UK - Constance Marten & Mark Gordon charged, Newborn (found deceased), Bolton Greater Manchester, 5 Jan 2023 #4

[Skigh]

Moment Constance Marten and her lover's car burns at roadside

Ken Hudson, a van driver who witnessed Marten and her partner Mark Gordon's Peugeot 206 go up in flames, told jurors at the Old Bailey he stopped to help on the M61 in Greater Manchester.

www.dailymail.co.uk

As the car pulled into the hard shoulder, he said he stopped in front of them and phoned 999, asking for the police and the fire service.

He continued: 'As I'm on the phone one person was getting out of the car on the right and one person was getting out on the left on the driver's side and the flames were getting bigger.

'On the passenger side a person got out and ran past me on my right as I was on the phone.

'They ran towards me and to my right and probably stopped about five paces to the back of me.

'As the female ran towards me the person who got out of the driver's side went to the rear of the vehicle, opened the boot of the car and was frantically trying to get things out of the car.

'The fire was getting bigger. The person who got out of driver's side was throwing things over to the barrier that runs parallel with the hard shoulder.

'I was shouting to the person to get away from the vehicle because I could see the flames were getting bigger and bigger.

'The person eventually did move away and into the oncoming traffic on the motorway. I told them to come back into the hard shoulder.

'The person then came towards me and stood to my right as I was looking at the car.

'I then started to record the fire on my mobile phone, and the first response from the gentleman was to ask me: am I filming that?'

Mr Hudson said Gordon then offered to pay him if he gave them a lift to the nearest services, as he asked Marten whether the baby was okay.

He added: 'When the lady ran past me she (the baby) was bundled up in a blanket, and once I stopped filming and turned to look I could see that she was carrying a bundle and at the top was a baby's head - the top of the skull was protruding out slightly.

'The lady said: "She's fine". She said: "You don't need to wait, you can go, we'll be fine now.

'I put my hand on the baby's head and said "God bless, keep safe" and then we got into the van.'

 

[Rolypolyoly]

Yes I don't get the cat litter thing. Also there was no need for them to trash that cottage, even if she did give birth there there was no need to urinate kn the floors or leave it in that state.

I'm wondering if she did give birth at the cottage like she said and the cat litter was to soak up the blood and other fluids from the birth?. I gave birth at home unexpectedly and very quickly and my living room looked like a crime scene, granted I lost a ton of blood and almost needed a transfusion, but a normal birth would still produce a fair bit, and cat litter is very absorbant.

If the reports from witnesses who saw the baby only dressed in a baby grow and without a hat or any covering on her feet are correct she was not getting adequate warmth.

I would have to double check the dates but from memory the date at which the witness saw CM carrying the baby with a 'wobbly head and no hat or socks' was quite a while after they had gone on the run and sadly past the time baby Victoria had passed. I think maybe the witness saw CM carrying a dead baby.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I'm wondering if she did give birth at the cottage like she said and the cat litter was to soak up the blood and other fluids from the birth?. I gave birth at home unexpectedly and very quickly and my living room looked like a crime scene, granted I lost a ton of blood and almost needed a transfusion, but a normal birth would still produce a fair bit, and cat litter is very absorbant.




I would have to double check the dates but from memory the date at which the witness saw CM carrying the baby with a 'wobbly head and no hat or socks' was quite a while after they had gone on the run and sadly past the time baby Victoria had passed. I think maybe the witness saw CM carrying a dead baby.

With the greatest of respect, nobody knows when the baby passed.

I don't think CM would have openly carried a dead baby when she went to such great lengths to conceal her whilst she was actually alive. CM claims she was carrying around a deceased baby in the Lidl 'bag for life' in determination to get an autopsy to prove cause of death. I suspect any time CM was carrying around the baby in the Lidl bag is when she was alive and once the baby had passed, they didn't carry her anywhere except to 'dump' her.

