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

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Thank you

Certainly she only said it after the body was found, as they were very tight lipped before then.

I'm not sure exactly when she said it was 9-11 January - though I think it was in police interviews.

They had WEEKS while on the run to come up with a consistent story that they would both tell.

I wonder if some of the things she’s said were to her previous barristers who may have been legally obliged to immediately hand the ‘new’ info over to LE / prosecution ?

 

[JumpingFrog]

I'm not sure exactly when she said it was 9-11 January - though I think it was in police interviews.

According to the Guardian she wasn't sure and settled on 11th January. Other press say 9th, so period 9th-11th seems what we're going with because...i dunno! Either police have told press 9th-11th or they're all running away with the 9th copying each others homework. However of course, CM was spotted by a petrol station CCTV buying petrol on the 12th January.

Baby girl died due to negligent conduct of parents who went on run, court told

Infant carried around in ‘bag for life’ after parents went off-grid in freezing conditions, Old Bailey jurors told

www.theguardian.com

https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2024-01-26/constance-marten-and-gordons-baby-was-warm-dry-and-fed-court-told

 

[Willowy]

Edited to add: Picture 28 of a bag with an Oyster card in has a letter with her name and address. Looks like a parking fine from Croydon Council in 2022.

It seems to be a notice about an unpaid PCN. So the original penalty wasn't paid, and looks like the charge has subsequently increased to what looks like £204.

 

[OliverK]

On the notes, is it “Back channel going (unclear crumpled word)” on the line above the last paragraph on the first page? Then the line above it looks like “Saved water -” (or Watier, which could be a name as it’s capitalised?) but I can’t read the next bit. The envelope behind at the bottom is covered, so can only really make out ‘fight, in, it, lane, I, ready’ reading down the page.

I agree about the other bits, the ‘Believe the narrative’ part annd ‘you’re not worthy’ etc. Also the word sexual being very clear on the page with the phone number at the top.

More likely to be "social worker" (possibly not capitalised, but if capitalised the author may have capitalised the phrase either subconsciously or because they usually do - cf. how many people write "Doctor" even as a common noun; note that they (p=0.9) misspell "believe" as "beleive" twice) - there's too much in the first word for it to be "saved": the "ve" isn't a good match with its occurrence in "narrative" or "believe" if we read the "a" across from "back".

 

[Cardgame]

Thank you

Certainly she only said it after the body was found, as they were very tight lipped before then.

I'm not sure exactly when she said it was 9-11 January - though I think it was in police interviews.

They had WEEKS while on the run to come up with a consistent story that they would both tell.

It's true that they had weeks, even if the baby was alive until well into February.

However, the accusation of causing or allowing a baby to die (if I understand correctly) seems to relate specifically to the time while they were camping on the downs.

They are saying the baby was never alive while they were on the downs, which seems like an astute anticipation of quite a specific and key part of the charges against them.

JMO but the timing of when they say the baby died, is exactly in line, indeed just before, the timeline of the bit they are being accused was most negligent/harmful.

I am wondering when the specific charges were brought, and whether or not legal advice was given before they remembered/revealed the date of the baby passing.

I'm find this a hard thought to articulate. I hope that makes some sense.

 

[JumpingFrog]

It will be harrowing when we do get to this stage, but, it may cast some light on the questioning of when baby passed and what Pauline was stating yesterday for 19th February...we were all pretty much saying that can she have been right, if baby was found badly decomposed on 1st March (11 days after this sighting). Surely when the pathologist stands we have a better idea of times, whether Pauline was incorrect, whether CM was potentially lying about 9th-11th January (JMO). MOO is that for baby to be so badly decomposed on 1st March, 9th-11th January sounds plausible (but of course it doesn't answer how she passed, MOO etc).

 

[OliverK]

It seems to be a notice about an unpaid PCN. So the original penalty wasn't paid, and looks like the charge has subsequently increased to what looks like £204.

The address?

Looks like "[??], The [Course/Copse/?]", London, S-[-] --9"

but the only London streets I have with a two-word name in which the first word is "The" and the outcode starts in "S" and ends in "9" are

The Arcade (SE9)

The Broadway (SW19)

The Crossway (SE9)

The Lawns (SE19)

The Mound (SE9)

The Path (SW19)

The Pavement (SW19)

The Stableyard (SW9)

The Underwood (SE9)

The Vista (SE9)

none of which fit.

