GUILTY UK - Constance Marten & Mark Gordon charged in death of baby Victoria, Guilty on counts 1 & 5, 2025 retrial on manslaughter, 5 Jan 2023 #9

The partner of wealthy aristocrat Constance Marten has described the prosecution case in their trial over the death of their baby as “like a script from a movie”

In his closing speech on Monday, Gordon, who is representing himself, told jurors: “The prosecution’s case is characterised, or simply put, as one of speculation.
“The prosecution would like you the jury to believe something that despite all the theatrics, it is just a show, an act.
“My speech will demonstrate that the whole prosecution in this case is like a script from a movie, indeed a fictional novel.
“You will observe where the prosecution has just made things up and filled in the blanks in support of the plot, the narrative, the theme of the story.”
Gordon told the court: “The conditions in the tent were according to my evidence the right standard and posed no threat to Victoria. We are experienced campers.”

The defendant, who wore a light blue shirt and pale orange head covering in the witness box, told jurors he and Marten, whom he called his wife, had pitched a tent “in a sheltered area with branches of a fallen tree”.
“Its (the fallen tree’s) significance is added insultation and an effective wind barrier,” he told the court.

He showed jurors an image where he is wearing layered clothing, and said: “We had various items on our body hidden from view. These items as well as my wife’s excessive body fat … I am pointing that out to the jury as that is a relevant fact.”

The 51-year-old said: “It seems, by ignoring the facts which are all the time present, those who are actually responsible for triggering the events remain in the shadows. There are those who would like to alter the truth.

“There was no interim care order in place which gave the state custody or a right to start the great chase.”



There was no interim care order in place because no one knew CM was pregnant !!
 
The partner of wealthy aristocrat Constance Marten has described the prosecution case in their trial over the death of their baby as “like a script from a movie”

In his closing speech on Monday, Gordon, who is representing himself, told jurors: “The prosecution’s case is characterised, or simply put, as one of speculation.
“The prosecution would like you the jury to believe something that despite all the theatrics, it is just a show, an act.
“My speech will demonstrate that the whole prosecution in this case is like a script from a movie, indeed a fictional novel.
“You will observe where the prosecution has just made things up and filled in the blanks in support of the plot, the narrative, the theme of the story.”
Gordon told the court: “The conditions in the tent were according to my evidence the right standard and posed no threat to Victoria. We are experienced campers.”

The defendant, who wore a light blue shirt and pale orange head covering in the witness box, told jurors he and Marten, whom he called his wife, had pitched a tent “in a sheltered area with branches of a fallen tree”.
“Its (the fallen tree’s) significance is added insultation and an effective wind barrier,” he told the court.

He showed jurors an image where he is wearing layered clothing, and said: “We had various items on our body hidden from view. These items as well as my wife’s excessive body fat … I am pointing that out to the jury as that is a relevant fact.”

The 51-year-old said: “It seems, by ignoring the facts which are all the time present, those who are actually responsible for triggering the events remain in the shadows. There are those who would like to alter the truth.

“There was no interim care order in place which gave the state custody or a right to start the great chase.”



What a load of gobbledygook !!
 
Yes I imagine so once they had established who the car belonged to
If a defendant makes a statement in their closing speech in which they allege something for the first time, and the prosecution believes it to be untrue and rebuttable, the judge can allow the prosecution to bring evidence to rebut it.

I wouldn't assume MG is saying this for the first time. It may just be the first time he has said it that has been reported. He's probably simply going through his side's evidence, which is part of the purpose of a closing speech. If he did say it before and the prosecution made no attempt to rebut it, it's probably true. No cross-examination is required to demonstrate that a court order has been made.
 
Last edited:
The partner of wealthy aristocrat Constance Marten has described the prosecution case in their trial over the death of their baby as “like a script from a movie”

In his closing speech on Monday, Gordon, who is representing himself, told jurors: “The prosecution’s case is characterised, or simply put, as one of speculation.
“The prosecution would like you the jury to believe something that despite all the theatrics, it is just a show, an act.
“My speech will demonstrate that the whole prosecution in this case is like a script from a movie, indeed a fictional novel.
“You will observe where the prosecution has just made things up and filled in the blanks in support of the plot, the narrative, the theme of the story.”
Gordon told the court: “The conditions in the tent were according to my evidence the right standard and posed no threat to Victoria. We are experienced campers.”

The defendant, who wore a light blue shirt and pale orange head covering in the witness box, told jurors he and Marten, whom he called his wife, had pitched a tent “in a sheltered area with branches of a fallen tree”.
“Its (the fallen tree’s) significance is added insultation and an effective wind barrier,” he told the court.

He showed jurors an image where he is wearing layered clothing, and said: “We had various items on our body hidden from view. These items as well as my wife’s excessive body fat … I am pointing that out to the jury as that is a relevant fact.”

