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

[Deleted member 367833]

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.

Would you still advocate this now? If this were to become law, I could easily see electronic tagging as part of the package. There would have to be forensics showing substance abuse before charges were laid and pregnant women could be jailed for it. Lots of police time required. It wouldn't have to be called electronic tagging. It could be called NHS smart watches and smart rings - which Labour promised to bring to millions in last year's general election:

Millions to be handed health-monitoring smart watches by NHS

Devices to track blood pressure and cancer recovery to be given out under 10-year plan to save health service

www.telegraph.co.uk

Then again there's been no suggestion that CM abused any substances while pregnant, and the review panel will be expected to propose measures that might have stopped her from running and hiding.

 

[Lucy6226]

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

Snipped for focus.

'Pause' meaning mothers have access to the therapeutic support they need after having children removed, especially in cases of adoption. There is a grieving process that follows, it is not helpful for a mother to get pregnant again in that time, to then have the baby removed again at birth. It's just grief stacked on top of grief. How is any mother meant to cope with that??!


Pause is just one scheme out there, there are others in different areas. Some focus more on helping parents understand and address the issues that social services are concerned about, sometimes coming from a service with less power helps.

For example, children removed for neglect due to unsanitary home conditions. Social worker arranged for skip, helps clear the house, few weeks later the house is in a state again. Do they parents actually understand what the social worker means by clean? do they know how to clean? I'm not talking learning difficulties, I'm talking they've never actually been shown how to sweep and mop floors for example. Social worker just presumed they should know. Or it could be that mental health or substance abuse is a factor that needs addressing first? Once that is addressed they will be able maintain a safe home, but obviously these issues can not always be resolved within the care proceedings timeline.

I honestly can't see any laws being passed that means pregnant woman are arrested/imprisoned or electronically tagged. One the prison and court system is absolutely snowed under and two surely this would mean greater risk of parents absconding. The money and changes need to go into services to support these parents, help them to engage with all services for the benefit of their child. Parental responsibility can not be given to or taken from parents with an unborn baby. The implications of this are too much.

All MOO and I'll eat my hat if I'm wrong!

 

[Deleted member 367833]

Snipped for focus.

'Pause' meaning mothers have access to the therapeutic support they need after having children removed, especially in cases of adoption. There is a grieving process that follows, it is not helpful for a mother to get pregnant again in that time, to then have the baby removed again at birth. It's just grief stacked on top of grief. How is any mother meant to cope with that??!


Pause is just one scheme out there, there are others in different areas. Some focus more on helping parents understand and address the issues that social services are concerned about, sometimes coming from a service with less power helps.

For example, children removed for neglect due to unsanitary home conditions. Social worker arranged for skip, helps clear the house, few weeks later the house is in a state again. Do they parents actually understand what the social worker means by clean? do they know how to clean? I'm not talking learning difficulties, I'm talking they've never actually been shown how to sweep and mop floors for example. Social worker just presumed they should know. Or it could be that mental health or substance abuse is a factor that needs addressing first? Once that is addressed they will be able maintain a safe home, but obviously these issues can not always be resolved within the care proceedings timeline.

I honestly can't see any laws being passed that means pregnant woman are arrested/imprisoned or electronically tagged. One the prison and court system is absolutely snowed under and two surely this would mean greater risk of parents absconding. The money and changes need to go into services to support these parents, help them to engage with all services for the benefit of their child. Parental responsibility can not be given to or taken from parents with an unborn baby. The implications of this are too much.

All MOO and I'll eat my hat if I'm wrong!

Interesting discussion.

It won't look good if they reply to the criticism "Your proposals wouldn't have helped in the particular case which led to your inquiry" with "We know, but they would help a lot in cases that are only halfway in that direction". There will have to be something for the tail (the unopenable pistachios) which is a stick not a carrot, if I can mix metaphors. It will be interesting to see whether Det Supt Basford continues to argue for the availability of contact orders for pregnant women.

Soon the use of wearable tech in a health context could be normalised, which would change the background.

For context: six of 12 women's prisons in E&W already have mother and baby units.

For sure the introduction of a legal notion of parental (more likely, maternal) responsibility for the unborn would be a big step. If the technological environment weren't changing so quickly, it might require a Royal Commission, input from religious organisations, five years, etc. But those days may be gone now.

