GUILTY UK - Constance Marten & Mark Gordon charged in death of baby Victoria, Guilty on counts 1 & 5, 2025 retrial on manslaughter, 5 Jan 2023 #8

[Lucy6226]

Runaway aristocrat Constance Marten claims children 'stolen by the state'

Aristocrat accused of manslaughter told the Old Bailey she did ‘everything to protect’ her baby daughter

www.standard.co.uk

'Did everything she could to protect her baby'...except ring 999 when she woke up to her daughter not breathing.

 

[Cardgame]

Runaway aristocrat Constance Marten claims children 'stolen by the state'

Aristocrat accused of manslaughter told the Old Bailey she did ‘everything to protect’ her baby daughter

www.standard.co.uk

From the article:

"Marten then said “when my children were stolen by the state…”, but her statement was interrupted by Judge Mark Lucraft KC, the Recorder of London, who said he needed to “caution you against answering in the way you have just done, as there are consequences that may follow if you do.”"

Does he mean that if she opens this can of worms then the prosecution are allowed to include evidence about why the children were removed?

IIRC all of this evidence was agreed not to be included in the trial as it may have been seen to be prejudicial if the jury found out details of what had happened to the other children to cause their removal.

 

[Cardgame]

'Did everything she could to protect her baby'...except ring 999 when she woke up to her daughter not breathing.

Yes interesting that she claims that she would seek medical attention in an emergency, but we know she literally didn't do that when she woke up and found her baby wasn't breathing.

That's the bit that I personally find very, very hard to get over.

 

[Carriep]

From the article:

"Marten then said “when my children were stolen by the state…”, but her statement was interrupted by Judge Mark Lucraft KC, the Recorder of London, who said he needed to “caution you against answering in the way you have just done, as there are consequences that may follow if you do.”"

Does he mean that if she opens this can of worms then the prosecution are allowed to include evidence about why the children were removed?

IIRC all of this evidence was agreed not to be included in the trial as it may have been seen to be prejudicial if the jury found out details of what had happened to the other children to cause their removal.

If the judge determined certain evidence would be more prejudicial than probative, that would be his decision and it wouldn't have to be agreed to by either side.

But I have no idea what he meant by that reference to possible consequences.

I thought the defence wanted the circumstances of their other children's removal to be brought before the jury.

 

[Carriep]

Constance Marten: I 'absolutely' loved baby, court hears

Marten also claimed she and Mark Gordon did everything they could to protect their baby.

www.bbc.co.uk

"She said that when she got pregnant with Victoria, she and Gordon had at first planned to move abroad but her family intervened.

As a result, they left their home in London and lived in a series of hotels and bed and breakfasts, she explained, adding that in the week before Christmas 2022, they rented a cottage in Northumberland.

On Christmas Eve they went shopping for baby equipment at Primark in Carlisle where she started feeling that the baby was coming."

They were evicted in August 2022.
So by December her mother and father had known for several months that she was pregnant??
That doesn't necessarily follow, because perhaps she just said "We're planning to move abroad", but it's a question.
"How did they 'intervene'?" is another.

 

[Alyce]

Marten, beginning her evidence to the manslaughter trial, branded her family “bigoted”, said they never accepted her relationship with Gordon, and claimed they “were the ones who instigated my children being taken away”.
Talking of the adoption of her first two children, she said: “I love them extremely. Not being with them is very very hard.”
She said: “They are never allowed to know about me unless the adoptive parents tell them. Their names are changed, I am not allowed to speak to them.
“I think it’s an absolute outrage. They are never caused harm, they have always been loved and well-catered for, so the decision was an outrage.”

Runaway aristocrat Constance Marten claims children 'stolen by the state'

Aristocrat accused of manslaughter told the Old Bailey she did ‘everything to protect’ her baby daughter

www.standard.co.uk

 

[Alyce]

The court heard Marten and Gordon met around 10 years ago and became good friends before going travelling in Peru for around six months and getting married there.
She described the marriage as a “blessing” ceremony and not one legally recognised in the UK.

“I love him very much,” she said. “He is very dear to me.”

But he was not welcomed by her family, she added.

Gordon elected not to give evidence in the trial.

Constance Marten tells court ‘we did everything we could to protect’ baby

Marten, 37, and Mark Gordon, 50, are charged with the manslaughter of their daughter Victoria.

www.gazetteandherald.co.uk

 

[Alyce]

From the article:

"Marten then said “when my children were stolen by the state…”, but her statement was interrupted by Judge Mark Lucraft KC, the Recorder of London, who said he needed to “caution you against answering in the way you have just done, as there are consequences that may follow if you do.”"