By way of explanation as to why she didn't continue to carry the baby in the bag around if this is the case, CM seems to be saying she stopped carrying the (deceased) baby in the bag because she was too heavy when she (CM) was feeling hungry and week. I suspect CM is the sort of person who has a clever answer for everything and if she truly wanted a pathology report on her deceased baby, nothing and no-one could have prevented her carrying that bag.

JMO MOO

 

[imstilla.grandma]

Yesterday Gordon, 49, revealed for the first time that their 'beloved' daughter Victoria was born in hiding on Christmas Eve at an Airbnb holiday cottage the couple rented in remote part of Northumberland for £367.

His defence lawyer John Femi-Ola, KC, denied his client killed Victoria, claiming the newborn was 'kept warm and dry, and was... well-nourished'.

Constance Marten 'received £19k from trust fund' before going off grid

Constance Marten (pictured), 36, is said to have spent thousands on taxis and hotels around the country as she tried to evade police before resorting to camping in a tent where her baby died.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Rolypolyoly]

With the greatest of respect, nobody knows when the baby passed.

I don't think CM would have openly carried a dead baby when she went to such great lengths to conceal her whilst she was actually alive. CM claims she was carrying around a deceased baby in the Lidl 'bag for life' in determination to get an autopsy to prove cause of death. I suspect any time CM was carrying around the baby in the Lidl bag is when she was alive and once the baby had passed, they didn't carry her anywhere except to 'dump' her.

By way of explanation as to why she didn't continue to carry the baby in the bag around if this is the case, CM seems to be saying she stopped carrying the (deceased) baby in the bag because she was too heavy when she (CM) was feeling hungry and week. I suspect CM is the sort of person who has a clever answer for everything and if she truly wanted a pathology report on her deceased baby, nothing and no-one could have prevented her carrying that bag.

JMO MOO

You're right, nobody knows when the baby died, but the witness saw them in the 19th Feb, they were arrested 8 days later and the baby's body was found 2 days after that. The reports at the time stated that they couldn't tell by eye if the baby was male or female and they would have to wait for the autopsy, would decomp have been so advanced in such a short time as to make the genitalia unrecognisable, especially in freezing temperatures?.

I would also like to think that CM wouldn't carry around a dead baby in her arms, but then I wouldn't like to think she carried her around in a lidl bag either, alive or otherwise.

My post was just speculation though and this is one case where I would gladly be wrong.

 

[JTT]

It's a bit strange that the trial has proceeded in CM's absence, which the judge has told the jury is because she is conferring with her defence team.

Criminal Procedure Rule 25.2(1)(b) states as follows:

The Criminal Procedure Rules 2020

The Criminal Procedure Rules 2020:consolidate the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015, S.I. 2015/1490, with the amendments made by S.I. 2016/120, 2016/705, 2017/144, 2017/282, 2017/755, 2017/915, 2018/132, 2018/847, 2019/143, 2019/1119 and 2020/32; andinclude the further amendments listed beneath.

www.legislation.gov.uk

"(b)the court must not proceed if the defendant is absent, unless the court is satisfied that—
(i)the defendant has waived the right to attend, and
(ii)the trial will be fair despite the defendant’s absence"

If a defendant needs to confer with her team, and she needs an adjournment to do so, that's totally normal and happens all the time. Ditto if the crown counsel needs to confer or take instructions. For a defendant, this comes with their right to organise their defence the best way they can. The judge will facilitate that. There are loads of adjournments during trials, on applications from one side or the other, or because the judge needs a piddle.

If we assume Rule 25.2(1)(b) is being followed, why has CM waived her right to attend, even just for two days? It's not because the evidence presented was uncontested and both sides agreed it could simply be read out - because a number of witnesses have given evidence from the stand while she's been absent.

