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

Status
Not open for further replies.
My recollection from previous trial is they wanted a council house under fake names to prevent her family/social care? from knowing where they were.

Their ongoing issue was always going to be her address would be revealed related to her access to money from The Trust (purchase home) and having a guarantor for any rental property.

Landlords for rental … reference /credit check tenants - checking with previous landlord, employer, possible police check. If both or either, has no employment a landlord might ask for 6 months rent in advance if considered at all. They would find it difficult without The Trust guaranteeing for her if they are not employed. The guarantee document would reveal address - relying on money from Trust was a problem.
Which address would be revealed?

One thing that is not clear is what friends and family members they had in 2017-23 with whom they had good relations and current contact, if any. Mark Gordon has a half-sister for example - Karen Satchell, who has been quoted in several news reports.
 
Which address would be revealed?

One thing that is not clear is what friends and family members they had in 2017-23 with whom they had good relations and current contact, if any. Mark Gordon has a half-sister for example - Karen Satchell, who has been quoted in several news reports.
Can’t believe this needs to be explained …. If CM was wanting to rent a flat AND she was unemployed (or did not earn enough or have sufficient cash to pay the rent for the term of the lease) it would be typical that she would be required to get a guarantor (The Trust Or someone else).
The guarantor would be given a document, with the property address and rent amount & terms of the lease and be asked to guarantee to pay the rent. The guarantor is often asked to pay several months in advance. The guarantor needs to know what they are guaranteeing.

If she chose to ask the Trust to be the guarantor, they would know her address. If she has no, or bad credit … any utilities or contracts (phone, utilities, car lease) would ask for guarantor or she could pay as you go with cash which is more difficult to do as UK becomes more cashless.

This is a typical situation but sure, of course they could rent for cash, no lease in Wales and still want a council house. Of course.
 
I can
My recollection from previous trial is they wanted a council house under fake names to prevent her family/social care? from knowing where they were.

Their ongoing issue was always going to be her address would be revealed related to her access to money from The Trust (purchase home) and having a guarantor for any rental property.

Landlords for rental … reference /credit check tenants - checking with previous landlord, employer, possible police check. If both or either, has no employment a landlord might ask for 6 months rent in advance if considered at all. They would find it difficult without The Trust guaranteeing for her if they are not employed. The guarantee document would reveal address - relying on money from Trust was a problem.
I can see that but as mentioned above they would have had to show identity for social housing. Unless they were to naive/stupid not to know this.
IMO they would have been better off with a dodgy landlord that didn't ask questions and wanted cash. There are plenty about, I'm sure they would have found someone in their trusty Gumtree.
JMO MOO
 
As us
I can

I can see that but as mentioned above they would have had to show identity for social housing. Unless they were to naive/stupid not to know this.
IMO they would have been better off with a dodgy landlord that didn't ask questions and wanted cash. There are plenty about, I'm sure they would have found someone in their trusty Gumtree.
JMO MOO
As usual they failed to make any preparations for the birth of their first child. They had months to find somewhere to live. Buy clothes and baby equipment. Why were they living in a tent in Wales? What were they so worried about ? So what if the family discovered where they lived? If they had done nothing wrong why were they in hiding and who from? Debts maybe, SS ,police ?
Where did all their money go and what were they spending it on. They could have rented a caravan or bought a motor home to live in.
I would like to know the reason for the national hospital alert there must have been serious red flags for this to happen
 
As us

As usual they failed to make any preparations for the birth of their first child. They had months to find somewhere to live. Buy clothes and baby equipment. Why were they living in a tent in Wales? What were they so worried about ? So what if the family discovered where they lived? If they had done nothing wrong why were they in hiding and who from? Debts maybe, SS ,police ?
Where did all their money go and what were they spending it on. They could have rented a caravan or bought a motor home to live in.
I would like to know the reason for the national hospital alert there must have been serious red flags for this to happen
I can't wrap my head around the similarities between that first baby and Victoria.
Both times living in tents, no preparations and worried about being "judged' as opposed to being worried about providing a stable and comfortable setting for their children.
They had a chance with that first baby. CM and the baby were placed together and SS involvement stopped.
They either did something right for SS to close or they pretended to.
Either way they had access to support and advice.
Any decent parent would have made the best of that and carried on with their lives.
These two imbeciles continued to come under the radar of SS; have more children; live in squalor and traumatise 4 children before ending back where they started in a tent.
Only this time without the possibility of rescuing Victoria.
JMO MOO
 
