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

[Nikynoo]

Reardon, op cit.:

"The evidence includes a photograph of the house that the family were living in at the time. It is a typical London terraced house. There is a small ledge above the front door, just below the two first floor windows."

That sounds as though it's about 9 ft up, not 18 ft up. Add 1 ft for the "just below" and that would make 10 ft up. So 9ft or 10ft according to whether we take ledge or window, and on a liberal reading of "just below".

"The police records read: "When the paramedics arrived on scene, the father Mark Gordon
was evasive, and the mother could be heard saying, 'Help me, help me'."

Huh? Why do the police records refer to the injured person and her husband by their parental status? Is that standard procedure? Sounds like more the Sun newspaper. ("Mum, 43, gets 10 tattoos".)

Someone on A&E staff sounds like brain of Britain: "Fallen out of a first floor window, so around 18 feet. Question mark if husband pushed her. Apparently according to LAS they were playing with the aerial. Crawled into living room".

"So", "playing".

"Both officers observed that an aerial was hanging loose at the front of the house. PC Hennessy said there seemed to be a wire hanging down."

Hospital "safeguarding referral":

"Concerned that there is element of coercion. Did not want to make any decisions about medical procedures without discussion with husband".

More from hospital:

"Fell from first floor window at home overnight (03.30). Patient reports that
she was trying to adjust the aerial outside her window, which involved
leaning out of the window, and balancing on the windowsill with her hand.
She reports that her hand slipped and she fell out, landing on her left side.
On questioning, she reports that she did not hit her head and did not lose
consciousness but then also reports not being able to fully recall event.
Possibility that partner pushed her out of window raised in previous
documentation. I have not directly asked C if this happened. She reports he
fell out of window at the same time as her, although he is fine with no
injuries."

I am curious about whether MG did fall out of the window. Why would he also be in a precarious position? There are possible answers to that. E.g. maybe more than two hands were needed - one had to hold two bits together while the other wielded a screwdriver, but you would need this kind of detail.

The starting position would be pregnant woman, maybe quite dominant, knows best, husband says no no don't lean out, woman says if you're not going to fix it then I will... she leans out .... arrrghhh...

Or perhaps woman not merely dominant but extremely dominant, and it's a case of I'll lean out and grab the box and you lean out too and hold those wires up where I tell you to, okay.

I am not trying to be amusing here. Just looking for scenarios that support the non-violent explanation. If there aren't any that will do the job, then I will go for the violent explanation.

I must admit I was uncomfortable with the conclusions reached by J Reardon in respect of the window incident and her reasoning for reaching those conclusions. When reading the final paragraphs of the reasoning for agreeing the adoption of all four children, I found her reasoning sound and even if the window incident had not taken place, the conclusion would have been the same.

In respect to the window incident itself, if it was a sash window (as opined by a poster above) then the bottom sash must have been open completely and I cannot see how anyone could throw a person through a bottom sash (especially one as small as the one pictured). IMO it is more likely than not that CM was leaning out of the window and fell. The screaming could have been calling for help as she realised she was going to fall.

Not that this matters to the overall conclusion. The children needed to be adopted, they could t be in limbo whilst CM and MG decided whether they were going to get their act together or not, they had plenty of time to do so if they really wanted those children.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

JMO re the fall out of window, I do think it's highly possible and even probable that CM fell whilst trying to reconnect or adjust the TV cable. Were that to be the case, it could have united the both of them in a further hatred of all things social services and to do with police and authorities.

Why didn't MG call an ambulance more quickly, there could be a multitude of explanations. Why weren't they more open and frank with authorities - maybe a self fulfilling prophecy. They already hate certain types of authority and institutions and by refusing to engage with them even in a medical emergency and at risk of losing their children, they've made it even worse on themselves. That is the running theme of this entire tragedy. They would rather die and lose their children than engage with certain authorities, the result being they are now incarcerated by same ruling system.