 

[CaptainNancy]

From the Argus live feed it looks as if the case has been adjourned until Monday.

 

[OliverK]

It's true that they had weeks, even if the baby was alive until well into February.

However, the accusation of causing or allowing a baby to die (if I understand correctly) seems to relate specifically to the time while they were camping on the downs.

They are saying the baby was never alive while they were on the downs, which seems like an astute anticipation of quite a specific and key part of the charges against them.

JMO but the timing of when they say the baby died, is exactly in line, indeed just before, the timeline of the bit they are being accused was most negligent/harmful.

I am wondering when the specific charges were brought, and whether or not legal advice was given before they remembered/revealed the date of the baby passing.

I'm find this a hard thought to articulate. I hope that makes some sense.

Has either side said where they were between 16 Jan and 16 Feb?

They may not have been on the Downs.

It's also possible they consulted a lawyer, such as a solicitor, during this time.

Daily Mail 28 Feb 2023:

TOM RAWSTORNE: Chance spotting of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon

TOM RAWSTORNE: The massive police hunt ended in the way it had begun - with two people, not three. From the beginning of the investigation, the welfare of the child was the main focus of police.

www.dailymail.co.uk

"Another theory being considered by police is that they were being helped by a third party. While detectives were able to rule out any contact between the couple and friends and family – from whom they were estranged – it was thought that an ‘anti-police’ or ‘anti-establishment’ individual might have been persuaded to help them or provide them with accommodation in exchange for cash.

It was for this reason that Scotland Yard put up a £10,000 reward."

 

[OliverK]

From the Argus live feed it looks as if the case has been adjourned until Monday.

All I can see on the Argus live report is that the jury are to return on Monday. Nothing about an adjournment. Sounds like they're having a legal argument.

 

[rightsaidfred]

It's true that they had weeks, even if the baby was alive until well into February.

However, the accusation of causing or allowing a baby to die (if I understand correctly) seems to relate specifically to the time while they were camping on the downs.

They are saying the baby was never alive while they were on the downs, which seems like an astute anticipation of quite a specific and key part of the charges against them.

JMO but the timing of when they say the baby died, is exactly in line, indeed just before, the timeline of the bit they are being accused was most negligent/harmful.

I am wondering when the specific charges were brought, and whether or not legal advice was given before they remembered/revealed the date of the baby passing.

I'm find this a hard thought to articulate. I hope that makes some sense.

The defence argument is, I think, going to be that she died after only 1-3 nights of camping, and that it was a terrible cot death / SIDS / co-sleeping tragedy, with the camping in cold weather being less than ideal but not the cause.

After all, people go on holiday camping with babies all the time even though tents can overheat in summer; people in Scandinavian countries leave well dressed babies outside in the snow to nap. Perhaps the argument will be that CM's body heat was adequate for survival, and that the same could easily have happened to an exhausted mother who fell asleep on the sofa in a well heated home.

If it was well argued, could I say that it was the cold and neglect that killed her beyond all reasonable doubt? We haven't heard from the pathologist yet, but I don't know if I could.

I'm sure the legal profession hasn't forgotten about the cases affected by Roy Meadow, which saw several mothers wrongly convicted of murdering their babies
Roy Meadow - Wikipedia

MOO

It will be harrowing when we do get to this stage, but, it may cast some light on the questioning of when baby passed and what Pauline was stating yesterday for 19th February...we were all pretty much saying that can she have been right, if baby was found badly decomposed on 1st March (11 days after this sighting). Surely when the pathologist stands we have a better idea of times, whether Pauline was incorrect, whether CM was potentially lying about 9th-11th January (JMO). MOO is that for baby to be so badly decomposed on 1st March, 9th-11th January sounds plausible (but of course it doesn't answer how she passed, MOO etc).

I agree, the pathologist's evidence will be crucial. Unfortunately they aren't half as accurate with time of death as the TV murder mysteries would have us believe - but I hope they can tell the difference between 9-11 Jan and 19 Feb.

 

[Henrymoggington]

From the Argus live feed it looks as if the case has been adjourned until Monday.

The pace of this trail is crazy.. constantly starting late, having breaks..and now only doing 3 days in a week. Is this normal?

 

[CaptainNancy]

On the notes, is it “Back channel going (unclear crumpled word)” on the line above the last paragraph on the first page? Then the line above it looks like “Saved water -” (or Watier, which could be a name as it’s capitalised?) but I can’t read the next bit. The envelope behind at the bottom is covered, so can only really make out ‘fight, in, it, lane, I, ready’ reading down the page.

