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

[Cardgame]

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.

Ah I see what you're saying. Yes, in the absence of being able to discuss the facts of what actually happened to those first four children, these details all seem pretty minor. Compared to what one would actually have to do to have four children removed. There is certainly more to it than being rude or untidy!

BTW I'm depressed that you think most people leave their holiday place untidy. I always make a huge effort to clear up, and I would expect that the review system on websites like airbnb would encourage even inconsiderate people to do so. But I've also never run an Airbnb so I don't know for sure lol.

If the way they left the rental was standard, I am surprised the renters took photographic evidence and kept it for such a long time, they must have felt it was somewhat remarkable.

 

[Alyce]

Today's schedule



www.thelawpages.com

 

[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.

But the law, as I understand it, is not about WHY someone does something, but IF they did it.

The question is did she and MG put their baby at risk of death by taking her into a tent without the equipment, facilities and support to thrive.

The court, this trial, is there to make a decision on whether what they did as the only guardians the baby had led to her death. Their actions, not their reasons.

Their reasons may well form part of their mitigation if found guilty. Their reasons may well form the basis of an Inquiry, other legal action or court cases. But courts put on trial what a defendant did, not why they did it, and something doesn't become less illegal just because the reasons may seem understandable to many.

 

[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.

But the law, as I understand it, is not about WHY someone does something, but IF they did it.

The question is did she and MG put their baby at risk of death by taking her into a tent without the equipment, facilities and support to thrive.

The court, this trial, is there to make a decision on whether what they did as the only guardians the baby had led to her death. Their actions, not their reasons.

Their reasons may well form part of their mitigation if found guilty. Their reasons may well form the basis of an Inquiry, other legal action or court cases. But courts put on trial what a defendant did, not why they did it, and something doesn't become less illegal just because the reasons may seem understandable to many.

No - whether an act constituted a crime or not depends on the circumstances. The same applies, for example, to hitting someone, throwing them out of a window, even to shooting them.

In any case, if the legal position at the end of a defence case is "That's not a defence", the judge will so instruct the jury.

BTW does anyone know when the trial has been adjourned to?

 

[Zuleika]

Listed for today in Court 6

 

[Alyce]

Witness 25 is CM - so looks like the toothache has been resolved


www.thelawpages.com

 

[Cardgame]

Constance Marten denies carrying baby in supermarket bag while on the run

Marten and Mark Gordon are charged with the manslaughter of their daughter Victoria, who died after they went off-grid in early 2023.

www.surreycomet.co.uk

"Marten and Gordon wanted to go to Plymouth whilst they were trying to figure out a way of getting abroad without their passports, which had been destroyed when their car caught fire several days before, she told the court...

Marten told jurors they only intended to stay in the tent “for a day or two” and had considered the idea of handing Victoria in to the local authorities as they arrived in Newhaven in the early hours of January 8.

But they decided to walk away from the urban area towards hills after it had stopped raining, she said."

 

[Carriep]

From a local site but cited to the PA:

Constance Marten denies carrying baby in supermarket bag while on the run

Marten and Mark Gordon are charged with the manslaughter of their daughter Victoria, who died after they went off-grid in early 2023.

www.chardandilminsternews.co.uk

"Marten told jurors they only intended to stay in the tent 'for a day or two' and had considered the idea of handing Victoria in to the local authorities as they arrived in Newhaven in the early hours of January 8."

Why? This was probably clear in her evidence from the box, but it's not clear at all from this report.

 

[Carriep]

More from the prosecution opening speech here:

Runaway aristocrat Constance Marten denies carrying baby in 'supermarket bag' while on the run as trial continues

Aristocrat Constance Marten has denied carrying her newborn girl in a supermarket bag while on the run, calling it “absolutely absurd”.

www.lbc.co.uk

The crown accepts death may have been by smothering in the tent.

"The second defendant (Marten) fell asleep with the baby underneath her jacket zipped up in that tent. If that is what occurred, it represents a breach of that duty of care by the parents because they were in that tent together.

"We say the risk of death by hypothermia or suffocation was obvious, but also it was a serious risk of death."

If we are talking only suffocation, surely the risk came not from being in a tent, and not from the temperature either, but from the baby being under her mother's jacket while her parents were physically completely exhausted - which may be insufficient to prove manslaughter against the two of them, but we shall see.