JMO MOO

 

[Deleted member 367833]

From Madeleine Reardon's judgment, 23 Feb 2021:

"40 (...) On 13 December 2019 the mother's father, Napier Marten, issued wardship proceedings in the High Court. The children were made wards of court on 17 December. I have not read Mr Marten's statement as it was removed from the bundle following a direction made by HHJ Atkinson earlier in the proceedings"

I wonder what it said and why it was removed.

"130 (...) I note that the mother's medical records, produced during the course of the previous proceedings, show a completely different attitude on the mother's part to health care. Up until 2016 the mother had been registered with the same, I believe private, GP for several years, and was fully engaged in what I would describe as an entirely conventional way with mainstream health care services. She clearly had a good relationship with her GP whom she consulted on a regular basis and for a range of complaints. She underwent testing when it was suggested, engaged with referrals as necessary, and was apparently fully compliant with treatment when it was prescribed. This is in stark contrast to the approach that the mother took during her pregnancies to her own and her children's health, and suggests a sudden and dramatic change in the mother's attitude to health care in 2016, which is of course when her relationship with the father commenced."

Is not seeing a "general practitioner" every few months viewed as a "marker" for something going wrong in a person's attitude, nowadays? Personally I've always thought the habitual visiting of a local gatekeeper medic was weirdo.

It could be that one father figure (paid) was replaced by another (loving).

Since these two people have been "analysed" everywhere else, my tuppenceworth is that she is dominant and at the same time he is a father figure.

 

[Sherlockhames]

From Madeleine Reardon's judgment, 23 Feb 2021:

"40 (...) On 13 December 2019 the mother's father, Napier Marten, issued wardship proceedings in the High Court. The children were made wards of court on 17 December. I have not read Mr Marten's statement as it was removed from the bundle following a direction made by HHJ Atkinson earlier in the proceedings"

I wonder what it said and why it was removed.

"130 (...) I note that the mother's medical records, produced during the course of the previous proceedings, show a completely different attitude on the mother's part to health care. Up until 2016 the mother had been registered with the same, I believe private, GP for several years, and was fully engaged in what I would describe as an entirely conventional way with mainstream health care services. She clearly had a good relationship with her GP whom she consulted on a regular basis and for a range of complaints. She underwent testing when it was suggested, engaged with referrals as necessary, and was apparently fully compliant with treatment when it was prescribed. This is in stark contrast to the approach that the mother took during her pregnancies to her own and her children's health, and suggests a sudden and dramatic change in the mother's attitude to health care in 2016, which is of course when her relationship with the father commenced."

Is not seeing a "general practitioner" every few months viewed as a "marker" for something going wrong in a person's attitude, nowadays? Personally I've always thought the habitual visiting of a local gatekeeper medic was weirdo.

It could be that one father figure (paid) was replaced by another (loving).

Since these two people have been "analysed" everywhere else, my tuppenceworth is that she is dominant and at the same time he is a father figure.

It doesn’t say she consulted her GP “frequently”, just “regularly”. So not sure where the assumption came from she was the GP every few months. Regularly could mean something as simple as eg she attended all health screenings as advised but only as required eg every 4/5 years. (As a woman reproductive age I “regularly” visited my GP as required for smear tests / blood pressure tests etc for when I was on the pill. But I wouldn’t say I went frequently - just the number of times I was recommended or required to (once a year or so, possibly less). Add in one or two additional illnesses (eg chest infection of requirement for eg anti-biotics and the visiting of a private GP could well have been completely normal. So suggestive of any kind of dependency on one (and we have no indication the GP was a replacement father figure. My GP is a woman… as indeed most GPs are).

