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

[Rolypolyoly]

Recap: Constance Marten cross-examined at baby death trial

Constance Marten is to continue giving evidence in the trial centring around the death of her baby daughter

www.theargus.co.uk

OMG...

"Court proceedings were going ahead about her other children.

The hospital said Marten could have a video link but if she left the hospital that would count as "abandoning" her child because there would be difficulty getting back on the ward due to Covid.

"It wasn't an easy decision," said Marten, who said she was trying to get her children back."

So she had to leave the hospital within a day or so of giving birth to try to get her other children back, and officials in NHS posts told her such an action would count as "abandoning" her newborn and...something to do with Covid. One might easily suppose that if it wasn't to do with Covid it would be to do with climate change.

Other officials may have told her that if she didn't attend the event outside the hospital, then it would be even less likely she'd be allowed to keep those children too.

What is a woman whom the state puts in such a position supposed to do?

<modsnip - off topic>

From the evidence as it's been reported, it seems IMO that the idea that CM "abandoned" a newborn in the past is a lie, or what is known as a state truth because it's recorded using that word in a state file.

Those who incline towards the prosecution side in this hearing should note well that the real human individuals in state positions who decided to capture CM and MG's children, and who hunted them with a view to seizing their fifth child as soon as she was born, haven't come to court to explain themselves.

She could have utilised the video link they offered her to attend the proceedings and not left the hospital. It want an either/or situation. She didn't have to choose between her children!.

 

[InstantCoffee]

Where's the evidence for this? Has it been put to her in the witness box so she can give her side?

Yes, it has. She said she didn't trust their safeguarding teams as a reason (whatever that means)
Oh - and she was also offered video link from the hospital to the family court hearing. She chose to go in person when it wasn't necessary.

 

[Nikynoo]

Not that I can, but I object to the cross-examination re the visitation of the other children - how is it relevant to Victoria's death?

 

[DavidAT]

She seems to have a bit of a persecution complex. It might suit her own narrative to believe that the world was against her. But we only have her word for that. She seems to perhaps thrive on being the victim. And even when offered the opportunity to not be the victim, she doesn’t take it. I do think there is a lot of family history that is not being presented here that wouldn’t necessarily entirely support her narrative.

She had to make her own opportunity to give birth in conditions where her newborn baby wouldn't be immediately seized from her by officials.

That's fighting against being a victim. It's not imagining stuff, refusing help, or thinking deluded stuff about the world. It's a very rational way to behave. "If I do X, P will happen. So I will do something other than X."

Perhaps you are right about her family history. I've no idea. But that's certainly speculation, whereas her decision to do something other than X was very down to earth and not based on either speculation or delusion.

 

[Cardgame]

Where's the evidence for this? Has it been put to her in the witness box so she can give her side?

3:49pm

Mr Smith says Marten refused to do a Covid test to be allowed back to her child on the maternity ward.
She said she did not trust the safeguarding teams.

 

[Sherlockhames]

I'm struggling to put it into words, but its like she is living in an alternative state. Deeply traumatised re her family, seems to have skewed her perception of many things.

I get this sense too. But see it more as a persecution complex. That everyone in the world is out to get her. Do we know if it’s actually true for instance that she was hounded by private investigators to the extent they were bugging her phones etc? It could well be true - in which case her family are also as nuts as she is. Alternatively they could have been trying to save her from herself, but she doesn’t see it that way. But I don’t think any of that evidence is admissible in this case - although if I was on the jury these are the questions I would want answers to. And I wonder if many of the “legal matters” that we’ve heard so much about were dealing with this sorts of matters too? JMOO.

 

[Nikynoo]

Yes, it has. She said she didn't trust their safeguarding teams as a reason (whatever that means)
Oh - and she was also offered video link from the hospital to the family court hearing. She chose to go in person when it wasn't necessary.

But she felt it was necessary to attend in person. If it were you, would you have been content with attending such an important hearing via videolink?

 

[Nikynoo]

Yes, it has. She said she didn't trust their safeguarding teams as a reason (whatever that means)
Oh - and she was also offered video link from the hospital to the family court hearing. She chose to go in person when it wasn't necessary.

I would imagine that she wanted to ensure that the safeguarding team were accurately reporting events to the court.

 

[DianaWW]

Yes, I think if I was warned that leaving my baby would be classed as abandonment I would probably have accepted the video link. Weren’t most trials done by video link during Covid anyway? I cannot imagine leaving my new born baby alone in hospital. (Obviously I am not talking about NICU babies here, that’s totally different).

But even so, she could have gone straight back after the court case, taken a covid test and been with her baby. She didn’t need to leave overnight and there is no reason whatsoever not to take a covid test. JMO.

 

[InstantCoffee]

But she felt it was necessary to attend in person. If it were you, would you have been content with attending such an important hearing via videolink?

I would if by going in person it was to be seen as abandonment of my newborn by authorities. Being told you would be classed as having abandoned your baby would trump anything personally. I would also voice in the video link meeting that I wanted to be there in person but could not be as had been told this.
But then even if I had gone in person I would also have been more than happy to have a Covid test on my return, so I'm expecting they would have let me back into the hospital too!

