UK - Constance Marten & Mark Gordon charged, Newborn (found deceased), Bolton Greater Manchester, 5 Jan 2023 #7

[Baby baby Jane]

I'm even wondering if MG set the car on fire??

Perhaps in a final act of thwarting them leaving the country - after all he can't actually go anywhere without there being a formally notified 'man hunt' with the intention to return him to prison to serve the rest of his sentence.

If there's really been sabotage of vehicles, how much could be down to him? Also they had fire / smoke damage issues in their rented house before being evicted did they not?

Plus it was him who suggested they all set themselves alight (if that is to be believed).

Bit of an arsonist / pyromaniac perchance?

Insurance scammers?

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Insurance scammers?

Personally I'm not sensing taking insurance policies out in the first place is their kind of thing (bureaucracy) and that the cars possibly weren't insured.

Although they did get towed on the first breakdown and weren't pulled over for document checking, so maybe!

 

[Baby baby Jane]

Interesting tidbit in there that she claims she believes the car issue was a mechanical failure and now believe MG was right that it was a detonation.

One car just stops, then the second, then a third, and fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, etc ….. at what point do you just STOP buying cars ?

And, are these jokers paying car insurance in cash? Using fake address for vehicle documents and insurance? If they think phones that have removable batteries protect them from “private investigators” do they think cars are not traceable? In UK, law enforcement can locate any car quickly with the thousands of traffic cameras. Are they using fake plates and driving uninsured?

 

[bobbymkii]

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

Episode 14 has just landed.

So Joel Smith is now "the lead prosecutor" ?? What happened to Little Casey?

Even the Crown's barristers aren't immune from the Bermuda Triangle effect of this case!

 

[Skigh]

So Joel Smith is now "the lead prosecutor" ?? What happened to Little Casey?

Even the Crown's barristers aren't immune from the Bermuda Triangle effect of this case!

Since it is over running Little Casey could possibly have to be in court for another case. Or he has a holiday booked.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

One car just stops, then the second, then a third, and fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, etc ….. at what point do you just STOP buying cars ?

And, are these jokers paying car insurance in cash? Using fake address for vehicle documents and insurance? If they think phones that have removable batteries protect them from “private investigators” do they think cars are not traceable? In UK, law enforcement can locate any car quickly with the thousands of traffic cameras. Are they using fake plates and driving uninsured?

What with the alleged mystery accidents, breakdowns, explosion and multiple incidents of being bugged and tracked, I think these two are the safest they've ever been = on remand!

I don't understand how they weren't being pulled over for checks if they were flaring ANPR / traffic cameras or driving uninsured. Maybe CM was transferring ownership and paying top whack insurance premiums to boot? But at what addresses? If they were homeless?

JMO MOO

 

[JennieM]

Constance Marten 'not prepared to take gamble with social services'​

Constance Marten in court (Image: PA)

Constance Marten said she would prefer her baby daughter to have gone into care than die while on the run.

Marten told the Old Bailey she was “not prepared to take the gamble” of putting newborn Victoria through the social care system after her previous four children were taken away from her.

But she said if she had known her daughter would die while she and boyfriend Mark Gordon were on the run, she would have preferred for her to go into care.

Giving evidence while being cross-examined, Marten said: “There are foster carers who are doing it for money. For a lot of these carers it’s a career – children are given no hugs and you wonder why there are these issues.

"She [Victoria] had her whole life ahead of her.

"I would have preferred her to go into care and have her life [if she had known Victoria would die] but I wasn't prepared to take that gamble."

On-the-run mother 'would have given daughter to carers if she knew she would die'

Constance Marten said she would prefer her daughter to have gone into care than die while on the run.

www.theargus.co.uk

 

[rockthecasbah]

What with the alleged mystery accidents, breakdowns, explosion and multiple incidents of being bugged and tracked, I think these two are the safest they've ever been = on remand!

The PIs can finally have a break!

 

[Kye Zeeb]

I can't fathom her.
If she believes even half of what she's saying I'd guess there's some significant cognitive impairment going on. We'll likely never know if she was born like it or it's a result of illness, trauma or even brain injury.
If she doesn't believe it then she's completely deluded if she thinks the jury and judge will accept her word for it.
I do increasingly have the feeling that MG is the follower here and not the leader though.

