UK - Constance Marten & Mark Gordon charged, Newborn (found deceased), Bolton Greater Manchester, 5 Jan 2023 #6

[Alyce]

The Trial

Listen to episodes and learn more about The Trial. The Trial goes behind the headlines of some of the biggest trials in the world.We take you into the courtroom, bringing you the detail as the evidence unfolds, examining key moments and carrying out exclusive interviews with detectives, victims...

shows.acast.com

Link to The Trial: Episode 10 which has just landed.

That was a very useful Podcast

 

[Willowy]

I'm now finding it difficult to believe their story about how Victoria died too. From the way we've seen them handling her in the CCTV (while she was alive, and after her death), the witness testimonies, SS evidence, and the couple's constant and erractic travel, I'm thinking there's a reasonable chance her death was caused by being physically harmed? Other than the general neglect, and likely being malnourished. Was she dropped? Shaken? The way CM is bundling Victoria into her coat in that footage makes me feel very uneasy.

CM & MG clearly aren't typical, rational people. But it's almost unimaginable that you'd simply accept your baby had died in your arms, and not desperately try to get medical help? I understand they were concerned about SS, and they knew they'd be arrested. But to then dump the body in a shopping bag, with the clear intention of burning it with petrol at some point? The petrol 'cremation' seems an unnecessarily brutal send off for a tiny baby lost so tragically? It all beggars belief imo.

It's desperately sad we may never know what happened to her.

 

[DavidAT]

I don't think that the social worker(s) needed to have a knowledge of tents when they were there to assess the risks to the baby FF.
The tent was assessed as wholly inappropriate for a baby to live in and it was winter and freezing, and the parents were told that.
And yes, I think it probably did put baby FF at great risk and ditto baby Victoria in similar circumstances a few years later.
SS assessed the circumstances and the tent without need of a list of suitable or unsuitable tents.

?? A state official says a tent is of a certain type and therefore bad, and therefore the state should take a child away from his parents, and you don't think the state official should actually have to know anything about this or that type of tent before she cites tent type as a reason?

In this case the official also made it clear she thought some types of tents bow and hold rain, when others don't.

I'm sure she knew what field she had to write her reasons in. That's about as far as I'd go.

<modsnip>

 

[Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc]

For some reason, and I can't find the source right now, but I will add it later if I can, I read it as the falling asleep advice had been given while CM was on a foster placement with the baby, and I at least inferred that it was specifically in reaction to something they had witnessed her doing which they perceived to be unsafe.

ETA: @Alyce has provided the source below, thank you so much!

Thank you, and yes, I saw others had suggested this before me as I was trying to catch up again.
(Constantly trying to catch up as I have a thesis due in several weeks and I have procrastinated and now I am in panic mode)

 

[Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc]

They were already living that way when they had baby number one, FF.

MOO

Thanks. I had not seen the details of the previous tent home revealed in court when I posted that comment. (Perpetual catching up atm)

I was kind of hoping the festival tent with a previous child had been embellished, and twisted in context, but now we have heard the official events, it seems a lot more stark.
I have really tried to give them the benefit that the system and her family had unfairly hounded them.
The prosecution's case regarding the previous children and social services this week has changed my opinion. Yet, I will try and hold off until we have heard everything until I make my own in-house guilt alignment.

 

[iamshadow21]

?? A state official says a tent is of a certain type and therefore bad, and therefore the state should take a child away from his parents, and you don't think the state official should actually have to know anything about this or that type of tent before she cites tent type as a reason?

In this case the official also made it clear she thought some types of tents bow and hold rain, when others don't.

I'm sure she knew what field she had to write her reasons in. That's about as far as I'd go.

<modsnip>

This is in the agreed facts portion of the trial. That means the defense are not disputing any of this at this point.

Cross examination and extra witnesses will come later, when there is something that both sides don't agree on.

MOO

 

[Nikynoo]

?? A state official says a tent is of a certain type and therefore bad, and therefore the state should take a child away from his parents, and you don't think the state official should actually have to know anything about this or that type of tent before she cites tent type as a reason?

In this case the official also made it clear she thought some types of tents bow and hold rain, when others don't.

I'm sure she knew what field she had to write her reasons in. That's about as far as I'd go.
<modsnip>

In the scheme of things, the tent isn’t actually a big deal. At this stage, I don’t think GNM has been proved, but enough evidence has been submitted to prove ‘Causing the death of a child’.

Further evidence from the Prosecution and anything from the Defence will, IMO, only impact sentencing. As the offence occurred after June 2022, the maximum sentence is life.

 

[Nikynoo]

Thanks. I had not seen the details of the previous tent home revealed in court when I posted that comment. (Perpetual catching up atm)

I was kind of hoping the festival tent with a previous child had been embellished, and twisted in context, but now we have heard the official events, it seems a lot more stark.
I have really tried to give them the benefit that the system and her family had unfairly hounded them.
The prosecution's case regarding the previous children and social services this week has changed my opinion. Yet, I will try and hold off until we have heard everything until I make my own in-house guilt alignment.

IMO, it’s the failure to engage with SS that did the most damage.

 

[Cardgame]

IMO, it’s the failure to engage with SS that did the most damage.

But strangely, it was also her fictional and fraudulent attempts to acquire social housing that engaged social services in the first place, if the podcast report is accurate.

If she had simply presented at hospital without an outlandish story and a fake accent, maybe the tent would never have been discovered.

And if she had disclosed her enormous trust fund to social services at that time, they might even have proceeded down a different path.

IF it is true that their accommodations were really the main issue at that time.

I am aware there is a lot of info we aren't party to.

