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

[Skigh]

From the article posted above:

He told jurors: “We were prepared to sacrifice everything for this baby. It should not have happened and it was not against the law to spend time with this baby. A fundamental human right to a family.

They clearly were not prepared to sacrifice everything for this baby as had they done just that they would have provided for her very basic needs which at the very minimum would include suitable clothing and warm,sanitary accommodation .

 

[Nikynoo]

From the article posted above:

He told jurors: “We were prepared to sacrifice everything for this baby. It should not have happened and it was not against the law to spend time with this baby. A fundamental human right to a family.

They clearly were not prepared to sacrifice everything for this baby as had they done just that they would have provided for her very basic needs which at the very minimum would include suitable clothing and warm,sanitary accommodation .

if they were willing to sacrifice everything, it would have included giving her up (if needed).

 

[Megnut]

From the article posted above:

He told jurors: “We were prepared to sacrifice everything for this baby. It should not have happened and it was not against the law to spend time with this baby. A fundamental human right to a family.

They clearly were not prepared to sacrifice everything for this baby as had they done just that they would have provided for her very basic needs which at the very minimum would include suitable clothing and warm,sanitary accommodation .

A fundamental right? Perhaps when in the absence of contradicting factors.

These two sacrificed Baby Victoria's warmth, wellness and fundamental right to life so they could be hippie vagabonds on the run from perceived family and government overreach, justified overreach no less.

The bitter truth, this was okay with them. They wanted Baby Victoria for as long as possible -- never minding that they all but signed her death certificate before they even started.

And remain unbothered by it.

If they are found guilty, I wish they could enjoy the same conditions they left Baby Victoria in, separate sheds, same filth.

JMO

 

[Baby baby Jane]

There are no laws around the way parents should raise their children ???
Well yes there are actually. The children act for one. Why doesnt he tell us exactly why their 4 children were removed if they did nothing wrong? Instead of just saying they were stolen?

Agree. It’s true, The Children Act (UK) is LAW.

ttps://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/section/1

 

[Alyce]

Today's full schedule.

Looks as though CM's closing speech has not happened. Hope this doesn't mean yet another delay.



www.thelawpages.com

 

[Obergine]

The right to life is a basic human right!

 

[Carriep]

There are no laws around the way parents should raise their children ???
Well yes there are actually. The children act for one. Why doesnt he tell us exactly why their 4 children were removed if they did nothing wrong? Instead of just saying they were stolen?

Perhaps he did tell the jury and what he said hasn't been reported, perhaps because it's not allowed to be.

Perhaps he wasn't allowed.

Since the defence have alleged (in MG's closing speech) that those behind the chase are hiding in the "shadows", and CM has alleged from the witness box that their first four children were "stolen", it seems likely that both defendants would like it if the SS officers who successfully sought child removal orders could come and give evidence to explain themselves and to submit to cross-examination, and that it is not because of the defence that they haven't done so. (Although perhaps they have done so and it hasn't been reported, perhaps because it's not allowed to be. Just speculation, JMO, etc.)

 

[jackal67]

Perhaps he did tell the jury and what he said hasn't been reported, perhaps because it's not allowed to be.

Perhaps he wasn't allowed.

Since the defence have alleged (in MG's closing speech) that those behind the chase are hiding in the "shadows", and CM has alleged from the witness box that their first four children were "stolen", it seems likely that both defendants would like the SS officers who sought child removal orders to give evidence to explain themselves and to submit to cross-examination, and that it is not because of the defence that they haven't done so. (Although perhaps they have done so and it hasn't been reported, perhaps because it's not allowed to be. Just speculation.)

I doubt any one would be able to divulge why the children were removed . The family courts operate in strict secrecy to protect the children involved. Social workers would not be able to testify to protect their own identities also.
I expect MG and CM are fully aware of the rules so can say they were stolen with no fear of the real reasons being known to the Jury or the public.
Baring in mind children are only removed from their parents in extreme circumstances I doubt sharing the reasons would cast either of them in a favourable light MOO.

 

[Nikynoo]

I doubt any one would be able to divulge why the children were removed . The family courts operate in strict secrecy to protect the children involved. Social workers would not be able to testify to protect their own identities also.
I expect MG and CM are fully aware of the rules so can say they were stolen with no fear of the real reasons being known to the Jury or the public.
Baring in mind children are only removed from their parents in extreme circumstances I doubt sharing the reasons would cast either of them in a favourable light MOO.

Your last sentence is not strictly true (IMO). The last trial did divulge some of the reasoning behind the removal of the children - see this and other articles of around the same date - Constance Marten and Mark Gordon trial: Four children taken into care

 

[jackal67]

Your last sentence is not strictly true (IMO). The last trial did divulge some of the reasoning behind the removal of the children - see this and other articles of around the same date - Constance Marten and Mark Gordon trial: Four children taken into care

Yes one incident of DV was mentioned ? That is the only thing I have seen unless you have more details?

