GUILTY UK - Constance Marten & Mark Gordon charged in death of baby Victoria, GUILTY on all counts incl retrial on manslaughter, 5 Jan 2023 #9

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Here is an example of the dehumanising (IMO) way in which MG is being talked about in the media in the present day:

Constance Marten and Mark Gordon dodged questions, jury told

Wealthy aristocrat Constance Marten and her convicted rapist partner “sought to mask the reality” to the jury and were “picking

www.brightonandhovenews.org

Why not "another new father"? Why is he himself not described as a new father?

I am thinking of famous headlines such as "miner in fight with man".

Because "new father" is certainly what he was at that time, unless he had previous children that we don't know about. So the context may be one in which he was allowed in to accompany his wife - albeit apparently being called her "friend" and not the father - and we don't know whether he was present at the actual birth but perhaps he was - and then later, perhaps when they have been separated for a short time while she's getting a gown change or being stitched or whatever, expecting them to be reunited within about 10 minutes together with the baby, away from the theatre, suddenly there are police officers there with radios and weapons, and one of them is blocking the door, and the atmosphere is one of no way are we allowing somebody like you in there, matey, not with all the mothers and babies, not until you answer our questions anyway - it's too dangerous.

Whichever way you look at it, that is certainly going to have been somewhat of an emotional occasion for MG.

And it can be added that since this was her first child (again, as far as we know), she can't have had any SS record of being considered incapable of caring for children, or having had children taken from her. Nor is giving a false name when you're in labour a crime of any kind, so one has to wonder what on earth was going on.

Thanks for this reply and I understand your points well.

I think it's fair to say that no matter what MG perpetrated as a youth, he will have been brutalised and traumatised by his time being treated as an adult when he wasn't, by police officers and prison officers - men in uniforms holding power positions. He was probably also terrorised and violated by fellow inmates who were significantly older, stronger, harder than him.

So, despite his horrific crimes (if truly guilty) he is probably extremely triggered, reactive and vulnerable to anyone in a position of authority and especially security / policing or enforcement.

It would be far easier and more likely for CM to be the one in this duo who is the coercive controller and has brainwashed MG into submission and loyalty simply for the reason she is the one with most power and privilege and options. At any point in time, if MG were terrorising her or making threats, she could have had his freedom permanently revoked and had him put back in prison for the rest of his sentence. He probably has few or little real life friends and contacts whereas she is linked into this vast wealth of power and privilege and people who can pull strings and enact things beyond the average person's imagination - she's even stated such to the court.

Has CM had MG like an unwitting hostage on some foolish endeavour all this time? He is obviously loyal to her to the bitter end. JMO MOO

 

[jackal67]

If they had something to hide relating to her death, they would surely have buried her body.

They buried her under rubbish and dirty nappies in a carrier bag in a shed ! ! Probably thought police wouldnt find her as they refused to say where she was .Doubt they had the equipment or strength to dig a grave

 

[Skigh]

They buried her under rubbish and dirty nappies in a carrier bag in a shed ! ! Probably thought police wouldnt find her as they refused to say where she was .Doubt they had the equipment or strength to dig a grave

I think they wanted to try and speed up any decay to ensure no cause of death would show. If they buried her in freezing weather some evidence might have been preserved.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

We do not know the cause of death because they chose to put Victorias body in a rubbish bag! Refused to tell police where her body was ! Why did they do this if Victoria died from natural causes ?
The fact they were living in a tent is relevant to the cause of death whether from hypothermia or suffocation . Co sleeping in a comfortable bed in a warm home is completely different to sleeping sitting upright in a tent in Winter with the child inside your coat to keep it warm because you have not provided the child with a safe place to sleep or clothes to keep her warm ! We also only have CMs version of how Victoria died

Bearing in mind the poor child nearly died in a car fire not long after she was born, an opportunity in which CM could have handed herself and the baby over to emergency services for medical evaluation and social care, followed by a litany of other precarious situations, I don't think it was 'camping' per se that did for poor baby V so much as it would have been a miracle for any baby to survive much longer in any of what CM (and MG) put her through.

