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

[BreadnLumpit]

This was with the first baby correct ?

Yes - child FF

That was the placement where she was twice warned about the danger of falling asleep while holding a baby, and she agreed that she understood the danger and eould discontinue the practice.

 

[JennieM]

the cat is fine and was rehomed. It was on one of the podcasts.

if only they had left baby Victoria by the side of the road too… she would be alive and well today.

 

[JennieM]

Forcibly stopping people from having children is a crime against humanity. No other country in the world classifies any woman as unfit to have children or to "produce" them "one after the other" to use your terminology.

Simply put, they are not fit to parent. She can reproduce all she likes but the two of them (CM & MG) will not be allowed to parent - at least not without substantial supervision (SS).

 

[Smccat]

The petrol may have been to make a fire for some heat as they saw baby was not good. By the time she got it, it was too late.
I know it’s not ideal or conducive to hiding out, but they were desperate at that point.
It would never have played out well to admit that.
When cm said mark said to say this or not to admit that, it shows they were trying to protect themselves. So lies are in there .. IMO JMOO

 

[Nikynoo]

The foot muff did come with the buggy, there was an error in the reporting from the Independent I think. The podcast said something like ‘there was no sub zero sleeping bag, there was just a foot muff’, and then went on to add that it was put over her as a way to conceal her and that she wasn’t zipped inside. (Obviously the accusation that they were using it to conceal her is speculation on his part, I don’t think the fact they placed it over her necessarily points to that, and could have just been carelessness).

18.32 mins in on the transcription:

https://podcasts.musixmatch.com/podcast/the-trial-01gw40zm7r6hc08w7jepkajncm/episode/constance-marten-mark-gordon-big-fat-lies-01hvkm8x4ryn7b756mwg9m71y7

Thank you!

 

[Baby baby Jane]

So where did they buy the foot if, as it can clearly be seen in the CCTV?

Sub-zero is a brand of refrigerator- not a buggy foot muff. The podcast says that a foot cover came with the buggy. Argos confirmed that in the area where the buggy was purchased, only one was bought for CASH in that time period. It’s the buggy model brought into court. This buggy was in agreed evidence meaning CM agreed it before trial.
On the witness stand, CM denied it was same buggy but did not offer any other info about the correct model of buggy, or the special “sub zero” foot muff that did not come with that buggy. It’s not a brand name for a muff.
As it she agreed buggy before trial, odd to deny on witness stand.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Massive own goal there.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

The petrol may have been to make a fire for some heat as they saw baby was not good. By the time she got it, it was too late.
I know it’s not ideal or conducive to hiding out, but they were desperate at that point.
It would never have played out well to admit that.
When cm said mark said to say this or not to admit that, it shows they were trying to protect themselves. So lies are in there .. IMO JMOO

That theory makes sense IMO, especially in terms of the suspected time line.

Perhaps - they were so cold and suffering that they realised they'd need to make a fire. By the time this action had been undertaken, the baby was in crisis / passed away and then they couldn't afford to make a fire and bring attention to selves. I can hardly believe 'oh well, lets burn her' would be the thought of any person with a deceased new born. JMO.

 

[jackal67]

There were more than enough grounds for an insanity defence, it seems to me.

they had so many choices.
Buy a house.
Have baby
Stay indoors or out of sight. Pretend it's someone else's if spotted..
That would have bought a lot of time..

Enough to get the child walking and time to regularise their affairs so they could travel to a new country.. assuming their affairs are not particularly egregious..
Educate the child along the way.
Use alt practitioners for his or her meds.. hope no surgery is ever required..

Like the 30 something burner phones did it for me..
When sims would have sufficed.
Everybody knows that..

Even hardened criminals don't run that many devices.
None of this makes sense and she is as much of a stranger now as she was at the beginning.

We know she is vulnerable to mind control- the cult..

It's such a symbiotic relationship..
They're prisoners and jailers of each other..

That's a lot of speculation from me but I can't make it fit.
Anything.
Known or unknown.

If , for example they planned a massive bank hoist- how would that have worked out for them? No children involved?

