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

[JTT]

Is there a reliable timeline somewhere covering all of the police statements with exact times as well as dates, starting with the arrests?

The police originally arrested CM and MG in the evening of Mon 27 Feb on suspicion of child neglect, and then while they were in custody they arrested them in the afternoon of Tue 28 Feb on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter. At that time the police said they were continuing the search for the baby and that they hoped the baby would be found alive.(Source: here). Then the police announced in the afternoon of the following day, Wed 1 Mar, that they had found a baby's body. (Source: here.)

So between Monday evening when they arrested the couple and Tuesday afternoon when they rearrested them, the police must have received information, found information, or reached a conclusion based on information that they already had, and perhaps also on the length of time for which they had held it, that suggested that the child had died. Suspicion of manslaughter implies that. And this was before they found the body, which they didn't find for another whole day.

It's worth noting that we don't know what that information or reason was. We can reasonably conclude, though, that it didn't include identification of the baby's specific location, because if it did the police who were hoping to find the baby alive would have rushed straight there.

 

[Cuko]

Is there a reliable timeline somewhere covering all of the police statements with exact times as well as dates, starting with the arrests?

The police originally arrested CM and MG in the evening of Mon 27 Feb on suspicion of child neglect, and then while they were in custody they arrested them in the afternoon of Tue 28 Feb on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter. At that time the police said they were continuing the search for the baby and that they hoped the baby would be found alive.(Source: here). Then the police announced in the afternoon of the following day, Wed 1 Mar, that they had found a baby's body. (Source: here.)

So between Monday evening when they arrested the couple and Tuesday afternoon when they rearrested them, the police must have received information, found information, or reached a conclusion based on information that they already had, and perhaps also on the length of time for which they had held it, that suggested that the child had died. Suspicion of manslaughter implies that. And this was before they found the body, which they didn't find for another whole day.

It's worth noting that we don't know what that information or reason was. We can reasonably conclude, though, that it didn't include identification of the baby's specific location, because if it did the police who were hoping to find the baby alive would have rushed straight there.

I haven’t seen such a timeline. However, your reasoning makes perfect sense to me.

 

[JTT]

There was definitely a transcript in a news article and someone linked to it but I think it was in the third thread which is not available at the moment. I just had a quick google and couldn't find the article, but from memory one of them was saying let's leave for London. If I see it again I'll post it here

Any luck with finding this? I have looked hard for it. Can you remember a specific word or phrase from the article? Was the word "transcript" used?

The clearest audio I've found is here:

Aristocrat's lover appears injured with stick and 'without baby' before arrests

Constance Marten and Mark Gordon were further arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter yesterday, as a major police search for a two-month-old baby continues into its second day

www.mirror.co.uk

This shouldn't be too difficult for someone who has a good ear.
The man's words in the first (bagless) part seem to include "next time", "keep in", and "place".
The woman's words in the second (with bags) part seem to include "home to London".

(^IMO)

 

[Nikynoo]

Is there a reliable timeline somewhere covering all of the police statements with exact times as well as dates, starting with the arrests?

The police originally arrested CM and MG in the evening of Mon 27 Feb on suspicion of child neglect, and then while they were in custody they arrested them in the afternoon of Tue 28 Feb on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter. At that time the police said they were continuing the search for the baby and that they hoped the baby would be found alive.(Source: here). Then the police announced in the afternoon of the following day, Wed 1 Mar, that they had found a baby's body. (Source: here.)

So between Monday evening when they arrested the couple and Tuesday afternoon when they rearrested them, the police must have received information, found information, or reached a conclusion based on information that they already had, and perhaps also on the length of time for which they had held it, that suggested that the child had died. Suspicion of manslaughter implies that. And this was before they found the body, which they didn't find for another whole day.

It's worth noting that we don't know what that information or reason was. We can reasonably conclude, though, that it didn't include identification of the baby's specific location, because if it did the police who were hoping to find the baby alive would have rushed straight there.

BBM - not necessarily, the additional arrest could have been for a number of reasons, e.g. strategic - in that they started the custody clock rolling again - the police may have had trouble extending that custody time on the original arrest for child neglect and precision having had time to consult with CPS to ensure that they (the police) were covering all possible scenarios. Don't forget, these were arrests only, not charges.