 

[Maltesepuppy]

How do you know the exact date Victoria died ? No one knows this because her body was decomposed in a bag of rubbish making it impossible to ascertain her date of birth or death??

Exactly..we only have the information of 2 deluded and self-absorbed individuals who are only worried about getting off scot free

JMO MOO

 

[Maltesepuppy]

Gordon denied conditions were “damp and wet” in the tent and insisted the baby was always kept “skin to skin (1 )

I say the baby passed due to unintended circumstances. I say the parents had a difficult time and there is an aspect of mental challenge going on here. Is the solution to send them to a cell?”

Gordon, who was convicted of raping a woman in the United States when he was aged 14, told jurors he should be judged for who he is now, saying: “There is always two sides to every coin.”

He said there was “no way around” his criminal convictions, but pointed out “racial challenges” in the US system.

Gordon added: “What happened when I was a child is questionable but that was many, many years ago.”

Constance Marten’s partner tells court ‘no laws on how to raise your children’

The partner of wealthy aristocrat Constance Marten has denied responsibility for the death of their baby, telling jurors: “There are no laws in regard to how you should raise your children.”

www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk

BBM ( 1 ) I thought Victoria was stuffed inside CM's jacket - that's hardly skin to skin as might happen in a warm bedroom in a normal house environment

"told jurors he should be judged for who he is now, saying: “There is always two sides to every coin.”

And who is he now? Someone who still engaged in violence..Someone who was selfish enough to endanger the life of his new born and still sees himself as a good father and victim. Hardly an improvement from his teenager self.

B]What happened when I was a child is questionable[/B

It didn't "happen". He made it happen. And it's beyond "questionable". It was a violent attack that traumatised a woman, her children and elderly neighbours. It cost the woman her home.
Way to minimise such a shocking crime and not even show a morsel of remorse for the victims.
This is truly the response from a malignant narcissist.
JMO MOO

 

[Maltesepuppy]

From the article posted above:

He told jurors: “We were prepared to sacrifice everything for this baby. It should not have happened and it was not against the law to spend time with this baby. A fundamental human right to a family.

They clearly were not prepared to sacrifice everything for this baby as had they done just that they would have provided for her very basic needs which at the very minimum would include suitable clothing and warm,sanitary accommodation .

Someone tell this nincompoop that the right to family life is qualified. It does not apply if it represents a risk to someone.

JMO MOO

 

[Maltesepuppy]

Your last sentence is not strictly true (IMO). The last trial did divulge some of the reasoning behind the removal of the children - see this and other articles of around the same date - Constance Marten and Mark Gordon trial: Four children taken into care

The article only mentions an incident of DV. The threshold for permanent removal of children is very high. I can assure you that there were a catalogue of concerns for the children to be removed and adopted.
As mentioned by others, these are not divulged because the children are more entitled to their privacy than we are to know all the details.

 

[Megnut]

I've forgotten. How were they located?

 

[Baby baby Jane]

Yes one incident of DV was mentioned ? That is the only thing I have seen unless you have more details?

What was divulged in first trial is what were the agreed facts, public not getting all the details. The wet tent & garbage bags, unsafe sleeping behaviors for mum and baby, the lying about name and heritage, leaving baby, CM having ££ yet living in tent … are all relevant to Victoria’s death. The tent, bad sleeping arrangements, inadequate housing … are all relevant PAST unsafe behaviors that they continue against advice, they were not forced into this … it’s what they have done before.

There may have been more violence, chaos … but this is what was agreed (imo).

The Children Act is dense but stresses the child, protecting the child, is most important. Decisions are made on that basis. There might have been “love” for older siblings but that doesn’t mean they were safe.

Any reasonable person, imo, can see why a children, a new baby would be removed from these 2.

 

[Nikynoo]

Yes one incident of DV was mentioned ? That is the only thing I have seen unless you have more details?

IIRC this was part of the agreed facts. I would imagine anything prejudicial in that judgement would not have been divulged in court.

 

[Nikynoo]

The article only mentions an incident of DV. The threshold for permanent removal of children is very high. I can assure you that there were a catalogue of concerns for the children to be removed and adopted.
As mentioned by others, these are not divulged because the children are more entitled to their privacy than we are to know all the details.

How do you know there is a ‘catalogue’ of concerns or are you making the assumption that SS are Always right?

 

[Skigh]

How do you know there is a ‘catalogue’ of concerns or are you making the assumption that SS are Always right?

From what we have heard about them so far I think this is very much one of the times when SS were totally correct.

 

[jackal67]

How do you know there is a ‘catalogue’ of concerns or are you making the assumption that SS are Always right?

The decision to place the children for adoption was made by a Judge in the Family court' not SS. I am sure the Judge wouldnt remove 4 children due to one incident of DV ? There must have been evidence produced by SS and others to prove that the children were not safe