Home birth with no assistance, car fire, being stuffed inside a coat, on the run in the streets of London, wearing only a tiny thin onesie in the coldest of winters, being hoiked into a push chair and having a pad stuffed on her face, freezing in the push chair, transported secretly in cabs, stuffed into a bag for life, possibly lacking adequate breast milk, stressed out mother, not enough sleep or rest, no hygiene or washing facilities or flushing toilet... the bit in a tent with a sleeping bag sounds positively idyllic and restful by comparison. That baby went through more in a month of life than most adults would ever experience and would be significantly traumatised by.

JMO MOO

 

[pokerowan]

Given that tent sturdiness or the lack of it surely has no effect on whether an instance of co-sleeping ends in death, and given that we are considering an alternative to hypothermia as the cause of death here, the logic here seems to suggest IMO that any parent who co-sleeps with their baby and accidentally smothers the baby should be convicted of manslaughter.

Not sure why you're assessing this as if the scenario plays out all the time. It wasn't a tough choice between hypothermia and 'baby in a coat' sleeping - it didn't have to get to that point in the first place. You've selectively bolded Tom Little's statements in your posts while ignoring that CM+MG made a choice to take a poorly-dressed newborn camping in January.

 

[Maltesepuppy]

Exactly this!

Co-sleeping is safe/r when following the guidelines. The guidelines do not include a baby dressed in just a baby grow, sleeping inside the mother's coat, in a thin tent in January!

Exactly that, and there are so many guidelines for co sleeping. The room between 18-21; firm mattress, baby sleeping on their back; thin layers so that they can be added/removed in alignment with the room temperature or layers the baby is wearing, no duvet as baby is more likely to overheat.
CM and MG failed miserably to meet every single one of these guidelines.
JMO MOO

 

[Maltesepuppy]

If they had something to hide relating to her death, they would surely have buried her body.

If they had nothing to hide they would have contacted the authorities the moment Victoria passed or at least as soon as they were found.
JMO MOO

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

If they had nothing to hide they would have contacted the authorities the moment Victoria passed or at least as soon as they were found.
JMO MOO

They had themselves to hide. Or at least MG at risk of prison recall to serve out his sentence in prison and not the community. It could be the case that once baby V was deceased, they knew she could not be resuscitated and therefore they continued to be on the run. So even if baby V had been well looked after, well cared for and died arbitrarily they were not going to seek assistance or intervention.

At best, her death would have happened anyway no matter how well she was cared for.
At worst, they knowingly deliberately killed her. Will we ever know the truth?

I think it has to come down to likelihood and percentages. I'm going to hazard a guess the likelihood of Baby V surviving this crazy cold homeless on the run scenario was a flat 0.00% even if she was the sturdiest healthiest born baby at birth, which she probably was.

MG and CM barely survived it themselves IMO.

 

[Carriep]

If they had nothing to hide they would have contacted the authorities the moment Victoria passed or at least as soon as they were found.
JMO MOO

They've already been found guilty of concealing the birth, an offence which involves concealing the death, and the direction at the first trial was not that guilt of this offence implied guilt of any of the (then) three harm offences.

Which is not to say they weren't hiding, nor that they weren't hiding V's birth and death even after they were arrested.

How anyone can be sure the death was definitely their fault I just can't see at all.

 

[JennieM]

They've already been found guilty of concealing the birth, an offence which involves concealing the death, and the direction at the first trial was not that guilt of this offence implied guilt of any of the (then) three harm offences.

Which is not to say they weren't hiding, nor that they weren't hiding V's birth and death even after they were arrested.

How anyone can be sure the death was definitely their fault I just can't see at all.

How can it not be their fault?

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

They've already been found guilty of concealing the birth, an offence which involves concealing the death, and the direction at the first trial was not that guilt of this offence implied guilt of any of the (then) three harm offences.

Which is not to say they weren't hiding, nor that they weren't hiding V's birth and death even after they were arrested.

How anyone can be sure the death was definitely their fault I just can't see at all.

In the absence of proof that she was literally killed, ie violently attacked or poisoned, maybe it comes down to 'causing or allowing' and that could be proven by the degraded circumstances they were living in and their own poor state of health and all the general conditions I imagine. Not seeking assistance for 'good enough' warm, dry, clean, care for the baby could meet some criteria? They also had previous for living in terrible squalor and danger in a tent IIRC?