They never made those choices right from the start. Even before any children were born they were living in a camper van, a tent etc. Why !! She had access to funds ,they could have worked for a living like most have to .
There is no excuse foe ant of their behaviour IMO
Did they ever even want or plan to have a family? Or just couldnt be bothered to use birth control ??
Most expecting their first child are excited spending the 9 months preparing for a newborn, buying all the clothes and equipment needed during this time and doing everything possible to ensure a safe and healthy birth.
THem .They rock up to a hospital at the last moment ,give false identities and are living in a tent!!!

 

[jackal67]

You are incorrect in respect to baby 1. They were living in a tent whilst c was pregnant but moved into accommodation either before or when the baby was born. They were monitored by SS for a period of time and subsequently no longer monitored by SS.

How am I incorrect ? I said they were living in a tent when pregnant with baby 1. They were hoping to get social housing by her pretending to be a traveller remember. Everything else I said is correct the lack of prep for a new baby. CM went into a monitored mother and baby placement with a foster carer.
How is this acceptable behaviour from 2 grown adults .

 

[Nikynoo]

They never made those choices right from the start. Even before any children were born they were living in a camper van, a tent etc. Why !! She had access to funds ,they could have worked for a living like most have to .
There is no excuse foe ant of their behaviour IMO
Did they ever even want or plan to have a family? Or just couldnt be bothered to use birth control ??
Most expecting their first child are excited spending the 9 months preparing for a newborn, buying all the clothes and equipment needed during this time and doing everything possible to ensure a safe and healthy birth.
THem .They rock up to a hospital at the last moment ,give false identities and are living in a tent!!!

Are they mad or bad? It really is quite odd and this has reminded me of something that C said when giving evidence - that she did not choose to live in a tent, that she would prefer the home comforts afforded by living in a house. Was the choice of accomodation for pregnancy 1 of her own choosing or was she trying to be hip (for want of a better word). It seems that they then lived in houses since the birth of FF - why then, decide to live in a tent with Baby Victoria?

I really do think that there are serious MH issues with both, its just a real shame that they could not replicate that glimpse that the family court judge saw all the time.

 

[Nikynoo]

How am I incorrect ? I said they were living in a tent when pregnant with baby 1. They were hoping to get social housing by her pretending to be a traveller remember. Everything else I said is correct the lack of prep for a new baby. CM went into a monitored mother and baby placement with a foster carer.
How is this acceptable behaviour from 2 grown adults .

Apologies, I misread your post.

 

[kittythehare]

They never made those choices right from the start. Even before any children were born they were living in a camper van, a tent etc. Why !! She had access to funds ,they could have worked for a living like most have to .
There is no excuse foe ant of their behaviour IMO
Did they ever even want or plan to have a family? Or just couldnt be bothered to use birth control ??
Most expecting their first child are excited spending the 9 months preparing for a newborn, buying all the clothes and equipment needed during this time and doing everything possible to ensure a safe and healthy birth.
THem .They rock up to a hospital at the last moment ,give false identities and are living in a tent!!!

I just do not know.
My reading was that they wanted to have children.
I don't know where thie 'want' comes from.. a desire to cement their relationship, glue it back together or something deeper, more symbiotic?
She said they have been together for 9 years.
What is the relationship dynamic?
What do they see in each other?

I don't understand any of it.
I wouldn't understand it even if they never had children because there has been zero clarity provided at all.
It's impossible to answer the questions about the children without having some insight into how they saw the world individually and collectively...

What is it that binds them?
What is the positive intention in staying together?
What are the gains?

Does anybody else find this a really tiring case to follow?

 

[jackal67]

I just do not know.
My reading was that they wanted to have children.
I don't know where thie 'want' comes from.. a desire to cement their relationship, glue it back together or something deeper, more symbiotic?
She said they have been together for 9 years.
What is the relationship dynamic?
What do they see in each other?

I don't understand any of it.
I wouldn't understand it even if they never had children because there has been zero clarity provided at all.
It's impossible to answer the questions about the children without having some insight into how they saw the world individually and collectively...

What is it that binds them?
What is the positive intention in staying together?
What are the gains?

Does anybody else find this a really tiring case to follow?

I find it extremely frustrating . So many things that are not clear and probably we will never know the answers too.
I can see the attraction for him ie her looks ,intelligence trust fund etc.
What did she see in him he has none of the above qualities and a criminal history of serious SA !
I think now they will stay together as she has totally burned her bridges with everyone else in her life and I doubt he has support elsewhere.