I agree about the other bits, the ‘Believe the narrative’ part annd ‘you’re not worthy’ etc. Also the word sexual being very clear on the page with the phone number at the top.

The use of words like 'back channel' suggests a certain level of suspicion or else fluency with psycho- speak, as in communicating with hidden messages, collusion ec, and the fragments as a whole suggest to me the type of diary kept by people I know who explore and document their emotional history etc, usually attached to some popular theory or therapeutic approach.

 

[OliverK]

The defence argument is, I think, going to be that she died after only 1-3 nights of camping, and that it was a terrible cot death / SIDS / co-sleeping tragedy, with the camping in cold weather being less than ideal but not the cause.

After all, people go on holiday camping with babies all the time even though tents can overheat in summer; people in Scandinavian countries leave well dressed babies outside in the snow to nap. Perhaps the argument will be that CM's body heat was adequate for survival, and that the same could easily have happened to an exhausted mother who fell asleep on the sofa in a well heated home.

If it was well argued, could I say that it was the cold and neglect that killed her beyond all reasonable doubt? We haven't heard from the pathologist yet, but I don't know if I could.

I'm sure the legal profession hasn't forgotten about the cases affected by Roy Meadow, which saw several mothers wrongly convicted of murdering their babies
Roy Meadow - Wikipedia

MOO



I agree, the pathologist's evidence will be crucial. Unfortunately they aren't half as accurate with time of death as the TV murder mysteries would have us believe - but I hope they can tell the difference between 9-11 Jan and 19 Feb.

"Beyond reasonable doubt" is not a phrase that's used in the English legal system. Jurors are instructed that they must be "sure".

There's no way they can be anything close to sure that Victoria froze, or suffocated, or died from any specific physical cause. The forensic report has made this clear.

The defence will try to get the case on all three harm charges kicked out, I reckon. That could well be what they're doing right now. Looks like whatever legal argument is going on now is expected to last up to two days. (This is of course speculation.)

It is possible for a judge to kick a case out before half time if he "suggests" to the CPS that they drop the charges and they refuse. Rare but it can happen.

If the harm charges fall, I kinda doubt the perversion of justice charge will stay put in sole relation to the non-registration charge. Which leaves the non-registration charge.

Wouldn't surprise me if the CPS already offered a deal to drop manslaughter for a guilty plea on one or two of the other harm charges and were politely told to go forth and multiply. If so, we may never find out. There certainly seems to be a big build-up of harm charges on the indictment, two of which carry a max sentence of life imprisonment.

 

[Willowy]

The address?

Looks like "[??], The [Course/Copse/?]", London, S-[-] --9"

It's The Course. Coldharbour Estate.

 

[CaptainNancy]

The pace of this trail is crazy.. constantly starting late, having breaks..and now only doing 3 days in a week. Is this normal?

I don't think it is especially unusual. It happened in long trial I watched - legal teams needing time and agreeing procedures with the judge (likely as this is a complex case), also I saw one day missed because the key legal team were unavoidably somewhere else for a day, and once because there simply wasn't room within the Old Bailey!

 

[OliverK]

It's The Course. Coldharbour Estate.

Thanks!

Now I will have to go and shake my fist at the providers of that half-***ed street list I spent time with!

 

[Nikynoo]

DBM

 

[bobbymkii]

The pace of this trail is crazy.. constantly starting late, having breaks..and now only doing 3 days in a week. Is this normal?

It's a mixed bag. The Lucy Letby trial, for example was an absolute nightmare for constant delays.

But on the other hand the recent trials for Ashley Dale and Brianna Ghey's murders ran very smoothly and kept to schedule.

 

[Kye Zeeb]

The contents of any used nappies found in/around the burnt out car could be used to determine a possible timescale of when the birth happened. If meconium (black) or yellow stools are present, this can indicate an infant is a certain number of days old. (NCT link at end of post with more information).
With regard to the time passed between Victoria's death and discovery, I would think that an entymologist could help with timings (adjusted for environmental temperature) of an "at least (x) days/weeks since deceased" estimate based on insect life cycles.
It will be interesting to see what the forensic evidence indicates.

Newborn baby poo in nappies: what to expect | Baby & toddler articles & support | NCT

Your baby's nappy can tell you a lot - find out more here.

www.nct.org.uk