The type of brain injury that, say, a fall from a window could possibly cause? Just speculation on my part.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

The type of brain injury that, say, a fall from a window could possibly cause? Just speculation on my part.

I'm sensing it's more 'personality' / 'psychiatry' than a physical trauma injury to the head but I am no medical doctor.

JMO MOO

 

[Schlitze]

Well consider me in the camp that 100% believes she was on drugs and tried to sell her kids on the black market. That is the ONLY logical thing I've heard come out of this court case yet

I would tend to agree, it's the only thing that makes sense. This is why she would want MG to stay quiet and let her do the talking, he appears to be a simpleton and could potentially give the game away if he speaks. As I see it he was essentially a sperm donor

 

[porkypies]

I'm even wondering if MG set the car on fire??

Perhaps in a final act of thwarting them leaving the country - after all he can't actually go anywhere without there being a formally notified 'man hunt' with the intention to return him to prison to serve the rest of his sentence.

If there's really been sabotage of vehicles, how much could be down to him? Also they had fire / smoke damage issues in their rented house before being evicted did they not?

Plus it was him who suggested they all set themselves alight (if that is to be believed).

Bit of an arsonist / pyromaniac perchance?

I think that's an interesting idea.
I think he is the one in charge, and using a 'sort of' gaslighting perhaps.
So perhaps feeding her own already held suspicions and fears, by making things go wrong and further alienating her from friends and family would be a good idea.
I don't think she needs him as much as he needs her, she has the money and therefore more choices but is more fragile, she could be a great front woman, the looks, the education, the money, the acting, and then comes the dependence which is cultivated, and it looks the other way round?
Her money and vulnerability? would be a massive magnet to someone with little prospects.
It may not be incidental that he did not appear defend himself - she is there to do the talking, but in accordance with his 'guidance' and that appears to have been a mistake.
Their separation after arrest has made her something of a 'loose cannon'.

 

[ShadowPuppet]

She's absolutely delusional.
The 'travel ban' sounds like a guardianship order was made by her family due to her capacity....

Has she used the term "targeted individual" yet because that's what she's alluding to. If this was someone I work with I would be requesting a psych evaluation for paranoid schizophrenia.

I don’t know if you’re from the UK, but the diagnosis is pretty strict here. She seems to be delusional in a specific way, but she doesn’t appear to have flat effect or disorganised speech (eg. Word salad) or anything else that would suggest that diagnosis. I don’t know if we’re allowed to discuss what we think they have, so I’ll just say so far no evidence of paranoid schizophrenia has been brought forward by the court and doesn’t fit the profile of any paranoid schizophrenic I’ve met as they all had broader behaviours and objective features that instigated diagnosis.

JMOO, but lots of birth parents have these chaotic thought patterns and are taken in by conspiracy theories because of issues around trust and the fact that the experiences they’ve had being so extreme that the idea of these other things don’t feel unrealistic. If you were in a cult, it wouldn’t surprise you if you were suddenly being followed again - it would fit your view of the ‘controlling’ world. That would come under trauma, but may not fit diagnostic criteria for a specific condition. However, without a psychiatrist reviewing, we won’t know. I’m also no longer convinced she believes all of it - I thought she did, but since the claims have escalated and had so many contradictions with a lot occurring in direct response to challenge and not prior to that. The claims are also all plausible (but highly unlikely) claims in response to the situation. Although she’s chaotic, it’s not really on a schizophrenic level imo.
Edit to add: This includes things like structuring her argument about the witnesses being influenced by press and changing statement to see birth gunk on Victoria’s head. Imo None of her arguments have shown disorganised thinking, despite contradictions.

I agree the travel ban came as a direct result of the wardship because she was planning these things with other children.

I do wonder if MG played a bigger part with coercive control and feeding paranoia via what he said - but it’s equally possible he said nothing and she used that as a way to switch her view.

 

[Maltesepuppy]

"Giving evidence while being cross-examined, Marten said: “There are foster carers who are doing it for money. For a lot of these carers it’s a career – children are given no hugs and you wonder why there are these issues".