 

[Nikynoo]

But strangely, it was also her fictional and fraudulent attempts to acquire social housing that engaged social services in the first place, if the podcast report is accurate.

If she had simply presented at hospital without an outlandish story and a fake accent, maybe the tent would never have been discovered.

And if she had disclosed her enormous trust fund to social services at that time, they might even have proceeded down a different path.

IF it is true that their accommodations were really the main issue at that time.

I am aware there is a lot of info we aren't party to.

Yes, but my understanding is that SS visited the tent before the 1st child was born, and deemed the tent unsuitable for a baby. A supervision order was in place for that baby once born, and though the timeline is not clear to me during this time, CM and Baby 1 had a mother and baby placement. That supervision order was discharged sometime after that, so the family unit must have made progress in the eyes of SS to enable that discharge.

It seems to me, from last nights podcast, that the defining moment in all of this, was CMs 'accident', which despite her statement to the police (that she had no injuries), required a hospital stay. Her subsequent self discharge from hospital was against medical advice. It was the DV between the parents and the failure to engage with SS (to provide a safe environment for the children) that resulted in the removal of children 1-4.

Whilst I strongly believe that had SS/the police taken a different approach, the outcome may have been different, ultimately, as Victorias parents, both CM and MG had a duty to ensure her safety, even if it meant that she would have been made subject to a care order.

I'm interested to see what the defence produce, but (at this stage) I don't think it will make any difference to the verdict.

 

[Twittens]

?? A state official says a tent is of a certain type and therefore bad, and therefore the state should take a child away from his parents, and you don't think the state official should actually have to know anything about this or that type of tent before she cites tent type as a reason?

Perhaps it was the fact that the tent was full of rubbish and bottles of urine that swung it?

Just a thought.

 

[InstantCoffee]

Live feed is back up today:

Updates as Constance Marten trial continues with baby's post-mortem

Live updates as the trial of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon continues.

www.theargus.co.uk

 

[InstantCoffee]

11:46am

Dr Kerry, giving evidence on the post-mortem, said that while the cause of death was "unascertained", two contending theories for how baby Victoria could have died were "co-sleeping and hypothermia".

Evidence from the PM this morning. CM's Defence keen to promote the idea that CMs falling asleep on Victoria cannot be ruled out forensically. Handy that a PM couldn't be done for several weeks eh!

 

[Nikynoo]

11:46am

Dr Kerry, giving evidence on the post-mortem, said that while the cause of death was "unascertained", two contending theories for how baby Victoria could have died were "co-sleeping and hypothermia".

Evidence from the PM this morning. CM's Defence keen to promote the idea that CMs falling asleep on Victoria cannot be ruled out forensically. Handy that a PM couldn't be done for several weeks eh!

IMO, overall, one or the other does not matter, the end result was the same. I'm surprised that histology couldn't determine which one, but perhaps the pathology is the same/similar. I am more curious as to the estimated time of death as this would more likely support hypothermia if time of death was estimated to be in February, whereas an earlier time of death would (possibly) support CMs version of events.

 

[Amaz0nia]

Making no sense at all seems to be the theme for many of their actions and for much of this case.

CM is coming across as a fantasist and a self entitled blah (not a nice word). So many people with nothing are desperate for social housing and here is a wealthy, educated woman with a tasty trust fund playing games at being homeless it beggers belief that they were selfish enough to even cinsider having children into this environment. The more i read this the more it make me really angry.

 

[Alyce]

12:43pm




Giving evidence, Dr Andreas Marniredes addressed the possible cause of death of co-sleeping.
He said: "The guidance [for co-sleeping] is for parents who live in domestic environments.
"I have never come across any guidance for parents who don't have the baby in domestic environments."

Updates as Constance Marten trial continues with baby's post-mortem

Live updates as the trial of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon continues.

www.theargus.co.uk

 

[EricAcaciaAvenue]

Color me foolish, but why does anyone believe the defendant's story?

Debating and defending an untruth IMO.

They discarded Victoria in a plastic bag and heaped trash upon her.

Baby died of abject neglect.

I put more stock in dehydration, starvation and hypothermia.

She died because they didn't care.

JMO

The problem with this thesis is that (a) they chose to have the baby, (b) they chose to conceal the birth to try to keep her, and then (c) went to great lengths to go on the run from social services. None of that is consistent with a view that they simply didn't care if she lived or died.

That doesn't mean the cause of death is not neglect, but the truth must be must be more nuanced - for example, that they prioritised keeping custody of her and keeping her away from social services, over her actual physical needs and safety.

 

[EricAcaciaAvenue]

I fluctuate between believing that's what happened, (because if it it what happened I still think they are to blame) and believing it was something even worse that they are covering up.

For me the following questions remain unanswered:

1. Why are they pretending they can't remember *where* it happened?

2. Why didn't they call 999?

3. Why were they so keen to hide the body?

JMO.

2 and 3, at least, are quite readily understandable whether they are actually responsible for her death or not.

If a child dies in your care while on the run from Social Services, you know that there is a serious likelihood you will be blamed, whether or not you are actually responsible. If you don't know the cause of death yourself, you may not even know whether you are responsible. There is every incentive not to report that, and to prolong matters for as long as possible to make it difficult to prove the exact cause of death.

Indeed if they are ultimately acquitted because the cause of death can't be proved (certainly a possible outcome) then that strategy would have worked.

Point 1 I'm not sure about. I would have thought it would make sense to agree and tell a coherent story about what happened and when (whether true or not). They don't seem to have anything to gain from giving inconsistent accounts.

 

[Obergine]

More detail on pathology here: Constance Marten’s baby could have died from the cold or co-sleeping, court told

 

[Obergine]

They couldn't really determine age that closely