 

[Nikynoo]

I get this sense too. But see it more as a persecution complex. That everyone in the world is out to get her. Do we know if it’s actually true for instance that she was hounded by private investigators to the extent they were bugging her phones etc? It could well be true - in which case her family are also as nuts as she is. Alternatively they could have been trying to save her from herself, but she doesn’t see it that way. But I don’t think any of that evidence is admissible in this case - although if I was on the jury these are the questions I would want answers to. And I wonder if many of the “legal matters” that we’ve heard so much about were dealing with this sorts of matters too? JMOO.

I agree. I also think that there may be something else, which has resulted in (many) changes of counsel. If it is, as you say, a persecution complex, she may have believed that the Trust/Trustees would have had input into those counsel and she may have believed that she or they would not receive a good defence.

 

[DianaWW]

She has this huge distrust of authorities, particularly social services, but then doesn’t turn up to visit her children for four months. Leaving them under the supervision of…the authorities and social services. She’s a walking contradiction, it’s baffling.

 

[wowiezowie]

Not that I can, but I object to the cross-examination re the visitation of the other children - how is it relevant to Victoria's death?

I presume it's being done to show that they aren't as committed to their children as they claim they are. Her grandiose claims they she'd do anything for her children and never hurt them don't reflect her actions, ie missing visitations and then leaving a 4 month gap.

 

[Nikynoo]

Yes, I think if I was warned that leaving my baby would be classed as abandonment I would probably have accepted the video link. Weren’t most trials done by video link during Covid anyway? I cannot imagine leaving my new born baby alone in hospital. (Obviously I am not talking about NICU babies here, that’s totally different).

But even so, she could have gone straight back after the court case, taken a covid test and been with her baby. She didn’t need to leave overnight and there is no reason whatsoever not to take a covid test. JMO.

I agree to some extent, but I do not know what I would have done had I been in her position.

It is obvious that the trial was not remote otherwise why attend in person?

 

[Rolypolyoly]

I would if by going in person it was to be seen as abandonment of my newborn by authorities. Being told you would be classed as having abandoned your baby would trump anything personally. I would also voice in the video link meeting that I wanted to be there in person but could not be as had been told this.
But then even if I had gone in person I would also have been more than happy to have a Covid test on my return, so I'm expecting they would have let me back into the hospital too!

Exactly this!
People seem to be conveniently forgetting that it was her own bad choices that led to her predicament in the first place. Bad choices and mistakes she chose to repeat over and over.
Its not like she was offered no help at all and social services just hovered outside at the foot of her hospital bed ready to snatch the newborn babies before the cord was even cut, for no reason other than they felt like it!.

 

[EricAcaciaAvenue]

She had to make her own opportunity to give birth in conditions where her newborn baby wouldn't be immediately seized from her by officials.

That's fighting against being a victim. It's not imagining stuff, refusing help, or thinking deluded stuff about the world. It's a very rational way to behave. "If I do X, P will happen. So I will do something other than X."

No she didn't "have to do this". She chose to do it because she didn't want her child taken into care, like her other children, as would have been in its best interests.

Whether that makes her guilty of a crime (and if so what) is a different question of course.

 

[Nikynoo]

She has this huge distrust of authorities, particularly social services, but then doesn’t turn up to visit her children for four months. Leaving them under the supervision of…the authorities and social services. She’s a walking contradiction, it’s baffling.

She also has a distrust of her family (or at the very least, some members of her family).

 

[Nikynoo]

I presume it's being done to show that they aren't as committed to their children as they claim they are. Her grandiose claims they she'd do anything for her children and never hurt them don't reflect her actions, ie missing visitations and then leaving a 4 month gap.

But that is still not relevant to the charges. The first four children were not removed because they were neglected.

 

[jackal67]

From car fire onwards:

"She carried the infant under her jacket in a blanket which she made into a sling, she added."

Flower and Dean Walk:

"She said they had ditched a buggy along with a distinctive red blanket because it gave away that they had a baby while they trying to stay under the radar."

Constance Marten fears she’ll never get other children back – latest

Marten and partner Mark Gordon deny gross negligence manslaughter of their daughter Victoria

www.independent.co.uk

I'm interested in how the baby was carried when they left F&DW if not in the bag. Was she carried in a sling made from something other than the red blanket? Certainly CM is swinging both her arms as they walk away after ditching the buggy.

If the prosecution want to say Victoria was in the bag while alive, either on the walk away from F&DW or at any other time, they will have to "put it to" CM that she's lying.

I dont understand, How could her parents prevent her having children with MG she was a grown adult? I get that they didnt approve of him but ??

 

[jackal67]

If you google The Trial Podcast, there are various links, some you don’t need an app for. Just click on a link and select episode 10.

Or try this link. Constance Marten and Mark Gordon: ‘Alternative lifestyle’ | The Trial

thank you will give it a try