CM: "I'm not having my kids going to a vetted, assessed, trained and regulated foster carer who's getting paid for caring for children 24/7!!!!, sheesh".
Also CM: "Don't mind me, just here scrolling Gumtree looking for a nice random people smuggler to take my baby! I'll choose whoever says they like children"

 

[ShadowPuppet]

"Giving evidence while being cross-examined, Marten said: “There are foster carers who are doing it for money. For a lot of these carers it’s a career – children are given no hugs and you wonder why there are these issues".


CM: "I'm not having my kids going to a vetted, assessed, trained and regulated foster carer who's getting paid for caring for children 24/7!!!!, sheesh".
Also CM: "Don't mind me, just here scrolling Gumtree looking for a nice random people smuggler to take my baby! I'll choose whoever says they like children"

Her top comment infuriated me, even though I didn’t expect differently. There’s pittance in UK foster care and you add petrol, complete disruption to your family’s schedule (eg. If a contact session changes, that takes priority, so your plans are cancelled, attempts to do several school or nursery runs), FC often topping up very small social services allowances and providing clothes out of their own pocket for youngsters, there’s no financial aspect at all. The career thing comes from two different views FC have that are debated at times within the industry (I’m sure there are plenty in between too) - some still see it as parenting, but are trying to highlight that with all the commitments (including clear and detailed log notes, attending contact sessions etc), it’s also a career choice. This tends to be linked to providing more support, training and better pay for a difficult job. The other side argue it’s just parenting, but this side are often the older generation of carers and - in a sense - see it more as a charitable family act and want to get on with what they’ve got.

Neither side of debate means they don’t care deeply about the children, tuck them in at night and so on. They will offer hugs but not force them because of potential abuse and child’s rights. They may hug a child to the side of them if sexually inappropriate behaviour becomes and issue and give clear guidance on ‘the way we hug’ to help children relearn what’s appropriate. They aren’t supposed to tickle them (the tickler can be the one with power) and they have to follow safer caring rules to protect the children and themselves. This is all in place for specific reasons.

Equally, if there are multiple children from multiple families placed then needs may cross slightly. In relation to the telly comment, if a child in the house was very unused to quiet and it was distressing them, the foster care may keep the telly on to meet this need and then gradually reduce it. Equally, if a child only ever ate baked beans on toast and rich tea biscuits, they’d sometimes start from that point to introduce new meals. It’s very easy for foster carers to get slated for their techniques because they’re the opposite of the way you parent neurotypical, non traumatised children. Some adoptive parents are surprised at first too, but often then use other techniques.

There have been big changes since I was adopted (v early 90s), which was really the start of those changes, but nowadays, substandard parenting isn’t very accepted for foster carers and the appearance of it tends to be in relation to gradually supporting the children through change rather than anything else. There are a few times a foster carer or adoptive parent slips through that net and COVID complicated assessments, but on the whole, these are people involved in the fostering and adoption community who are regularly assessed and have specific training.

 

[Baby baby Jane]

I don’t know if you’re from the UK, but the diagnosis is pretty strict here. She seems to be delusional in a specific way, but she doesn’t appear to have flat effect or disorganised speech (eg. Word salad) or anything else that would suggest that diagnosis. I don’t know if we’re allowed to discuss what we think they have, so I’ll just say so far no evidence of paranoid schizophrenia has been brought forward by the court and doesn’t fit the profile of any paranoid schizophrenic I’ve met as they all had broader behaviours and objective features that instigated diagnosis.

JMOO, but lots of birth parents have these chaotic thought patterns and are taken in by conspiracy theories because of issues around trust and the fact that the experiences they’ve had being so extreme that the idea of these other things don’t feel unrealistic. If you were in a cult, it wouldn’t surprise you if you were suddenly being followed again - it would fit your view of the ‘controlling’ world. That would come under trauma, but may not fit diagnostic criteria for a specific condition. However, without a psychiatrist reviewing, we won’t know. I’m also no longer convinced she believes all of it - I thought she did, but since the claims have escalated and had so many contradictions with a lot occurring in direct response to challenge and not prior to that. The claims are also all plausible (but highly unlikely) claims in response to the situation. Although she’s chaotic, it’s not really on a schizophrenic level imo.
Edit to add: This includes things like structuring her argument about the witnesses being influenced by press and changing statement to see birth gunk on Victoria’s head. Imo None of her arguments have shown disorganised thinking, despite contradictions.