The 51-year-old said: “It seems, by ignoring the facts which are all the time present, those who are actually responsible for triggering the events remain in the shadows. There are those who would like to alter the truth.

“There was no interim care order in place which gave the state custody or a right to start the great chase.”




Gordon told the court: “The conditions in the tent were according to my evidence the right standard and posed no threat to Victoria. We are experienced campers.” :mad:
 
Gordon told the court: “The conditions in the tent were according to my evidence the right standard and posed no threat to Victoria. We are experienced campers.” :mad:


He and CM were wrapped up warmly, with plenty of clothing layers, plus stuffing and padding from old furniture, that they had sourced from a skip, inside their coats. So his point of view - his evidence - might have been somewhat different to that of a newborn baby dressed only in a thin baby gro.
 

This is by Ellie Crabbe, cited to the Press Association, Britain's premier news agency:

"The defendant, who wore a light blue shirt and pale orange head covering in the witness box, told jurors he and Marten, whom he called his wife, had pitched a tent “in a sheltered area with branches of a fallen tree”.

“Its (the fallen tree’s) significance is added insultation and an effective wind barrier,” he told the court."

Either Ms Crabbe is bringing information about the clothes MG wore when he appeared as a witness, which was last month, into her report of his closing speech, which he delivered today, or else she thinks the dock is the witness box. Because I have never before heard of a defendant coming into the witness box to deliver their closing speech. They don't need to. The jury can always see the dock.

A witness box is somewhere a witness gets sworn into before they give their evidence. A closing speech is not evidence. The defendant stays in the dock except when they're giving evidence. The judge sits on the bench. One feels as though one is talking to a 10yo when one is commenting on PA news releases regarding ongoing trials at the Old Bailey nowadays.
 
Last edited:
Members of jury, support those who stood up to government overreach, in the spirit of the Magna Carta," he said. "In this trial acquit us. Me and my wife. Mark Gordon and Constance Marten.

"We were two vulnerable people (who were) misunderstood and continuously persecuted due to racial (and) class stereotypes. But none of that stuff matters, as love conquers all."



 
If a defendant makes a statement in their closing speech in which they allege something for the first time, and the prosecution believes it to be untrue and rebuttable, the judge can allow the prosecution to bring evidence to rebut it.

I wouldn't assume MG is saying this for the first time. It may just be the first time he has said it that has been reported. He's probably simply going through his side's evidence, which is part of the purpose of a closing speech. If he did say it before and the prosecution made no attempt to rebut it, it's probably true. No cross-examination is required to demonstrate that a court order has been made.
But as I said before an interim care order hadnt yet been made because no one knew CM was pregnant until the placenta was found and their identities established !!. They were in hiding and off radar long before the birth. They knew that once the pregnancy and birth were discovered then SS would be involved because of the removal of their other children and the reasons for the removal
They would have known this before she even became pregnant. They left the scene of the car fire without waiting for the emergency services or receiving medical attention. Why if they had nothing to hide there was no reason to run off?
 
Last edited:
Members of jury, support those who stood up to government overreach, in the spirit of the Magna Carta," he said. "In this trial acquit us. Me and my wife. Mark Gordon and Constance Marten.

"We were two vulnerable people (who were) misunderstood and continuously persecuted due to racial (and) class stereotypes. But none of that stuff matters, as love conquers all."



Racial and class stereotypes? Not due to a violent sexual criminal record? Mark Gordon was not vulnerable when he was raping and attacking women, and threatening female police officers in a baby ward.
 
Members of jury, support those who stood up to government overreach, in the spirit of the Magna Carta," he said. "In this trial acquit us. Me and my wife. Mark Gordon and Constance Marten.

"We were two vulnerable people (who were) misunderstood and continuously persecuted due to racial (and) class stereotypes. But none of that stuff matters, as love conquers all."



He really is unbelievable . What a load of utter rubbish comes out of his mouth!!
 
Why on earth would he claim CM had excess fat?!?

We have seen footage of CM after the baby was born from street cameras, the German Kebab, and tube station CCTV.

IMO she did not have any excessive body fat and was a fine healthy and fairly slender weight. How she stayed warm in a pair of leggings and a waist length jacket and trainers with no socks in the middle of winter, who knows but MG was nicely wrapped

What an absolute outrage this whole thing is. They were on the run since before anyone knew CM was pregnant or a baby had been born so being on the run without any money or resources didn't kill the baby per se but it de-funded their lifestyle and left them in desperate circumstances.

If the car fire hadn't happened nobody would have known and they would have likely taken Baby V out of the country, if they even made it that far without some other form of disaster or incident.

JMO MOO
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
106
Guests online
486
Total visitors
592

Forum statistics

Threads
625,638
Messages
18,507,408
Members
240,828
Latest member
inspector_gadget_
Back
Top