My guess would be a combination of

1. A massive application from CM being in the offing - perhaps along the lines of such-and-such of the charges should be thrown out right now because the evidence the prosecution says they'll bring simply wouldn't support them even if it were all accepted as true, and

2. CM being scared of having to face her profile being in the media, complete with court drawings (which are unlikely to be complimentary), comments on her clothes and hair, comments saying she doesn't clear up after herself, she pees in bottles, Lidl this, Argos that, a bit more Lidl, the police say she smelled bad, they left that place they stayed in without doing the washing up, she's probably a cult victim, a drug addict, delusional, coercively controlled, a coercive controller herself, paranoid, a conspiracy theorist, a person with a wrong view of vaccination, a moonchild, perhaps she's a hoarder, she's showing contempt for us all by smiling at her co-defendant, she probably wants to save him, she ought to be kept in prison until she can't get pregnant again, she's a lesson for everyone who doesn't engage with authorities when they're told, when she referred to her "love children" she was being ultra-selfish to the point of solipsism, some more Lidl (but surely those big reusable bags "for life" are all pretty much the same regardless of whether they come from Lidl or Waitrose - they're probably all made the same place and then have different liveries printed on them), lots of rubbish, refuse, bins, broken stuff, and urine and all that kind of thing, very little of which is even inventive from a literary point of view. I must have read about 50 different projections on to her over the past few days, although they all boil down to pretty much the same. She's probably not getting much media while she's in prison but she will be hearing some of it. Perhaps it's getting to her? She seems strong, but everyone has weaknesses.

From the transcript: "I've been debating whether to hand myself in, which I wish I did earlier, but the whole media presence and everything is kind of terrifying a little bit."

 

[JennieM]

It's a bit strange that the trial has proceeded in CM's absence, which the judge has told the jury is because she is conferring with her defence team.

Criminal Procedure Rule 25.2(1)(b) states as follows:

The Criminal Procedure Rules 2020

The Criminal Procedure Rules 2020:consolidate the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015, S.I. 2015/1490, with the amendments made by S.I. 2016/120, 2016/705, 2017/144, 2017/282, 2017/755, 2017/915, 2018/132, 2018/847, 2019/143, 2019/1119 and 2020/32; andinclude the further amendments listed beneath.

www.legislation.gov.uk

"(b)the court must not proceed if the defendant is absent, unless the court is satisfied that—
(i)the defendant has waived the right to attend, and
(ii)the trial will be fair despite the defendant’s absence"

If a defendant needs to confer with her team, and she needs an adjournment to do so, that's totally normal and happens all the time. Ditto if the crown counsel needs to confer or take instructions. For a defendant, this comes with their right to organise their defence the best way they can. The judge will facilitate that. There are loads of adjournments during trials.

If we assume Rule 25.2(1)(b) is being followed, why has CM waived her right to attend, even just for two days? It's not because the evidence presented was uncontested and both sides agreed it could simply be read out - because a number of witnesses have given evidence from the stand while she's been absent.

My guess would be a combination of

1. A massive application from CM being in the offing - perhaps along the lines of such-and-such of the charges should be thrown out right now because the evidence the prosecution says they'll bring simply wouldn't support them even if it were all accepted as true, and

2. CM being scared of having to face her profile being in the media, complete with court drawings (which are unlikely to be complimentary), comments on her clothes and hair, comments saying she doesn't clear up after herself, she pees in bottles, Lidl this, Argos that, a bit more Lidl, the police say she smelled bad, they left that place they stayed in without doing the washing up, she's probably a cult victim, a drug addict, delusional, coercively controlled, a coercive controller herself, paranoid, a conspiracy theorist, a person with a wrong view of vaccination, a moonchild, she's showing contempt for us all by smiling at her co-defendant, she probably wants to save him, she ought to be kept in prison until she can't get pregnant again, she's a lesson for everyone who doesn't engage with authorities when they're told, some more Lidl (but surely those big reusable bags "for life" are all pretty much the same regardless of whether they come from Lidl or Waitrose?), lots of rubbish, refuse, bins, broken stuff, and urine and all that kind of thing, very little of which is even inventive from a literary point of view. I must have read about 50 different projections on to her over the past few days. She's probably not getting much media while she's in prison but she will be hearing some of it. Perhaps it's getting to her? She seems strong, but everyone has weaknesses.