 

[Lucy6226]

It doesn’t say she consulted her GP “frequently”, just “regularly”. So not sure where the assumption came from she was the GP every few months. Regularly could mean something as simple as eg she attended all health screenings as advised but only as required eg every 4/5 years. (As a woman reproductive age I “regularly” visited my GP as required for smear tests / blood pressure tests etc for when I was on the pill. But I wouldn’t say I went frequently - just the number of times I was recommended or required to (once a year or so, possibly less). Add in one or two additional illnesses (eg chest infection of requirement for eg anti-biotics and the visiting of a private GP could well have been completely normal. So suggestive of any kind of dependency on one (and we have no indication the GP was a replacement father figure. My GP is a woman… as indeed most GPs are).

That's exactly how I interpreted 'regularly'.

 

[Deleted member 367833]

Another extract of interest from the same 23 Feb 2021 judgment:

"Although he [Mark Gordon] had refused to give evidence himself, and despite the fact that the parents' cases were identical, the father sought to ask questions of the mother. I permitted him to do so with some misgivings, but it became apparent immediately that his aim was simply to repeat and reinforce the evidence the mother had already given, and to argue the parents' joint case without exposing himself to cross-examination. This was clearly inappropriate, and I terminated his questioning after ten minutes."

Repetition, okay - no good point in that. But reinforcement? The problem was?

Quite an interesting pre-echo of some of the dramatics at the Old Bailey retrial, though.

 

[Deleted member 367833]

It doesn’t say she consulted her GP “frequently”, just “regularly”. So not sure where the assumption came from she was the GP every few months. Regularly could mean something as simple as eg she attended all health screenings as advised but only as required eg every 4/5 years. (As a woman reproductive age I “regularly” visited my GP as required for smear tests / blood pressure tests etc for when I was on the pill. But I wouldn’t say I went frequently - just the number of times I was recommended or required to (once a year or so, possibly less). Add in one or two additional illnesses (eg chest infection of requirement for eg anti-biotics and the visiting of a private GP could well have been completely normal. So suggestive of any kind of dependency on one (and we have no indication the GP was a replacement father figure. My GP is a woman… as indeed most GPs are).

Yes it says "regularly", but the meaning in context is "frequently", or at least "not as seldom as Madeleine Reardon might think was weird". I can't see why anyone in their right mind who doesn't have a health need to do so would consult a GP "regularly".

Is there any indication as to whether CM has insurance or is self-paying?

 

[Deleted member 367833]

another pic of the window

The Big Cases - The Aristocrat, the Convict and the Missing Baby

An aristocrat and her convict partner go on the run with their newborn baby. The search ends in heartbreak. Family, friends, and witnesses reveal the background to this extraordinary case.

www.bbc.co.uk

View attachment 602032

Thanks for this, which I have just seen. So basically about 9-10 feet up as I thought. Yet Madeleine Reardon on 23 Feb 2021 blithely says in her judgment

"The initial handover notes recorded by the staff in A&E read: "Fallen out of a first floor window, so around 18 feet." "

- which smacks of CYA by Reardon, because very few first floor windows except perhaps at Longleat or Blenheim Palace or even maybe Crichel House are 18 feet up. The notes sound as though they were composed by someone at the hospital who doesn't understand first and second and feet and inches and all that hard maths stuff. "First floor" probably came from CM and police and ambulance staff and is true. "So [sic] around 18 feet" came from ... well who cares? I mean I could meet an idiot who thought "first floor" meant 100 feet up, or whose English wasn't very good and who thought it meant the same as "ground floor". Not really worth a High Court judge referencing in a judgement without saying this is obvious nonsense. It is a deduction by a person who is obviously unqualified to make one.

FWIW I don't think MG pushed CM out of the window. But I do agree that whether he did or not, or more exactly the probability that might be sensibly assigned to the notion that he did, is a very important and pivotal question in this whole case.