I agree the travel ban came as a direct result of the wardship because she was planning these things with other children.

I do wonder if MG played a bigger part with coercive control and feeding paranoia via what he said - but it’s equally possible he said nothing and she used that as a way to switch her view.

Would like to add … that Post Partum Psychosis is triggered after delivery, is hormonally driven. Women at risk either have an existing MH diagnosis, or close relative with one. Close friend of mine, suffered this & thought her new baby was controlling traffic lights and the color of cars on the road became “omens” of dangerous things that could happen. Many other disordered thoughts & she thought this tiny baby was controlling everyday events. She was a registered nurse, knew it was crazy thoughts, yet didn’t tell anyone for a while. Her baby went to grandma for few months while she got help because she was a risk to the baby. Her brother suffered bi-polar disorder, this put her at risk apparently. She went on to have a second and third child, and put in place support and doctor care in advance of delivery because she was a responsible person.

 

[rockthecasbah]

Independent link is up

Constance Marten denies she ‘dumped’ baby in Lidl bag with beer can – trial latest

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

www.independent.co.uk

 

[LouTennant]

I think that's an interesting idea.
I think he is the one in charge, and using a 'sort of' gaslighting perhaps.
So perhaps feeding her own already held suspicions and fears, by making things go wrong and further alienating her from friends and family would be a good idea.
I don't think she needs him as much as he needs her, she has the money and therefore more choices but is more fragile, she could be a great front woman, the looks, the education, the money, the acting, and then comes the dependence which is cultivated, and it looks the other way round?
Her money and vulnerability? would be a massive magnet to someone with little prospects.
It may not be incidental that he did not appear defend himself - she is there to do the talking, but in accordance with his 'guidance' and that appears to have been a mistake.
Their separation after arrest has made her something of a 'loose cannon'.

Thanks for this Porky. I've always had the same kind of feelings about MG but did not know how to put it into words.

It's my belief that both CM and MG both snapped while on the run and with their tiredness and paranoia they purposely put the baby, who would not settle down, into a permanent sleep.


JMO

 

[DavidAT]

She told the jury: “I had spoken out about serious abuse by that family member and as a way to get back at me they tried to take my children away from me.


She said her original plan had been to go abroad but Mr Gordon’s passport had been removed and she was subject to a travel ban as a result of previous wardship proceedings, when a family member had tried to get custody of her first four children.

Constance Marten says family ‘claimed she bred children for the black market’

Mother accused of manslaughter of baby daughter says relative tried to have children removed in revenge after she alleged ‘serious abuse’

www.telegraph.co.uk

"Those who make revolution halfway only dig their own graves". She must name that family member. (As if we don't already have a good idea of who it is, anyway.)

 

[DavidAT]

Gosh. JMOO, I’d thought she actually believed what she was saying to a point, but now I’m reconsidering. Does she mean around 33 seconds in where she says “Daddy Bear?” and, if that was true, would be sound not be heard?

On the Gumtree comment, I think it shows a huge disconnect (JMO). She was willing to give the entire parental rights to someone else via a birth certificate change and risk that that person could disappear at any point. She was also willing for them to be in another country. It’s like a bizarre mimicry of adoption, but without the processes that are supposed to make it safer. There was no guarantee she’d ever get Victoria back and no consideration (it appears so far from her evidence) of the damage that could be caused for her. I can hugely understand and empathise with desperation to keep your children, but the whole idea of that is so concerning.

She sounds like someone who has really had it from the state.

Those who don't see this should examine their assumptions. Start by asking whether if a parent acted that way in North Korea they'd view things differently. If so, are assumptions about a difference between Britain and North Korea influencing their conclusions? What are those assumptions? Are they valid? This is how to check one isn't fooling oneself.