 

[Yellowbelly]

Interesting discussion.

It won't look good if they reply to the criticism "Your proposals wouldn't have helped in the particular case which led to your inquiry" with "We know, but they would help a lot in cases that are only halfway in that direction". There will have to be something for the tail (the unopenable pistachios) which is a stick not a carrot, if I can mix metaphors. It will be interesting to see whether Det Supt Basford continues to argue for the availability of contact orders for pregnant women.

Soon the use of wearable tech in a health context could be normalised, which would change the background.

For context: six of 12 women's prisons in E&W already have mother and baby units.

For sure the introduction of a legal notion of parental (more likely, maternal) responsibility for the unborn would be a big step. If the technological environment weren't changing so quickly, it might require a Royal Commission, input from religious organisations, five years, etc. But those days may be gone now.

Isn't the problem with court orders preventing pregnant women going to ground going to be that the authorities will need to know that a particular woman is pregnant in the first place. If a British couple, paranoid about Social Services, get a positive pregnancy test and immediately move to the Republic of Ireland say, thus putting themselves outside the jurisdiction of the British police and courts, what are the British authorities going to be able to do? The Hague Convention might apply after the birth, depending on the circumstances, but not before.

Even if the pregnant woman didn't go to the lengths of moving to a neighbouring jurisdiction, the authorities would only get a court order if they know about the pregnancy. Are we going to have to make it a criminal offence not to report being pregnant to the NHS / GP / State in some form?

 

[Deleted member 367833]

Isn't the problem with court orders preventing pregnant women going to ground going to be that the authorities will need to know that a particular woman is pregnant in the first place. If a British couple, paranoid about Social Services, get a positive pregnancy test and immediately move to the Republic of Ireland say, thus putting themselves outside the jurisdiction of the British police and courts, what are the British authorities going to be able to do? The Hague Convention might apply after the birth, depending on the circumstances, but not before.

Even if the pregnant woman didn't go to the lengths of moving to a neighbouring jurisdiction, the authorities would only get a court order if they know about the pregnancy. Are we going to have to make it a criminal offence not to report being pregnant to the NHS / GP / State in some form?

They might enable orders to be made against particular women, putting them in that position, yes, and perhaps mandating compulsory monthly tests or electronic tagging. Combined with watching all exit ports very closely.

 

[Nikynoo]

They might enable orders to be made against particular women, putting them in that position, yes, and perhaps mandating compulsory monthly tests or electronic tagging. Combined with watching all exit ports very closely.

How? What legislation would allow this that would not breach existing human rights legislation?

 

[Twick]

I seriously don’t think scrapping the concept of human rights is the correct step for preventing child abuse.

 

[CaptainNancy]

DBM

 

[CaptainNancy]

"CM still wants a future with 'Daddy Bear' "

<mod snip - factually inaccurate>

 

[Deleted member 367833]

How? What legislation would allow this that would not breach existing human rights legislation?

Leaving the ECHR would be one way.
How could the contact orders proposed by the police be enforced without the availability of tagging or detention?

 

[Deleted member 367833]

Link to the Daily Mail article:

Baby killer Constance Marten set to appeal

Aristocrat Constance Marten is set to appeal her conviction for killing her baby in a case which has already cost taxpayers over £2.8million.

www.dailymail.co.uk

"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."

BBM

To be clear: this is what the police officer in charge of this case has been quoted in a major newspaper as saying after the verdicts were returned at the retrial.

 

[CaptainNancy]

As I understand it, CM and MG will have to go to court to seek permission to appeal, which may or may not be granted.

I wonder on what basis the Mail 'understands' that they are 'set to appeal'? Gossip from within prison? A Press release from her legal team (I think he sacked and / or was variously dropped by his) ? I which case I would expect the Mail to be explicit about their source.

 

[Deleted member 367833]

Article in the Sun, 3 August:

Constance Marten’s hellhole life at ‘female Monster Mansion’ revealed

ARISTOCRAT Constance Marten once began her day with maids drawing the curtains at her palatial family home, but now her mornings start with a rattle from the prison guard at 8am. Today, we can reve…

www.thesun.co.uk

"TARGET ON HER BACK Constance Marten’s hellhole life at ‘female Monster Mansion’ revealed as baby killer fends off brutal prison attacks"

That's the headline, with "Target on her back" in red capitals.