 

[Lucy6226]

They've already been found guilty of concealing the birth, an offence which involves concealing the death, and the direction at the first trial was not that guilt of this offence implied guilt of any of the (then) three harm offences.

Which is not to say they weren't hiding, nor that they weren't hiding V's birth and death even after they were arrested.

How anyone can be sure the death was definitely their fault I just can't see at all.

Hypothetically Victoria could have had a medical condition that would have been picked up by medical check in utero and newborn. So even if her death was unrelated to the absolutely dire circumstances she was born into, the fault still lays with the parents.

We don't know that Victoria's death was preventable or not, but withholding medical care, not clothing and housing her appropriately certainly didn't help keep her alive.

Had they rang 999 when she died, a post mortem could have been carried out and the cause known... potentially of natural causes. However they didn't do that did they, so question why that was?!

 

[Carriep]

In the absence of proof that she was literally killed, ie violently attacked or poisoned, maybe it comes down to 'causing or allowing' and that could be proven by the degraded circumstances they were living in and their own poor state of health and all the general conditions I imagine. Not seeking assistance for 'good enough' warm, dry, clean, care for the baby could meet some criteria? They also had previous for living in terrible squalor and danger in a tent IIRC?

Did they have good reason to believe that revealing themselves to the authorities would have led to their daughter being immediately taken away from them? If so, was that solely because of their own disposition towards negligence, their having "issues", call it what we like but basically an incapability of caring for a baby safely? And if yes, how sure can one be of the "yes"? "Causing or allowing" a child's death is as serious an offence as manslaughter in the sense that both offences carry a maximum possible sense of life imprisonment.

 

[Carriep]

They had themselves to hide. Or at least MG at risk of prison recall to serve out his sentence in prison and not the community. It could be the case that once baby V was deceased, they knew she could not be resuscitated and therefore they continued to be on the run. So even if baby V had been well looked after, well cared for and died arbitrarily they were not going to seek assistance or intervention.

At best, her death would have happened anyway no matter how well she was cared for.
At worst, they knowingly deliberately killed her. Will we ever know the truth?

I think it has to come down to likelihood and percentages. I'm going to hazard a guess the likelihood of Baby V surviving this crazy cold homeless on the run scenario was a flat 0.00% even if she was the sturdiest healthiest born baby at birth, which she probably was.

MG and CM barely survived it themselves IMO.

Would it be in keeping with public policy to recall MG to prison to serve the second half of the by British standards draconian 40 year sentence he received in a foreign jurisdiction, if he failed to sign on one week at a police station as he is required to as a registered sex offender? This is given that there's been nothing to suggest that he didn't sign on every week for ~600 weeks between deportation in 2009 and the Boxing Day sign-on in Leeds in 2022.

 

[CaptainNancy]

In the absence of proof that she was literally killed, ie violently attacked or poisoned, maybe it comes down to 'causing or allowing' and that could be proven by the degraded circumstances they were living in and their own poor state of health and all the general conditions I imagine. Not seeking assistance for 'good enough' warm, dry, clean, care for the baby could meet some criteria? They also had previous for living in terrible squalor and danger in a tent IIRC?

Prof Havenith gave strong evidence that the equipment that they had in the conditions on the S Downs that January would have exposed Victoria to "substantial climatic cold stress which would have led to a substantial risk of hypothermia". I.e though hypothermia is a substantial risk, the cold stress she was subjected to was a fact . Baby Victoria exposed to ‘substantial risk of hypothermia’ – expert

There are other reports covering other parts of Prof H's evidence over 2 days.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Did they have good reason to believe that revealing themselves to the authorities would have led to their daughter being immediately taken away from them? If so, was that solely because of their own disposition towards negligence, their having "issues", call it what we like but basically an incapability of caring for a baby safely? And if yes, how sure can one be of the "yes"? "Causing or allowing" a child's death is as serious an offence as manslaughter in the sense that both offences carry a maximum possible sense of life imprisonment.

Yes it would seem that they were aware any baby would be likely removed from them. At least after they went on the run and the car fire this would be more certain.
We can't be sure what conditions or warnings they'd been signed up to regarding future pregnancies or births. It's possible that CM had been legally bound to notify authorities if she became pregnant so the unborn child could be put on the At Risk register (if it's still called that).