Does he mean that if she opens this can of worms then the prosecution are allowed to include evidence about why the children were removed?

IIRC all of this evidence was agreed not to be included in the trial as it may have been seen to be prejudicial if the jury found out details of what had happened to the other children to cause their removal.

BIB

I think her comment * stolen by the State * can be considered prejudicial, given that the decisions re the childrens safety and welfare were made in a court of law.

But also,as you say, Prosecution might then be allowed to bring in all the evidence re the removals - and I seriously doubt that would shine a good light on either cm or mg.

All MOO of course

 

[Cardgame]

BIB

I think her comment * stolen by the State * can be considered prejudicial, given that the decisions re the childrens safety and welfare were made in a court of law.

But also,as you say, Prosecution might then be allowed to bring in all the evidence re the removals - and I seriously doubt that would shine a good light on either cm or mg.

All MOO of course

So could he mean she could be done for 'contempt of court' because they have agreed not to bring that evidence in the trial?

 

[CaptainNancy]

So could he mean she could be done for 'contempt of court' because they have agreed not to bring that evidence in the trial?

Possibly, because she would be referring to events, evidence or decisions in the Family Court, which is confidential, so Contempt to repeat it.

 

[Kye Zeeb]

Possibly, because she would be referring to events, evidence or decisions in the Family Court, which is confidential, so Contempt to repeat it.

If I recall correctly, the circumstances of the children's removal came under the scope of Agreed Facts in the first trial. Does anyone know if that is the same this time? I would think that this could be a reason for not discussing further in court?

 

[Cardgame]

Re MG and driving:



That is from here:

Constance Marten planned to smuggle baby abroad, court told

She said a family member obtained a "travel ban" against her after speaking out about serious abuse.

www.bbc.co.uk

That bit is from here:

Baby would still be alive ‘if I stayed with car’, van driver tells jury

The couple’s negligence was ‘truly, exceptionally bad’ after the child died after weeks living in inhuman conditions, the Old Bailey heard

www.independent.co.uk

What does this mean, a "bad attitude"? I don't know what else was in the written statement, and perhaps the recovery driver explained what he meant by this, but if a witness gave that kind of testimony in court and counsel didn't ask for more, I would expect the judge to step in and ask for more.

I expect it means they were rude.

 

[Carriep]

BIB

I think her comment * stolen by the State * can be considered prejudicial, given that the decisions re the childrens safety and welfare were made in a court of law.

But also,as you say, Prosecution might then be allowed to bring in all the evidence re the removals - and I seriously doubt that would shine a good light on either cm or mg.

All MOO of course

Which side's case might it give an unfair disadvantage to, such that its probative value is outweighed?

I expect it means they were rude.

That would be almost as vague as saying they had a bad attitude. I once attended a trial where a private detective said that the defendant had "become violent". The defence asked him what form the violence took, and he bristled and asked the judge whether he had to answer that question. The judge was merciless and said if he's swearing on solemn oath that he witnessed a defendant become violent, he ought to be able to remember what form the violence took if he expected the court to believe him.

Possibly, because she would be referring to events, evidence or decisions in the Family Court, which is confidential, so Contempt to repeat it.

If she can't explain why she acted as she did, from her own point of view, she can't present her defence properly.

If I recall correctly, the circumstances of the children's removal came under the scope of Agreed Facts in the first trial. Does anyone know if that is the same this time? I would think that this could be a reason for not discussing further in court?

Last time too she said they were stolen by the state, using exactly those words.

Constance Marten planned to smuggle baby abroad, court told

She said a family member obtained a "travel ban" against her after speaking out about serious abuse.

www.bbc.co.uk

"My children were stolen from me by the state, there is no other way to say it," she told the jury on Monday.

(Report from 11 March 2024.)

 

[CaptainNancy]

“If she can't explain why she acted as she did, from her own point of view, she can't present her defence properly”

Hence, presumably, why the judge warned her to stay within the law wrt contempt. Whether the removal of the 4 children was the right decision or not is not the subject of this trial.
For her to talk about her feelings about the loss of her children in the context of why they made certain decisions which are the subject of this trial would seem to me to be relevant. Her feelings about her children and impetus to keep the baby. But that is different from questioning the facts / evidence / decision of a previous and confidential court process.

It would seem understandable that she would feel very emotional discussing her children in court, and might stray beyond boundaries,

JMO.