"Marten's childhood was so privileged, her family's sprawling mansion was used in a 1996 Oscar winning film"

And that's the strapline.

The body copy follows, interspersed with photos, including a large one of CM with inset photos of Beinash Batool, Lucy Letby, and Farah Damji.

"The two lengthy hearings [sic] had cost taxpayers more than £10million."

"A source tells The Sun: 'Violence is rife on the block, as is abuse and self-harm.' "

But...

"Following the trial, sources say Marten 'swanned' into privately run Bronzefield jail, where she now will be held in Unit 4, along with other child killers, until her sentencing hearing at the Old Bailey next month."

What it means to "swan" into a place that has the character that the Sun describes is not clear.

"Another inmate was found to have committed suicide on the unit last Thursday morning, and while Marten is in the prison she has been put under 24-hour observation over fears for her safety, with guards checking her at least every five minutes."

"Our source says: “Marten’s behaviour since she arrived has been odd, to say the least.
“It’s like she doesn’t understand where she is and is deluded about what’s happened."
“She swanned in after the trial and seemed to have taken everything really lightly. But something she said, or in her behaviour, set off alarm bells and she was classified as a risk to herself.
(...)
Marten’s behaviour has been very strange and a bit unpredictable.
It is like she does not believe she is in jail and should not be here."
“She has been heard saying she thinks she will only be in for a couple of years and seems to think that manslaughter is not that serious.
“But you can get a life sentence for it. A long jail term would be a massive shock to the system for her.
“Other inmates and prison officers think she is deluded and is in for an extremely rude awakening when she gets sentenced.
“She could also come unstuck with the other women in there if the guards don’t keep a very close eye on her.”

"She has been heard saying".
And "(o)ther inmates and prison officers think".
The "source" seems to refer to the prison as both "here" and "there", although "there" could mean the unit I suppose.

 

[Deleted member 367833]

This is by Clare Wills in the London Review of Books.

JMO: it's mostly a fine piece - "I am still left feeling puzzled as to why the case was brought" - or at least it's better than, and it shows far more humanity than, anything else I've read in the MSM. "FitzGibbon pointed out that the prosecutors weren’t simply making an argument about what Marten and Gordon had done, they were trying to get the jury to ‘hate’ them and to regard them as ‘monstrous’. They were guilty because they were monstrous." It also gives a few facts that have not to my knowledge been reported elsewhere. But it gets weaker at the end when she starts waxing literary and kinda Althusserian. Wills is a professor at Cambridge who has written about a mother and baby home in Ireland (this one - see here), and she seems very interested in and knowledgeable about Ireland, so I am not sure I know the reason why she feels puzzled as to why this case was brought. Did the set-up in Ireland that featured mother and baby homes not defend itself when attacked by individuals and families? But I end my review there. The 20,000-word article is here:

Clair Wills · The Price of Safety: Constance Marten’s Defiance

The trials of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon were held to determine their criminal responsibility for their daughter...

www.lrb.co.uk

 

[Lucy6226]

This is by Clare Wills in the London Review of Books.

JMO: it's mostly a fine piece - "I am still left feeling puzzled as to why the case was brought" - or at least it's better than, and it shows far more humanity than, anything else I've read in the MSM. "FitzGibbon pointed out that the prosecutors weren’t simply making an argument about what Marten and Gordon had done, they were trying to get the jury to ‘hate’ them and to regard them as ‘monstrous’. They were guilty because they were monstrous." It also gives a few facts that have not to my knowledge been reported elsewhere. But it gets weaker at the end when she starts waxing literary and kinda Althusserian. Wills is a professor at Cambridge who has written about a mother and baby home in Ireland (this one - see here), and she seems very interested in and knowledgeable about Ireland, so I am not sure I know the reason why she feels puzzled as to why this case was brought. Did the set-up in Ireland that featured mother and baby homes not defend itself when attacked by individuals and families? But I end my review there. The 20,000-word article is here:

Clair Wills · The Price of Safety: Constance Marten’s Defiance

The trials of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon were held to determine their criminal responsibility for their daughter...

www.lrb.co.uk

1. The prosecution's role is to convince the jury of the defendant's guilt. They did that. Just as the defence tried to convince the jury that they were innocent caring parents.

