial of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon is set to resume today.
www.theargus.co.uk www.theargus.co.uk

"[Joel Smith for the crown]: "So the materials such as you had when you first went out into the countryside had become useless?"

Marten [...]: "We lost stuff, we got rid of stuff, we got new stuff. I mean we spent 50 days out there roughly, so yeah." "

She sounds rattled.

They've broken for lunch now.
 

Marten asked about living in shed​


Joel Smith KC, prosecuting, asked Marten about the decision she and Gordon made to live in a shed in allotments off Lynchet Close in Hollingdean, Brighton.




www.theargus.co.uk

Constance Marten told Mark Gordon to lie to police, court hears

Live updates as the trial of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon is set to resume today.
www.theargus.co.uk www.theargus.co.uk
 
Were new sleeping bags found in the shed on March 1, when Victoria's body was discovered ?




Mr Smith asked: "Were the sleeping bags soaked?"

Marten told the court she and Gordon had got rid of them weeks before.

He added: "So the materials such as you had when you first went out into the countryside had become useless?"

Marten hesitated.
She told jurors: "We lost stuff, we got rid of stuff, we got new stuff.
I mean we spent 50 days out there roughly, so yeah."


www.theargus.co.uk

Constance Marten told Mark Gordon to lie to police, court hears

Live updates as the trial of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon is set to resume today.
www.theargus.co.uk www.theargus.co.uk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 181 more.
Total: 2,818 (members: 182, guests: 2,636)

Online statistics

Members online
182
Guests online
2,636
Total visitors
2,818
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
593,755
Messages
17,992,050
Members
229,231
Latest member
Peacebranch
Back
Top