 

[CaptainNancy]

Also, wrt judge’s warnings, we are only getting snippets of what transpires over a whole day in court. And if comments, allegations, accusations (for example) were made from the witness box and prompted a warning , the press would not be able to report what it was that was said.

And if one of us had been a fly on the wall, neither would we on WS!

 

[Carriep]

“If she can't explain why she acted as she did, from her own point of view, she can't present her defence properly”

Hence, presumably, why the judge warned her to stay within the law wrt contempt. Whether the removal of the 4 children was the right decision or not is not the subject of this trial.
For her to talk about her feelings about the loss of her children in the context of why they made certain decisions which are the subject of this trial would seem to me to be relevant. Her feelings about her children and impetus to keep the baby. But that is different from questioning the facts / evidence / decision of a previous and confidential court process.

It would seem understandable that she would feel very emotional discussing her children in court, and might stray beyond boundaries,

JMO.

"I believe the system is corrupt and that the police lied about me in another case and the judge knowingly did nothing to stop them, and that is why I didn't answer the door when the police came to my house."

A defendant who says such a thing might be right or wrong to have thought the way they did, and they may be lying to say they thought that way, but if this is part of their defence - an explanation of what is agreed to have been their action - then let them present it in their own words. (JMO!) A judge can stop what they say from being reported if it would be considered defamatory or injurious if said outside a courtroom.

In Germany there is a law against slandering the state. AFAIAA there isn't in Britain.

Totally agree that we are only hearing snippets. Both CM and the judge may have said lots of other stuff directly relevant to this exchange that hasn't been reported.

(Another point is that when there is the surely inevitable inquiry, so that "lessons can be learned", what happened to her older children will surely be considered.)

 

[Carriep]

Another example of how we are only getting snippets is what CM said about vaccination in the box today.

 

[Cardgame]

That would be almost as vague as saying they had a bad attitude. I once attended a trial where a private detective said that the defendant had "become violent". The defence asked him what form the violence took, and he bristled and asked the judge whether he had to answer that question. The judge was merciless and said if he's swearing on solemn oath that he witnessed a defendant become violent, he ought to be able to remember what form the violence took if he expected the court to believe him.

RSBM

I think I see what you're saying there but IMO those two scenarios are different.

Being rude/having a bad attitude isn't a criminal offense.

And it's clearly entirely subjective. He experienced them as having a bad attitude, they may or may not have intended to present themselves in such a way.

I can't see how it serves either defendant to dig into that further.

I'd probably have a bad attitude if my car exploded and I was stuck on the motorway with a newborn baby. I doubt anyone would convict them on that basis.

But maybe I'm missing your point?

 

[Carriep]

RSBM

I think I see what you're saying there but IMO those two scenarios are different.

Being rude/having a bad attitude isn't a criminal offense.

And it's clearly entirely subjective. He experienced them as having a bad attitude, they may or may not have intended to present themselves in such a way.

I can't see how it serves either defendant to dig into that further.

I'd probably have a bad attitude if my car exploded and I was stuck on the motorway with a newborn baby. I doubt anyone would convict them on that basis.

But maybe I'm missing your point?

It's just the possible cumulative effect of all these things that are being said - they left the holiday rental place untidy (which most people do), a driver who took them from A to B in agreed circumstances signed a statement saying they had a bad attitude (which as you suggest, many people might have had in the circumstances), she thinks this or that about vaccination (which I'm guessing she was asked about by her own counsel because of something that was said in the prosecution evidence). Meanwhile the police have released photos of stuff found in the car which was surely unnecessary, and parts of the press have focused on how she paced up and down in the cold outside a shop window display of "skimpy dresses", and Primark has now had a look-in as well as Argos, Lidl, and Peugeot. If I was on the jury I'd probably be bored with all that stuff and I would want to know, first, what happened with their other children and their relations with social services, and, second, what the story is with the private detectives and with her parents or whoever else might have hired them. And I have to say that going by the selected facts that have been published - which is all I have to go by - it seems that it's the defence and not the prosecution that is trying to raise these two areas - which when they are raised can be questioned, challenged, and possibly rebutted by the crown, so what's the problem? If in the course of this they come across as total nutters incapable of looking after a baby, then that's their defence crashing but essentially I think let them run their defence how they want, even if that is a minority opinion on this board. JMOO etc.

On another note, I won't be surprised if the crown takes a different tack this time and decides not to run such a long cross-examination.

 

[Obergine]

I agree that the prosecution is painting a picture with all these details demonstrating incompetence, bad attitude and paranoia - particularly towards health and care professionals. Not vaccinating children is often recorded in social services assessments as parents acting against the best interests of a child, for example.