2. Leaving your dead baby in a bag of rubbish with a nappy full of sh-it is monstrous.

3. Planning to give your baby to a random stranger off gumtree just to avoid social services will make people hate you.

It is actually mind boggling that people are still trying to defend this pair. It also makes a mockery out of our court system to suggest that a jury, that were privy to all the evidence and spent days coming to a verdict, have somehow got it wrong.

 

[CaptainNancy]

WRT the Willis article, I found the exploration of the currency of risk interesting.

And the snippets of information afforded by a view from the Press benches and lunch queues.

But there was a big missing element.
Victoria.
The CPS acted not out of complex layers of class and race based hubris and game playing but because as a society we need to protect the lives of defenceless newborn babies and hold to account adults who put those defenceless lives at risk.

And yes, the rambling musings on various fictional scenarios was pompous and irrelevant. The test of good fiction is that it strikes to the heart of authentic human condition. We don’t evaluate real life court cases and tragedies according to how closely they echo classical drama.

JMOO

 

[Deleted member 367833]

1. The prosecution's role is to convince the jury of the defendant's guilt. They did that. Just as the defence tried to convince the jury that they were innocent caring parents.

2. Leaving your dead baby in a bag of rubbish with a nappy full of sh-it is monstrous.

3. Planning to give your baby to a random stranger off gumtree just to avoid social services will make people hate you.

It is actually mind boggling that people are still trying to defend this pair. It also makes a mockery out of our court system to suggest that a jury, that were privy to all the evidence and spent days coming to a verdict, have somehow got it wrong.

Hatred deludes.

 

[Lucy6226]

Hatred deludes.

Indeed it does. As seen by the actions of these two because of their hatred of authority and social services.

 

[Maltesepuppy]

Indeed it does. As seen by the actions of these two because of their hatred of authority and social services.

A hatred that overcame love for their children.
A hatred that came out of their own narcicism because they could not bear to be challenged or told they were wrong.

We come back to the same conclusion. These two only care about themselves and their dysfunctional relationship and this has traumatised 4 children and led to the death of a fith.

The verdicts were spot on. May a lengthy sentence follow.

 

[Deleted member 367833]

WRT the Willis article, I found the exploration of the currency of risk interesting.

And the snippets of information afforded by a view from the Press benches and lunch queues.

But there was a big missing element.
Victoria.
The CPS acted not out of complex layers of class and race based hubris and game playing but because as a society we need to protect the lives of defenceless newborn babies and hold to account adults who put those defenceless lives at risk.

And yes, the rambling musings on various fictional scenarios was pompous and irrelevant. The test of good fiction is that it strikes to the heart of authentic human condition. We don’t evaluate real life court cases and tragedies according to how closely they echo classical drama.

JMOO

The information about CM's non-interaction with her mother in the courtroom was interesting too. I found it chilling.

There was also new info about MG's rape case from the USA in the 1980s.

I think Wills may have been suggesting too that CM and MG had been living in Wales near or with people who used to be called "new age travellers". How to interpret these words?

"the periods they spent living alongside unhoused communities in Wales"

(Previous reports have mentioned living in a tent in Wales, often mentioning urine and Tesco, but not any "communities" AFAIAA.)

I'd have preferred more on the window incident that looms so large in all of this. Boil it down: a woman is not being listened to when she says she was NOT assaulted.

The following sentences made me think of Pseuds' Corner but there you go.

"But Marten was in a Greek tragedy, where the outcome is determined by action, not character. By framing events in terms of compulsion, rather than rational choice, she was challenging the claim that risk-taking can be understood primarily in terms of moral responsibility and moral character. The jury was – implicitly – being asked to decide between incompatible narrative modes."

The article peters out towards the end, and there's probably a lesson in that. That lesson being that some things still can't be said. Cf. the history of Ireland, about which Wills knows a lot.

Still, IMO this piece is easily the best so far in the MSM. (No apols to LRB fans for calling LRB part of the MSM). Much of the MSM daily-press reporting has been concentrating on faeces (following on from social workers' concentration on urine in Wales) and saying e.g. experts say MG is similar to serial killer Ted Bundy, the shop in East London that CM waited outside of with her daughter was selling skimpy clothing, and CM has a "hellhole life" in a "female 'Monster Mansion'".