 

[pokerowan]

Thanks for this, which I have just seen. So basically about 9-10 feet up as I thought. Yet Madeleine Reardon on 23 Feb 2021 blithely says in her judgment

"The initial handover notes recorded by the staff in A&E read: "Fallen out of a first floor window, so around 18 feet." "

- which smacks of CYA by Reardon, because very few first floor windows except perhaps at Longleat or Blenheim Palace or even maybe Crichel House are 18 feet up. The notes sound as though they were composed by someone at the hospital who doesn't understand first and second and feet and inches and all that hard maths stuff. "First floor" probably came from CM and police and ambulance staff and is true. "So [sic] around 18 feet" came from ... well who cares? I mean I could meet an idiot who thought "first floor" meant 100 feet up, or whose English wasn't very good and who thought it meant the same as "ground floor". Not really worth a High Court judge referencing in a judgement without saying this is obvious nonsense. It is a deduction by a person who is obviously unqualified to make one.

FWIW I don't think MG pushed CM out of the window. But I do agree that whether he did or not, or more exactly the probability that might be sensibly assigned to the notion that he did, is a very important and pivotal question in this whole case.

I don't think 18 feet is unreasonable in a London terraced house, especially if she did fall out of a top opening as other users have suggested. That's only about 5 metres, or 3 blokes tall! 5 meters is around the magic number for serious injuries from a fall, which CM did sustain, so I can understand why this estimation might have been put in the report. Not sure why this has incensed you so much.

 

[Deleted member 367833]

The 53-day hunt for Constance Marten, by the police who caught her

The heiress and her partner used gang-like tactics to evade officers. Now police reveal how they broke with convention during their desperate search

www.thetimes.com

It seems ports and airports were informed on the 5th or in the early hours of the 6th Jan 2023.
The interim care order was issued on 20 Jan.
What would the police have done if they'd found them before 20 Jan? The Times says officers suspected they had concealed the birth of a child, but that's an offence that's not possible if a child is alive. And AFAIAA nobody on 5th or 6th January thought the child had died.

FWIW the Times doesn't say it was the police who informed ports and airports. They just say ports and airports were informed.

 

[Sherlockhames]

The 53-day hunt for Constance Marten, by the police who caught her

The heiress and her partner used gang-like tactics to evade officers. Now police reveal how they broke with convention during their desperate search

www.thetimes.com

It seems ports and airports were informed on the 5th or in the early hours of the 6th Jan 2023.
The interim care order was issued on 20 Jan.
What would the police have done if they'd found them before 20 Jan? The Times says officers suspected they had concealed the birth of a child, but that's an offence that's not possible if a child is alive. And AFAIAA nobody on 5th or 6th January thought the child had died.

FWIW the Times doesn't say it was the police who informed ports and airports. They just say ports and airports were informed.

Your post raises the interesting conundrum as to what would have happened had they been found earlier than Jan 20th when Victoria was still alive. I assume there would have been some form of emergency order granted to remove her to foster care immediately? I’m not sure they could have been arrested for anything at that stage IF Victoria was alive and well (so long as she was indeed well and thriving).

If she was found safe and well I don’t know what the grounds for any criminal arrest would have been. I would imagine CM would have been placed back in some form of emergency mother/baby placement (or at least make representations to do so) until such time as the courts were able to action her removal (like they did with D). But the judge in this instance said that if she could be satisfied they could present a proper, safe plan for the baby’s ongoing safe well being then she would approach any next steps with an open mind… (whether she believed CM and MG would do the same is left unspoken!)

 

[Nikynoo]

Your post raises the interesting conundrum as to what would have happened had they been found earlier than Jan 20th when Victoria was still alive. I assume there would have been some form of emergency order granted to remove her to foster care immediately? I’m not sure they could have been arrested for anything at that stage IF Victoria was alive and well (so long as she was indeed well and thriving).

If she was found safe and well I don’t know what the grounds for any criminal arrest would have been. I would imagine CM would have been placed back in some form of emergency mother/baby placement (or at least make representations to do so) until such time as the courts were able to action her removal (like they did with D). But the judge in this instance said that if she could be satisfied they could present a proper, safe plan for the baby’s ongoing safe well being then she would approach any next steps with an open mind… (whether she believed CM and MG would do the same is left unspoken!)