 

[Nikynoo]

Any luck with finding this? I have looked hard for it. Can you remember a specific word or phrase from the article? Was the word "transcript" used?

The clearest audio I've found is here:

Aristocrat's lover appears injured with stick and 'without baby' before arrests

Constance Marten and Mark Gordon were further arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter yesterday, as a major police search for a two-month-old baby continues into its second day

www.mirror.co.uk

This shouldn't be too difficult for someone who has a good ear.
The man's words in the first (bagless) part seem to include "next time", "keep in", and "place".
The woman's words in the second (with bags) part seem to include "home to London".

(^IMO)

I believe the words spoken were originally deciphered by a couple of WS posters, and it may have been in thread three. I do not think there was an article that deciphered what was said - but at the end of the CCTV it sounded something along the lines of - MG 'shall we go to London then? and the reply was CM 'yes' and then MG said something about the police. I will see if I can find the post, it may have been on thread 2.

 

[Nikynoo]

@JTT here it is on thread 2 - UK - Constance Marten & Mark Gordon & Newborn (found deceased), Bolton Greater Manchester, 5 Jan 2023 #2 *Arrest*

If you look around this post, there are other posts that discuss what could have been heard on the CCTV.

 

[Alyce]

I believe the words spoken were originally deciphered by a couple of WS posters, and it may have been in thread three. I do not think there was an article that deciphered what was said - but at the end of the CCTV it sounded something along the lines of - MG 'shall we go to London then? and the reply was CM 'yes' and then MG said something about the police. I will see if I can find the post, it may have been on thread 2.

the words I remember was when MG asked CM if she had his wallet and she said yes

 

[Nikynoo]

the words I remember was when MG asked CM if she had his wallet and she said yes

You are correct, I got it the wrong way round!

from the previously quoted post

Something like MG "Have you got my wallet?", CM "Yeah", MG "Good", CM "Do you think we should move on to London then?", MG "Yeah...[something, something] police..." from the previously quoted post

 

[JTT]

@JTT here it is on thread 2 - UK - Constance Marten & Mark Gordon & Newborn (found deceased), Bolton Greater Manchester, 5 Jan 2023 #2 *Arrest*

If you look around this post, there are other posts that discuss what could have been heard on the CCTV.

Thank you!

@Obergine writes in that post:

Something like MG "Have you got my wallet?", CM "Yeah", MG "Good", CM "Do you think we should move on to London then?", MG "Yeah...[something, something] police..."

My ear isn't great for these things. I will refer to "W" and "M" for "woman" and "man" because if this video is submitted in evidence it will be up to a jury to decide who they are.

M "Have you got my wallet" <- doesn't sound right
...
W "Do you think we should move on to London then?" <- sounds right
M "Yeah" <- sounds right too
M ... "police" ... <- probably

General feel: W's thoughts on the matter they are discussing will probably carry more weight than M's. (Listen to the way M says "yeah".)

BUT

this feel may be contradicted by something in the earlier video, showing them walk from right to left, without bags. That footage is not in the D Mail article linked from that post, but it's in the D Mirror article I linked to above.

W looks in a hurry. She is practically hopping while she is waiting for M, and then she turns fast and strides onwards when he appears. Of course there are many reasons W might be in a hurry, e.g. she's cold, she's hungry, she needs to pee, her shoes are hurting, she wants to get back somewhere ASAP, her natural pace is fast.

M's words sound awfully like

M "Next time you keep in your place" <- not sure about this, but it could be that

??

 

[Nikynoo]

Thank you!

@Obergine writes in that post:



My ear isn't great for these things. I will refer to "W" and "M" for "woman" and "man" because if this video is submitted in evidence it will be up to a jury to decide who they are.

M "Have you got my wallet" <- doesn't sound right
...
W "Do you think we should move on to London then?" <- sounds right
M "Yeah" <- sounds right too
M ... "police" ... <- probably

General feel: W's thoughts on the matter they are discussing will probably carry more weight than M's. (Listen to the way M says "yeah".)

BUT

this feel may be contradicted by something in the earlier video, showing them walk from right to left, without bags. That footage is not in the D Mail article linked from that post, but it's in the D Mirror article I linked to above.