I can't wrap my head around the similarities between that first baby and Victoria.
Both times living in tents, no preparations and worried about being "judged' as opposed to being worried about providing a stable and comfortable setting for their children.
They had a chance with that first baby. CM and the baby were placed together and SS involvement stopped.
They either did something right for SS to close or they pretended to.
Either way they had access to support and advice.
Any decent parent would have made the best of that and carried on with their lives.
These two imbeciles continued to come under the radar of SS; have more children; live in squalor and traumatise 4 children before ending back where they started in a tent.
Only this time without the possibility of rescuing Victoria.
JMO MOO
I wonder what the future holds for them if they are not found guilty. Will they have another baby?
 
I wonder what the future holds for them if they are not found guilty. Will they have another baby?
Without the shadow of a doubt IMO.
Running away with Victoria wasn't about keeping her, out of love.
It was about stopping SS from taking her, out of spite.
I believe even her name was chosen as a "victory over SS"
These two don't like "losing" to authorities.
Given the chance they will conceive another baby. I dread that they could make a run with more time and dissappear.
This baby would not have any oversight whatsoever. They could even fail to register their birth and not get a birth certificate.
I really hope that they are incarcerated at least until they are no longer able to conceive and subject another child to their neglectful and incompetent "parenting"

JMO MOO
 
Like what exactly !!
One has had a large number of witnesses give evidence about it in court, on pain of conviction for perjury if they are found to be lying.

The other has been covered in the Daily Mail and by people writing under online pseudonyms in the Daily Mail's comments columns.

Both involve a British woman visiting Peru and the state of having no fixed abode.
 
Would have ex

One has had a large number of witnesses give evidence about it in court, on pain of conviction for perjury if they are found to be lying.

The other has been covered in the Daily Mail and by people with online pseudonyms in the Daily Mail's comments columns.
What has Peru got to do with this couple ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is an interesting story of a young lady who went to Peru to 'find herself' and ended up with psychosis following a traumatic incident. There are many ways to find yourself in Peru, some of them with unappreciated dangers. I suspect CM and MG may have tripped up there too: Friend who found missing Hannah Almond describes moment they reunited
Did CM and MG get robbed and go missing in Peru?? Have either of them been diagnosed with any mental health conditions that their defence would have presented in court??
Can see no similarities with this case whatsoever!!
 
One has had a large number of witnesses give evidence about it in court, on pain of conviction for perjury if they are found to be lying.

The other has been covered in the Daily Mail and by people writing under online pseudonyms in the Daily Mail's comments columns.

Both involve a British woman visiting Peru and the state of having no fixed abode.
So how is that similar to this case?? MG and CM visited Peru together they did not get robbed traumatised or go missing there!
They chose to live in a tent right from the start with the first baby even though they had access to trust fund money. They left properties trashed and owing rent. Made no plans or provisions with their first pregnancy, lied and gave false names chose not to work for a living . Are you suggesting this was all down to trauma and mental health issues ??
 
I started the Peru debate, so I'll explain. I have a theory that the marriage 'ceremony', which I believe was performed by a shaman, would have included Ayahuasca and that the lady who went to a retreat to 'find herself' may also have tried to do so with this powerful drug. It is known for inducing psychosis - particularly in those already vulnerable. Hence me seeing a connection.
 
I started the Peru debate, so I'll explain. I have a theory that the marriage 'ceremony', which I believe was performed by a shaman, would have included Ayahuasca and that the lady who went to a retreat to 'find herself' may also have tried to do so with this powerful drug. It is known for inducing psychosis - particularly in those already vulnerable. Hence me seeing a connection.
But MG and CM do not suffer with psychosis !!
 
But MG and CM do not suffer with psychosis !!
A formal diagnosis of psychosis is only made where individuals have persistent psychotic symptoms. One can have a psychotic episode, drug induced psychosis or indeed a paranoid personality type without reaching the benchmark for a formal diagnosis. The problem is that people with certain vulnerabilities are often drawn to the sort of drugs that can make them paranoid, and potentially go on to develop a diagnosable disorder.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
94
Guests online
635
Total visitors
729

Forum statistics

Threads
625,467
Messages
18,504,361
Members
240,808
Latest member
zoeep
Back
Top