If they had been found before this date and V was alive, then yes, an EPO would have been sought (from memory they can be granted the same day). I think the only criminal charge would be for MG for not signing the SOR.

 

[Sherlockhames]

If they had been found before this date and V was alive, then yes, an EPO would have been sought (from memory they can be granted the same day). I think the only criminal charge would be for MG for not signing the SOR.

But would that have meant the child was immediately removed? Or would CM have been the option of a mother and baby placement so she could continue to breastfeed, with permitted contact from MG? Or do you think it would have been immediate separation of the whole family? (I think CM knew well enough that if they were discovered to have been trying to set up a family unit AGAIN then the writing was on the wall. But I am wondering if there are circumstances in which CM/MG could have acquiesced/complied with some rules a little and ended up being allowed to try to make a go of it?)

 

[Nikynoo]

But would that have meant the child was immediately removed? Or would CM have been the option of a mother and baby placement so she could continue to breastfeed, with permitted contact from MG? Or do you think it would have been immediate separation of the whole family? (I think CM knew well enough that if they were discovered to have been trying to set up a family unit AGAIN then the writing was on the wall. But I am wondering if there are circumstances in which CM/MG could have acquiesced/complied with some rules a little and ended up being allowed to try to make a go of it?)

I can only speculate as never had this experience, but I depending on the circumstances of when/where they were found, both may have been arrested on suspicion of child neglect and the child taken into protective custody/social care whilst the parents were being held and enabling an EPO to be sought.

They may have had a better chance handing themselves in as soon as they became aware that they were being sought/ or staying put when the car caught fire.

Even better chances if they had come clean as soon as CM was aware she was pregnant and they both worked with SS and showed real progress that they were able to provide appropriate parenting and housing.

The above was never going to happen.

 

[Lucy6226]

But would that have meant the child was immediately removed? Or would CM have been the option of a mother and baby placement so she could continue to breastfeed, with permitted contact from MG? Or do you think it would have been immediate separation of the whole family? (I think CM knew well enough that if they were discovered to have been trying to set up a family unit AGAIN then the writing was on the wall. But I am wondering if there are circumstances in which CM/MG could have acquiesced/complied with some rules a little and ended up being allowed to try to make a go of it?)

I think a lot would have depended on the condition of Victoria. Given we know she was only wearing a babygrow, she would have been taken to hospital in the first instance to check for hypothermia and dehydration no doubt. The outcomes of those checks would determine if she was placed in care or a mother & baby unit. Given CM has already had those chances and refused to cooperate... multiple times. I can't see it ending any other way than immediate removal. Both parents would be offered supervised contact sessions (again we know how that went last time) until care proceedings were complete. There would need to be a full assessment for the judge to be able to make any decision on permanent removal. As far as I'm aware CM would have been able to express breast milk, providing it was drug and alcohol free, usually by freezing it and handing it over at contact sessions. All MOO

 

[Deleted member 367833]

What measures are likely to be proposed following this case in regard to protecting unborn children?
Contact orders on certain women who are known to be pregnant or who might become pregnant?
It's hard to see how this wouldn't involve electronic tagging, because even e.g. monthly or weekly checks or tests would not stop a woman going into hiding immediately following a check or test, such that the authorities wouldn't know she'd gone missing until she missed the next compulsory appointment. Missing the appointment might become criminalised, cf. with men who have been convicted of sex crimes.

 

[jackal67]

But would that have meant the child was immediately removed? Or would CM have been the option of a mother and baby placement so she could continue to breastfeed, with permitted contact from MG? Or do you think it would have been immediate separation of the whole family? (I think CM knew well enough that if they were discovered to have been trying to set up a family unit AGAIN then the writing was on the wall. But I am wondering if there are circumstances in which CM/MG could have acquiesced/complied with some rules a little and ended up being allowed to try to make a go of it?)