I assume that if she'd agreed to certain conditions and placed in a safe mother and baby unit / therapeutic community setting, she could have maybe kept a baby - I think that's what her mother was speaking about in her press appeal. Maybe? JMO MOO

 

[Maltesepuppy]

Yes it would seem that they were aware any baby would be likely removed from them. At least after they went on the run and the car fire this would be more certain.
We can't be sure what conditions or warnings they'd been signed up to regarding future pregnancies or births. It's possible that CM had been legally bound to notify authorities if she became pregnant so the unborn child could be put on the At Risk register (if it's still called that).

I assume that if she'd agreed to certain conditions and placed in a safe mother and baby unit / therapeutic community setting, she could have maybe kept a baby - I think that's what her mother was speaking about in her press appeal. Maybe? JMO MOO

As CM and MG had children removed, a subsequent pregnancy would have triggered an assessment..SS normally get notified by health professionals, most likely midwives.
This would explain the lack of antenatal care. They were planning to keep baby Victoria a secret from the beginning, although we don't know why they did not prepare at all for her.
Also just because they had children removed it does not necessarily mean that Victoria would have been. Some parents have had several children removed and still managed to keep some.
However, CM and MG would have had to engage with SS, show insight, follow advice and take responsibility.
For what we've seen in the these trials, neither of them seem capable of doing any of it.
They are far too entrenched in believing life has treated them badly, while thinking they know more than anyome.
JMO MOO

 

[Carriep]

Yes it would seem that they were aware any baby would be likely removed from them. At least after they went on the run and the car fire this would be more certain.
We can't be sure what conditions or warnings they'd been signed up to regarding future pregnancies or births. It's possible that CM had been legally bound to notify authorities if she became pregnant so the unborn child could be put on the At Risk register (if it's still called that).

I assume that if she'd agreed to certain conditions and placed in a safe mother and baby unit / therapeutic community setting, she could have maybe kept a baby - I think that's what her mother was speaking about in her press appeal. Maybe? JMO MOO

Is there a public source on policy and legal precedents that govern the issuing of orders that bind women to notify the authorities if they become pregnant? Are such orders issued? I don't think I've ever heard of such orders in any country.

It's not even clear
* why the authorities may have wished to ban MG and CM from raising their child together while living together as husband and wife, let alone
* why they may have wished to impose conditions even if they allowed CM to live away from her husband in a mother and baby unit, or
* what risk anyone, whether CM or their baby, may have had to be kept safe from, or
* why MG may not have a right to live with his wife and child.

On another point, I was thinking about how the crown counsel Tom Little told the jury that the case was "very simple and straightforward". That means that if jurors get to their room and don't vote 12-0 for guilty on all 4 counts straightaway, their actions will suggest that as a collective they must feel there's something that is sufficiently complex or unstraightforward for them to disagree about and therefore discuss, or in other words there will be little shine left on the crown's short summary of the nature of the case as very simple. Similarly last year Little said "Jesus was born in a barn, yes, but Bethlehem is hardly a skiing destination", a use of litotes which some might consider to be sarcastic even if one leaves aside his ignorance of geography. (It does snow in Bethlehem.) Last year he also called the defendants "selfish" and "arrogant" and in a "self-absorbed relationship". The CPS does seem to have a problem with their relationship, as also, given that mother and baby units have been mentioned, the SS seem to have too. What exactly is that problem?

Constance Marten told 'big fat lies' over baby's death, court hears

Prosecutor Tom Little KC says Constance Marten, 36, has lied to the jury about what happened.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Maltesepuppy]

Is there a public source on policy and legal precedents that govern the issuing of orders that bind women to notify the authorities if they become pregnant? Are such orders issued? I don't think I've ever heard of such orders in any country.

It's not even clear
* why the authorities may have wished to ban MG and CM from raising their child together while living together as husband and wife, let alone
* why they may have wished to impose conditions even if they allowed CM to live away from her husband in a mother and baby unit, or
* what risk anyone, whether CM or their baby, may have had to be kept safe from, or
* why MG may not have a right to live with his wife and child.