From the transcript: "I've been debating whether to hand myself in, which I wish I did earlier, but the whole media presence and everything is kind of terrifying a little bit."

This is a trial to determine whether she is responsible for the gross negligence manslaughter of baby girl Victoria, concealing the birth of baby girl Victoria and perverting the course of justice.

It is not a pity party for Constance.

 

[BaronessWombat]

I also think the cat litter was to help clear up the waste from the birth. They also made an effort to clean the sheets, and took the placenta with them whilst leaving the rest of the holiday cottage in a mess. Their priority was hiding the baby/birth.

 

[QB2022]

Considering the state they left the cottage in, it could have been if it was unfit to live in.

If they were getting chunks of nearly 20K into her bank account at a time. Why on earth were they living in such conditions anyway? Where did all that money go? It doesn't appear that they were on drugs - at least from what I've read.

Has it been established if social services knew about the pregnancy before the car fire?

Is it known if they had 4 kids and they all got removed at once? Or were they successively removed over a couple of years?

It sounds like they were all removed almost immediately

 

[Cardgame]

Re. Her absence from court.

Might her defence team be inclined to blame him?

Could there be a defence that she is scared of him and unable to speak her truth while he is there?

Not saying I believe that, but it seems like an obvious road for her defence to go down given his previous record.

Is the court going to allow this woman with connections-in-high-places to bend the rules that would usually apply to others?

 

[Telltale]

I also think the cat litter was to help clear up the waste from the birth. They also made an effort to clean the sheets, and took the placenta with them whilst leaving the rest of the holiday cottage in a mess. Their priority was hiding the baby/birth.

I don't think she gave birth in the cottage. There's no mention of any blood or fluids from the landlady when she went back there. No way they managed a hole birth without staining any towel, sheet, mattress, flooring, or meticulously cleaned up all trace. Then proceeded to re-trash the cottage in the next couple of days and leave.

It seems they have very poor hygiene and trash every place they live. Even if they intended to conceal it, I can't see them being so thorough thorough there is nothing to indicate it and they got rid of all resulting rubbish.

I think they want to say she was born there because it was the 'nicest' and most stable environment they'd been staying in around that time. They are trying to keep her lifetime to when they were still staying inside. It makes it somewhat easier for them to argue she didn't die of negligence and neglect due to her living conditions if she didn't die in a tent.

 

[Sleepyjean]

Long time lurker and prob won’t post much.

Re the above

The ‘red wine stain’ could be blood?

Also, the reports in the press re their hygiene seem less outlandish when you read the details. Eg the urine on the floor in the holiday home was on the bathroom floor - could be a case of poor aim rather than deliberate. Constance Marten and lover claim they kept baby 'well nourished'

The tent they were living in with ‘bin bags and urine bottles’ - the bin bags were full of clothes - which isn’t a terribly unusual way to store/transit clothing. The urine bottles were outside the tent which is grim, but if you’re living in a tent with no access to a toilet, it’s maybe less antisocial than actually pissing on the ground? Aristocrat and boyfriend 'carried baby around in Lidl bag in fatal runaway bid'

 

[Telltale]

Long time lurker and prob won’t post much.

Re the above

The ‘red wine stain’ could be blood?

Also, the reports in the press re their hygiene seem less outlandish when you read the details. Eg the urine on the floor in the holiday home was on the bathroom floor - could be a case of poor aim rather than deliberate. Constance Marten and lover claim they kept baby 'well nourished'

The tent they were living in with ‘bin bags and urine bottles’ - the bin bags were full of clothes - which isn’t a terribly unusual way to store/transit clothing. The urine bottles were outside the tent which is grim, but if you’re living in a tent with no access to a toilet, it’s maybe less antisocial than actually pissing on the ground?

Depending on the time of year, it's probably warmer for Gordon to piss in a bottle and toss it outside.

