Very true. She seems completely unable to care for a child. I just can't understand why as it is the most basic needs of the baby that weren't being met. Yet Constance at least, had an upbringing where you would expect she would have understood the basic child needs.
No, there were 2 breakdowns with 2 different cars- a Suzuki and then a Peugeot.
One on 28 December when the recovery driver didn’t see or hear a baby.
The car fire was on 5 January (with a different car) and it was this one when the witness saw the baby and touched her head.
Timeline of events in Constance Marten and Mark Gordon case
Mark Gordon and Constance Marten have gone on trial at the Old Bailey where they deny manslaughter by gross negligence of their baby daughter.www.theargus.co.uk
I think the prosecution are possibly going to suggest she gave birth in the car which later caught fire (there has been mention of blood on the back seat of this car) or at least that she gave birth after they acquired this car. But that’s IMO.
Agreed. It does not make sense. It even crossed my mind that they named the poor baby Victoria (meaning victorious) to perhaps demonstrate that this was (in their minds) their perverted sense of "victory" over the SS to flip the authorities the bird as it were albeit by sacrificing a poor innocent baby which they knew they had no chance of keeping. JMO
If anything, the person who suffers most from Constance Marten's absence in court must be Constance Marten herself surely?
I *think* it says a defendant can waive their right to attend court as long as it is accepted that a fair trial will happen in their absence.
IANAL and may have interpreted that incorrectly.
Yes and I don't believe it gives a good impression to not bother turning up. It also begs the question, is she going to waive her right to take to the stand?
I absolutely agree. We can’t say yet what happened in this case, but in general the majority of parents who have children removed get to the point of having them removed (and don’t relinquish them) for exactly that reason - they still want to care for them, but for a number of reasons simply aren’t able to consistently meet their actual needs. Often the parents struggle to fully see that. There are very few parents who don’t fight to keep their children, whether they have physically hurt them, neglected them or ended up in a domestic abuse situation that endangers them. Commonly, they struggle to care for themselves as well and may not understand the nuance of a child’s emotional needs alongside the basic food/warmth. That understanding of emotional needs might be mentioned in this trial, we’ll have to see. But, for example, how long (if at all) was baby Victoria in a Lidl bag while alive and why (if she was) not understand a baby needs closeness and a safe environment to meet their needs? Could she not have been carried in a sling beneath a coat instead, even if trying to conceal her? Prams are often designed to be parent facing for young babies because the focus is on looking at their face and talking to them - which is key for emotional growth. (Not that the way it’s facing matters hugely, but we design them that way because we know that’s what’s important for that age group at that time.) What were they doing for Victoria’s emotional development? Were they singing nursery rhymes, chatting to her etc? Did they have time to do those things if they were constantly travelling and trying to find food/keep warm? Or was she mostly kept as quiet as possible and essentially ignored so as to not draw attention to her? There’s a big difference between a parent loving their child and actually providing a stable home where they can develop healthily.
We do know that CM and MG had voluntarily relinquished a previous child though.