What if she says something like "Mark was exhausted too, but he told me to make sure I couldn't fall on top of her.... and I remember he asked a few times, and he offered to take her, and I said I was okay ... and then when I woke up .... " ? Where's the case against him then?

 

[Cardgame]

From a local site but cited to the PA:

Constance Marten denies carrying baby in supermarket bag while on the run

Marten and Mark Gordon are charged with the manslaughter of their daughter Victoria, who died after they went off-grid in early 2023.

www.chardandilminsternews.co.uk

"Marten told jurors they only intended to stay in the tent 'for a day or two' and had considered the idea of handing Victoria in to the local authorities as they arrived in Newhaven in the early hours of January 8."

Why? This was probably clear in her evidence from the box, but it's not clear at all from this report.

Because surely they knew - without passports - that they only had two options - to get caught, or to hand themselves in. By this point they were all over the news and the police were after them. IMO. It was only a matter of time.

 

[Cardgame]

More from the prosecution opening speech here:

Runaway aristocrat Constance Marten denies carrying baby in 'supermarket bag' while on the run as trial continues

Aristocrat Constance Marten has denied carrying her newborn girl in a supermarket bag while on the run, calling it “absolutely absurd”.

www.lbc.co.uk

The crown accepts death may have been by smothering in the tent.



If we are talking only suffocation, surely the risk came not from being in a tent, and not from the temperature either, but from the baby being under her mother's jacket while her parents were physically completely exhausted.

But why would you fall asleep with a baby zipped inside your jacket if you weren't in a tent?

(I mean, yes, ofc why would you do that EVER since it's so clearly an absolute hazard to a newborn baby?! But the temperature is the reason for the choice. And the tent is the reason for the temperature.)

 

[Lucy6226]

More from the prosecution opening speech here:

Runaway aristocrat Constance Marten denies carrying baby in 'supermarket bag' while on the run as trial continues

Aristocrat Constance Marten has denied carrying her newborn girl in a supermarket bag while on the run, calling it “absolutely absurd”.

www.lbc.co.uk

The crown accepts death may have been by smothering in the tent.



If we are talking only suffocation, surely the risk came not from being in a tent, and not from the temperature either, but from the baby being under her mother's jacket while her parents were physically completely exhausted.

But had they not been in a tent in the cold and in a house/hotel/hostel, Victoria would have been able to be placed in a safe sleeping position. The fact is they made the decision to sleep in the tent, that was the risk factor.

 

[Carriep]

But why would you fall asleep with a baby zipped inside your jacket if you weren't in a tent?

(I mean, yes, ofc why would you do that EVER since it's so clearly an absolute hazard to a newborn baby?! But the temperature is the reason for the choice. And the tent is the reason for the temperature.)

I was thinking maybe you might be in a room without heating or other bedclothes, and maybe you've got a sleeping bag which would be a bit like the jacket. But yes you are right about the temperature, although it would be more a case of it being under say 15C rather than under 3C or whatever it was that night.

Edit: but to what extent did the jacket contribute to the smothering, and to what extent was it just her body on top of her and her physical exhaustion?

 

[Alyce]

She denied that either the parents’ clothing or Victoria’s got wet while they waited for rain to stop near to a petrol station.
Asked if the conditions were suitable for camping, Marten said: “If we knew it was something we could not bear, we would have gone to plan B and handed her in.”
Marten told the court she was “relatively warm” and they were all dry when they first got into it.

Runaway aristocrat Constance Marten denies carrying baby in 'supermarket bag' while on the run as trial continues

Aristocrat Constance Marten has denied carrying her newborn girl in a supermarket bag while on the run, calling it “absolutely absurd”.

www.lbc.co.uk

Her ability to cope with the conditions surely cannot compare with how a new born baby is going to feel - particularly one who didn't even have suitable clothing to withstand the temperatures.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I'm not sure CM has a concept of how to look after herself and keep herself safe and stable, so maybe she's also unable to consider the needs of others. The video in the kebab shop when she hoiked the baby into the pushchair and stuffed the padding over her body and face really demonstrated a lot IMO, it was MG who tenderly re-arranged the cover. JMO

 

[JennieM]

Constance Marten denies carrying baby in shopping bag​

Asked if her baby, Victoria, had been carried in a red bag for life at any point, Marten said "absolutely not" and added: "No-one is going to put their live baby who they are caring for and loving in a shopping bag."