They were offered the chance of this with babies 3 and 4 but refused. Just shows how little they cared about any of their babies.

 

[Lucy6226]

What measures are likely to be proposed following this case in regard to protecting unborn children?
Contact orders on certain women who are known to be pregnant or who might become pregnant?
It's hard to see how this wouldn't involve electronic tagging, because even e.g. monthly or weekly checks or tests would not stop a woman going into hiding immediately following a check or test, such that the authorities wouldn't know she'd gone missing until she missed the next compulsory appointment. Missing the appointment might become criminalised, cf. with men who have been convicted of sex crimes.

More funding for schemes like Pause linked below.

I would say most parents try to work alongside Social Services, they may or may not achieve the changes needed in order to keep their baby. But most don't run and hide and live in a tent in the middle of winter with a baby in just a babygrow. No one is going to agree with electronic tagging or forced sterilisation.

Why Pause? - Pause – Creating Space for Change

The need for Pause There are a number of families that have more than one child removed from their care. This is a significant issue across the UK – almost […]

www.pause.org.uk

 

[Deleted member 367833]

More funding for schemes like Pause linked below.

I would say most parents try to work alongside Social Services, they may or may not achieve the changes needed in order to keep their baby. But most don't run and hide and live in a tent in the middle of winter with a baby in just a babygrow. No one is going to agree with electronic tagging or forced sterilisation.

Why Pause? - Pause – Creating Space for Change

The need for Pause There are a number of families that have more than one child removed from their care. This is a significant issue across the UK – almost […]

www.pause.org.uk

"Pause" meaning "be discouraged by supportive practitioners from getting pregnant for a while"?

The inquiry by the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel is about preventing cases like this one, i.e. where expecting parents did run and hide.

Det Supt Basford who led the search has said "If there was a change in the law, protection orders could be put in place before birth". Not more funding for charities but statutory change.

From the Daily Mail:

"Detective Superintendent Lewis Basford, who led the case, believes that lives could be saved if officers had the power to bring in protection and family contact orders before a baby is born to parents considered at high risk of harming their children.

He said: ‘At the moment police are powerless to protect that child until a baby draws their first breath.

‘If there was a change in the law, we could put contact orders in place to monitor the pregnancy and protection orders could be in place before that child is born so they could immediately be taken into care.

‘If you look at cases like Baby P [a 17-month-old British boy who died in London in 2007 after suffering over 50 injuries] this could save lives.’

Yesterday a Department for Education spokesman said the review would look at what more could be done to help prevent future tragedies."

(BBM)

The idea that "the authorities have their hands tied until a baby takes its first breath" is doing the rounds.

Maybe something will be added to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, currently at committee stage in the Lords.

It's not clear what would happen if a pregnant woman did not abide by a contact order. I would have thought there'd have to be a power of arrest. I could easily envisage electronic tagging for the most resistant cases. The situation is different insofar as up until late in the pregnancy they can't seize the unborn child without seizing the woman.

 

[Baby baby Jane]

At one time, I worked with an organization that supported pregnant women and mothers under age 18.
One job was driving clients to Dr, it was surprising that some would prefer to not see Dr, but rather stay home, drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes and get high with friends. I’d show up to collect a young mum for Dr & she’d be with a group of wasted teens at kitchen table, and the young mum saying not going. I could encourage, but would need to leave.

The substance abuse was heart breaking, so was the just behavior and attitudes towards basically, everyone and not seeking medical care was common - in pregnancy and with babies. It seemed maybe at 15, and pregnant, or a 16 yr old mother, really hating on any old person telling you what to do.

Our organization could only support, suggest, help get benefits, free stuff, special food bank etc.

At the time, I would have advocated jail til birth for the substance users. It’s harm and child abuse … the baby’s health should be more important than mums getting high. It’s criminal harm.
Jail.