 

[jackal67]

Are they mad or bad? It really is quite odd and this has reminded me of something that C said when giving evidence - that she did not choose to live in a tent, that she would prefer the home comforts afforded by living in a house. Was the choice of accomodation for pregnancy 1 of her own choosing or was she trying to be hip (for want of a better word). It seems that they then lived in houses since the birth of FF - why then, decide to live in a tent with Baby Victoria?

I really do think that there are serious MH issues with both, its just a real shame that they could not replicate that glimpse that the family court judge saw all the time.

I would like to know where each was living before they met. Where were they living at the start of pregnancy 1 ?
I believe she attended ante natal and said they lived in a camper van? They then moved to Wales and lived in a tent

Perhaps after the children were born they were given social housing?
They seem to have been evicted for non payment of rent in the past and trashing the properties
Some people cant seem to manage to keep a home clean and tidy for whatever reason.
Maybe they didnt want the responsibility of being grown ups.
With her trust fund money they could surely have found a rental property somewhere and set up a proper home
Why did they not find a place to live when first pregnant with Victoria ? Somewhere in an area they were unknown
She had the money but perhaps with past history they could not provide references who knows

 

[Scorpiette]

Was the court in session today? I can't find any reports for today.

 

[bobbymkii]

Was the court in session today? I can't find any reports for today.

nope. they're not back again until Wednesday when the judge will finish summing up and the jury will be sent to deliberate.

 

[BreadnLumpit]

Are they mad or bad? It really is quite odd and this has reminded me of something that C said when giving evidence - that she did not choose to live in a tent, that she would prefer the home comforts afforded by living in a house. Was the choice of accomodation for pregnancy 1 of her own choosing

Her (his/their) own choosing according to evidence disclosed during this trial:

She admitted under cross examination that the trust were buying her a house in early 2017 (child ff was born late 2017) but she refused to sign the sale contracts at the last minute. At the time she claimed her backing out was because of her "career progression", but in court she said it was because she wanted to live in the countryside.

Neither makes any sense - once the house was hers she could have sold it and bought some where rural or rented it out.

IMO she just does stuff to thumb her nose at everyone else (family, convention, societal conventions, SS, authority in general), regardless of whether it impacts her negatively or not, simply because she can.

It reminds me of a family member of mine who was diagnosed with oppositional defiance disorder. Behavior and personality disorders aren't mental illnesses though - some people just behave in ways that make their lives harder, while blaming everyone else for whatever happens.

 

[kittythehare]

Her (his/their) own choosing according to evidence disclosed during this trial:

She admitted under cross examination that the trust were buying her a house in early 2017 (child ff was born late 2017) but she refused to sign the sale contracts at the last minute. At the time she claimed her backing out was because of her "career progression", but in court she said it was because she wanted to live in the countryside.

Neither makes any sense - once the house was hers she could have sold it and bought some where rural or rented it out.

IMO she just does stuff to thumb her nose at everyone else (family, convention, societal conventions, SS, authority in general), regardless of whether it impacts her negatively or not.

It's reminds me of a family member of mine who was diagnosed with oppositional defiance disorder. Behavior and personality disorders aren't mental illnesses - some people just behave in ways that make their lives harder, while blaming everyone else for whatever happens.

.. but she never moved to the countryside, did she? Good point re behaviour and personality disorders not being mental illnesses.

My question is still about what it is about this particular relationship that makes her behave so erratically?

I accept eccentric arty neurotic flighty and those kinds of adjectives for anybody living in an untypical manner but this is a step further.

She made some vague references to a childhood event that changed/altered/affected her..
This can be a real pathology so I'm trying not to sell her short, trying very very hard for a very very long time..

We're never gonna know, are we?

Some 'scandals' might emerge but nothing major, I think.

 

[Nikynoo]

.. but she never moved to the countryside, did she? Good point re behaviour and personality disorders not being mental illnesses.

My question is still about what it is about this particular relationship that makes her behave so erratically?

I accept eccentric arty neurotic flighty and those kinds of adjectives for anybody living in an untypical manner but this is a step further.

She made some vague references to a childhood event that changed/altered/affected her..
This can be a real pathology so I'm trying not to sell her short, trying very very hard for a very very long time..

We're never gonna know, are we?

Some 'scandals' might emerge but nothing major, I think.

I'm not sure either. Photos on her FB show her (and the children) clean and well kept, so I have no idea.