[…]

Marten returned to court on Monday to continue giving evidence in the retrial, but shortly after beginning around 11:00 BST said she needed a coffee to wake up.

She continued to give evidence after a short break, but the jury were sent home for the day after lunch, with the judge telling them a "matter of law" had arisen.

[…]

The conditions inside the tent were warm but not comfortable, Marten said, adding the baby would usually sleep on either her or Gordon's chest. If they were awake, they would put the baby on a pillow between them, she added.

Marten told the court the baby died while she was asleep.

"I fell asleep and my head flopped forward," she said, adding "when I woke up she was dead".

[…]

Constance Marten denies carrying baby in shopping bag, retrial hears

She tells the court "absolutely not" when asked if she'd carried her newborn in a red bag for life.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Hang on... IIRC after we saw the footage of the two abandoning the pushchair in East London, CCTV footage taken from the footpaths in a housing estate near Whitechapel I think... did we not see that the baby was no longer in the pushchair and could only be inside the 'bag for life'?

Or have I mis-remembered it? Was she inside one of their coats?

ETA: Just re-watched the footage and after they've left the buggy, as they walk towards the camera, there is no sign of the baby. Both have their arms down at their sides, CM is carrying one large red 'bag for life' in her right hand, her left hand is free down at her side and MG is carrying two large white plastic carrier bags, one in each hand. Unless the baby was tied tightly against CM's body inside CM's coat, she must have been in the red bag. I would imagine both scenarios could be lethally dangerous. What if the baby was already passed away at that point? Maybe that's why they abandoned the buggy? What proof of life is there after this that the baby lived beyond that day?

JMO MOO

 

[Megnut]

Constance Marten denies carrying baby in shopping bag​

Asked if her baby, Victoria, had been carried in a red bag for life at any point, Marten said "absolutely not" and added: "No-one is going to put their live baby who they are caring for and loving in a shopping bag."

[…]

Marten returned to court on Monday to continue giving evidence in the retrial, but shortly after beginning around 11:00 BST said she needed a coffee to wake up.

She continued to give evidence after a short break, but the jury were sent home for the day after lunch, with the judge telling them a "matter of law" had arisen.

[…]

The conditions inside the tent were warm but not comfortable, Marten said, adding the baby would usually sleep on either her or Gordon's chest. If they were awake, they would put the baby on a pillow between them, she added.

Marten told the court the baby died while she was asleep.

"I fell asleep and my head flopped forward," she said, adding "when I woke up she was dead".

[…]

Constance Marten denies carrying baby in shopping bag, retrial hears

She tells the court "absolutely not" when asked if she'd carried her newborn in a red bag for life.

www.bbc.co.uk

Ok, I'll bite. (Not directed at the OP)

"No one is going to put their live baby who they are caring for and love in a shopping bag."

And how many no ones would put their deceased baby in a bag beneath an ugly compost of ordinary trash and just abandon it?

Speaks volumes to me.

And none of it carrying or loving.

JMO

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Ok, I'll bite. (Not directed at the OP)

"No one is going to put their live baby who they are caring for and love in a shopping bag."

And how many no ones would put their deceased baby in a bag beneath an ugly compost of ordinary trash and just abandon it?

Speaks volumes to me.

And none of it carrying or loving.

JMO

Maybe it's a double-speak admission that the baby was already passed any time she was in the bag.
I don't know why she can't just tell the truth, at least people would feel compassion for her if she'd lost her mind with fear then grief. She could have even claimed post natal psychosis... how would any of us know, we'd have to believe her? Instead she's taking the defiant stance and the problem with that is it makes no sense and we know the baby died in awful circumstances one way or another so then it makes her look cold and calculated.

I think the problem with CM & MG is they're both mutually refusing to disclose anything that implicates either themselves or one another. This could only be a clever move if it ultimately results in the whole case being dismissed through lack of evidence and them being possibly compensated financially... this seems highly unlikely. Also doesn't seem to be the advice of their representation bearing in mind CM has had at least five different firms on her case.

JMO MOO

 

[Baby baby Jane]

CM saying “going to hand the baby in” versus earlier statement about her other children being “stolen”

Clear dishonesty, she would never hand it in.