Inside cottage 'trashed' by aristocrat and lover before they 'went on run'

Marten and Mark Gordon caused the newborn’s death by living in a tent 'off grid' in the middle of winter, it is claimed.

www.google.com

There's a few pictures of the holiday cottage. It's not a horror show, but it certainly looks like there was no effort to clean up. The fact that they washed the sheets is slightly unusual in light of this, so maybe? - but I still think running the sheets through the wash wouldn't get rid of all traces of a birth, and if it stained the sheets it would also soak into the mattress.

As for the red wine on the bedspread. There is at least a wine glass out in the pictures. I'd go out on a limb and say basically every woman has seen blood on bedsheets at some point in their life. Personally I think you would be able to tell the difference, especially with a few days to dry.

I'm not saying it's impossible, just seems unlikely. Though that does beg the question of where she was born. I haven't heard anything on the prosecution giving a definitive alternative.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I wonder if the baby was born in the cottage and washing the sheets was the cover up. That it wasn't red wine it was watery blood / blooded body fluids?

If the baby came early and was a low weight / small size and CM has given birth many times, it may have been a far easier birth than many speculate. Also, an old wives tale is to eat a hot curry to bring the birth on and it seems they made a curry (however, so did half the country make a curry in December).

In the kitchen bin, there seems to be a red packet that looks very similar colour red to the packs of painkiller that are sold OTC in Boots. Also, there's a white string - now maybe it's off a fruit bag or something but my first thought it was a tampon string! I'm guessing a woman who has just given birth would not use a tampon?

JMO MOO

 

[Parker Knoll]

I had an elected home birth 25 years ago with my daughter.
It certainly didn’t look like a crime scene !
Admittedly I had a midwife with me but still, CM had given birth 4 times previously (I think )
I’m leaning towards her not giving birth in the cottage though.
JMO

 

[Parker Knoll]

No she would need more than a tampon.
She would need thick sanitary pads.

 

[JTT]

Thinking of the possible emotional background here... <modsnip - no such classification> - and the SS take her newborn baby, do they normally allow the mother to take the placenta if she says she wants to?

I'm wondering whether they allow her to remember her child by planting a bush or tree fertilised with the placenta. This is assuming she has somewhere to plant one.

 

[Obergine]

Hi all - long time since I've been on here! So a lot of previous discussion has proved true! It seems that the suspected baby no. 4 was not stillborn though and is also in care now - I hope with a good family and together with siblings <3. My suspicion that a 'conspirituality' issue is also looking highly likely.

I see people have already been asking about the kitty litter (?!) and mess on the hob and whether they were drug related. 19k is a lot to burn through staying staying in Travelodges - even with a few mega taxi rides.

The powder on the hob to my mind could be from cooking crack - which I believe is relatively simple - and crack itself can look like certain brands of kitty litter to the unknowing eye. I also saw that kitty litter can be used to cook meth but that seems to my mind a very complex undertaking in a holiday home.

But surely this would have been described as such by the prosecution...?

Of course, the owners could have cleared away the evidence not realising what it was and it has since not been able to prove if there were drugs there or, if that was established, link it to the couple.

Apologies if I have covered old ground - I have some catching up to do. It's going to be an interesting few weeks.

 

[JTT]

It sounds like they were all removed almost immediately

I thought it sounded like three were removed at the same time (FF, GG, and HH, or bty, dav and cof) and the 4th, II, was about to be removed after she'd given birth in hospital, so she walked out - perhaps after the takers had come into the room, for all we know, or perhaps once she had twigged that the state had rumbled her fake Irish accent and SS officers were already in the building. This got her recorded as a self-discharging child abandoner, <modsnip - no such classification>

^ Speculation

 

[Alyce]

Considering the state they left the cottage in, it could have been if it was unfit to live in.

If they were getting chunks of nearly 20K into her bank account at a time. Why on earth were they living in such conditions anyway? Where did all that money go? It doesn't appear that they were on drugs - at least from what I've read.

Has it been established if social services knew about the pregnancy before the car fire?

Is it known if they had 4 kids and they all got removed at once? Or were they successively removed over a couple of years?

re the children…. Three at the same time…the fourth after CM abandoned her at the hospital.

that’s all MOO