On another point, I was thinking about how the crown counsel Tom Little told the jury that the case was "very simple and straightforward". That means that if jurors get to their room and don't vote 12-0 for guilty on all 4 counts straightaway, their actions will suggest that as a collective they must feel there's something that is sufficiently complex or unstraightforward for them to disagree about and therefore discuss, or in other words there will be little shine left on the crown's short summary of the nature of the case as very simple. Similarly last year Little said "Jesus was born in a barn, yes, but Bethlehem is hardly a skiing destination", a use of litotes which some might consider to be sarcastic even if one leaves aside his ignorance of geography. (It does snow in Bethlehem.) Last year he also called the defendants "selfish" and "arrogant" and in a "self-absorbed relationship". The CPS does seem to have a problem with their relationship, as also, given that mother and baby units have been mentioned, the SS seem to have too. What exactly is that problem?

Constance Marten told 'big fat lies' over baby's death, court hears

Prosecutor Tom Little KC says Constance Marten, 36, has lied to the jury about what happened.

www.bbc.co.uk

Sigh...
This is what we know so far:
● CM had a child with someone who had committed 2 violent crimes and threatened to kill the children of one of the victims
● there has been at least one incident of DA, likely more.
● They have lived in tents with newborn babies. Twice.
● They have been known to leave properties in bad state of disrepair.
● CM admitted in court that they were planning to hand their baby to someone in Gumtree
● They missed contact sessions with their children, which upset at least one of them.
● they prioritised not having a covid test before getting reunited with one of their babies.
Bearing in mind that we only know the tip of the iceberg, what part is not clear that they were a risk to their children?

"The CPS does seem to have a problem with their relationship"
The CPS or any other authority don't care about their relationship. As long as each capacity to engage in whatever, they can crack on. No one has authority to intervene. The problem comes after they expose children to the chaos associated with their relationship. In this case authorities have to intervene. Children services would be making the biggest disservice if they don't safeguard the children.

"What exactly is that problem?"
Have you thought that maybe *they* are the problem?


JMO MOO

 

[Carriep]

Sigh...
This is what we know so far:
● CM had a child with someone who had committed 2 violent crimes and threatened to kill the children of one of the victims
● there has been at least one incident of DA, likely more.
● They have lived in tents with newborn babies. Twice.
● They have been known to leave properties in bad state of disrepair.
● CM admitted in court that they were planning to hand their baby to someone in Gumtree
● They missed contact sessions with their children, which upset at least one of them.
● they prioritised not having a covid test before getting reunited with one of their babies.
Bearing in mind that we only know the tip of the iceberg, what part is not clear that they were a risk to their children?

"The CPS does seem to have a problem with their relationship"
The CPS or any other authority don't care about their relationship. As long as each capacity to engage in whatever, they can crack on. No one has authority to intervene. The problem comes after they expose children to the chaos associated with their relationship. In this case authorities have to intervene. Children services would be making the biggest disservice if they don't safeguard the children.

"What exactly is that problem?"
Have you thought that maybe *they* are the problem?

JMO MOO

How many of your 7 bullet points applied when they had their first child, other than that MG had committed serious crimes almost 30 years before, when he was a teenager, for which he'd served 20 years in prison? Are women not allowed to marry such men and have and raise children with them?

And if the CPS do not care about their relationship, why did the CPS's main representative at their trial refer to what he called their "self-absorbed relationship"? That has been reported. It is a comment about their relationship (not MO but a fact) and was said by the CPS's barrister on behalf of his client, the CPS, in his closing speech, where it is his job to summarise the CPS case. And although I'm not sure there has been any evidence to this effect, there has certainly been a considerable amount of speculation that other authorities, not the CPS, would have "allowed" her to stay with her babies so long as she didn't live with the babies' father, her husband.

I have no idea who the alleged instance (let alone any "likely more" alleged instances) of domestic abuse is supposed to have been committed by, or against. The only allegation of intra-family abuse I am aware of having been made in court was the one that was alleged by CM, which she said was committed by one of her male blood family members, an instance that she said she spoke out about. People who allege instances of abuse should IMO be listened to. I would be interested to learn of any other instances of abuse that have been alleged in evidence - namely in the evidence on which the charges of manslaughter and causing or allowing death are being tried - other than that one.

PS Is the case on today??