W looks in a hurry. She is practically hopping while she is waiting for M, and then she turns fast and strides onwards when he appears. Of course there are many reasons W might be in a hurry, e.g. she's cold, she's hungry, she needs to pee, her shoes are hurting, she wants to get back somewhere ASAP, her natural pace is fast.

M's words sound awfully like

M "Next time you keep in your place" <- not sure about this, but it could be that

??

I'll see if my other half can clear up the audio - I still think he's asking about his wallet.

 

[Cuko]

I'll see if my other half can clear up the audio - I still think he's asking about his wallet.

I agree re wallet. “London” is pretty clear also.

 

[JTT]

I agree re wallet. “London” is pretty clear also.

It could be
M "Have you got mine with you?"
W "Yeah".

What do you think about
M "Next time you keep in your place"
in the first footage?

Also in the first footage, does he call her by a first name immediately before what might be those words?

That could be what caused the person with the camera (which is unlikely to be in a doorbell because upstairs) to call the police.

 

[rockthecasbah]

Also in the first footage, does he call her by a first name immediately before what might be those words?

That could be what caused the person with the camera (which is unlikely to be in a doorbell because upstairs) to call the popolice.

I think so. It's a pretty unusual name.

 

[Nikynoo]

It could be
M "Have you got mine with you?"
W "Yeah".

What do you think about
M "Next time you keep in your place"
in the first footage?

Also in the first footage, does he call her by a first name immediately before what might be those words?

That could be what caused the person with the camera (which is unlikely to be in a doorbell because upstairs) to call the police.

I definately think it is 'place' as in are we near this place. I do not think it says what you think otherwise why is she walking in front in both clips (and often in other images that we have seen)?

Yes, 'constance' is quite clear.

OH will try this evening to clean up the audio - can't do it at work. Will let you know how it goes!

 

[JuicyLucy]

BBM - not necessarily, the additional arrest could have been for a number of reasons, e.g. strategic - in that they started the custody clock rolling again - the police may have had trouble extending that custody time on the original arrest for child neglect and precision having had time to consult with CPS to ensure that they (the police) were covering all possible scenarios. Don't forget, these were arrests only, not charges.

Yes, exactly this. DSu Basford announced the further arrests and the fact that, in view of the elapse of time, LE were having to consider the likelihood that the baby had "come to harm" in the afternoon of 28 March at a press conference that was broadcast live on Sky News (among others, no doubt), which I watched.

The main announcement is still available as archive footage (below) but the live broadcast included questions from journalists, including on exactly this point: what was the justification for the additional arrests given that there was no body at that time, to which he replied (iirc) that it was "part of their investigative strategy" - which imo meant that escalating their enquiries in line with the elevated risk to the baby's life was calculated to allow them to reset the PACE clock.

Missing baby search: Couple further arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter as 200 police look for their child

 

[JTT]

After listening to the audio several more times, I've been converted to the

M "Have you got my wallet?"
W "Yeah"

camp.

Later I think it is

W "You feel we should move on to London?"
M "Yeah. It's like the police [possibly a short word here] more naturally there."

Note: the following is not a comment on what anybody involved in this case did or didn't do, or might or mightn't have done.
Using a real (and fairly unusual) name and discussing their further possible movements in a public place, in quite loud voices, would seem remarkable behaviour for fugitives who had previously shown a lot of countersurveillance and evasion knowhow.

 

[JuicyLucy]

After listening to the audio several more times, I've been converted to the

M "Have you got my wallet?"
W "Yeah"

camp.

Later I think it is

W "You feel we should move on to London?"
M "Yeah. It's like the police [possibly a short word here] more naturally there."

Note: the following is not a comment on what anybody involved in this case did or didn't do, or might or mightn't have done.
Using a real (and fairly unusual) name and discussing their further possible movements in a public place, in quite loud voices, would seem remarkable behaviour for fugitives who had previously shown a lot of countersurveillance and evasion knowhow.

I think people generally are not very awake to the massive increase in doorbell and home security cameras, still less the fact that they now have decent audio capability. Makes me want to walk around with a bag on my head tbh.

 

[cliodriver]

To me it sounded like

Have you got my wallet?

Yeah

How much did you take - two…three hundred

Yeah

Funny isn’t it I don’t even hear london

 

[BaronessWombat]

I heard hundred not London too.

 

[wowiezowie]

Sounds like he calls her "Toots" after she says he has his wallet.