UK - Constance Marten & Mark Gordon charged, Newborn (found deceased), Bolton Greater Manchester, 5 Jan 2023 #5

[mummyshark]

The address?

Looks like "[??], The [Course/Copse/?]", London, S-[-] --9"

but the only London streets I have with a two-word name in which the first word is "The" and the outcode starts in "S" and ends in "9" are

The Arcade (SE9)

The Broadway (SW19)

The Crossway (SE9)

The Lawns (SE19)

The Mound (SE9)

The Path (SW19)

The Pavement (SW19)

The Stableyard (SW9)

The Underwood (SE9)

The Vista (SE9)

none of which fit.

There is a road called "The Copse" in Mottingham, which would be SE9.

 

[Amaz0nia]

I just relistened to it with my headphones on. Did someone in the van shout, "you *advertiser censored***ng child killer"?

Yes thats what was said though ive had my post del

There is a road called "The Copse" in Mottingham, which would be SE9.

Its The Course, I used to live just up the road

 

[Telltale]

I’m wondering where the 25k debt is from.

Ooh wheres that show up?

 

[ShadowPuppet]

I thought this might be useful in regards to the charge of ‘causing or allowing the death of a child’. (Apologies if posted before and I’ve managed to miss it.)

Homicide: Murder, manslaughter, infanticide and causing or allowing the death or serious injury of a child or vulnerable adult | The Crown Prosecution Service

It must be proved that:

• the suspect is aged 16 or over, or is a parent of the victim;
• the victim was a child or vulnerable adult;
• the victim died or suffered serious physical harm;
• this was the result of an unlawful act (i.e. not an accident or natural cause);
• the unlawful act must have been committed by a person who was a member of the same household as the victim;
• the unlawful act must have been committed by a person who had frequent contact with the victim;
• the suspect was also a member of the same household as the victim;
• the suspect also had frequent contact with the victim;
• there existed at the time of death or serious physical harm, a significant risk of serious physical harm being caused to victim by the unlawful act of any member of that household; and
• either, the suspect was the person whose unlawful act caused Vs death;
• or, the suspect was, or ought to have been, aware of that risk and failed to take such steps as they could reasonably have been expected to take to protect the victim from that risk of serious physical harm; and
• the death occurred in circumstances of the kind that D foresaw or ought to have foreseen.

The offence is not restricted to parents, and siblings aged 16 or over, but to others who join the household, including new partners, other family members, domiciliary carers or au pairs. It is unlikely to extend to care homes or nurseries. The elements of the offence involve careful fact-sensitive analysis. This includes reasonableness in the light of the suspect's circumstances, intellectual and emotional capabilities and their ability to make independent decisions and choices.

Foresight of the risk of serious physical harm may either be addressed by asking "what did this particular suspect foresee?" or "what ought this particular suspect to have foreseen?" This involves an assessment of foresight by a person with the suspect's characteristics and capabilities and the inferences to be drawn about what they knew about risk. Risk of serious harm and foresight of it may most often be demonstrated by previous incidents of violence and the suspect's awareness that they had occurred.

More than one suspect​

Where there is more than one suspect, and all the suspects are in the same household as the victim, then the section 5 offence may be charged. Section 5(2) provides that the prosecution does not have to prove whether any one suspect caused the death or failed to take steps or prevent it.

Nonetheless, by the close of all of the evidence in the case, the prosecution should be clear about the basis on which the case is put against each suspect. If convicted, the judge must be sure of the basis on which sentence is to be passed. Prosecution submissions at sentence will be informed by the basis on which the jury was asked to convict each defendant. It may or may not be possible after all of the evidence has been heard to invite conviction for one defendant on the basis that they caused the death (the jury may nonetheless convict on the basis of allowing) and the remaining suspects on the basis of allowing.

I think the obvious tricky part is demonstrating it was not a death through natural causes, however, I do think the evidence so far in lack of foreseeing risk where there was obvious risk is pretty clear. Especially as it’s supported by a previous baby living in a tent and SS involvement where they’d have been given this advice. However, I’m wondering if the advice they were given before will come up in this case? Is it allowed to? Or does it matter as the situation carried clear risk anyway?

I know obviously previous children have to be protected so limited details will be given in that respect (as it should be), but my thought was more highlighting general advice to show they were very aware - or is that simply assumed by the previous SS involvement, mum and baby unit with one baby and so on?

 

[EricAcaciaAvenue]

Yes, assuming that the jury find evidence of serious neglect, the issue is obviously causation.

In that sense, staying on the run to create maximum uncertainty as to the cause (and time and location) of death was obviously a smart move. We don't yet know what the pathology evidence will be able to say.

Of course a jury is entitled to draw inferences from the fact that they didn't come forward even after the baby had died, just as it can (eg) when someone is kidnapped but the body is never found. So maybe the prosecution will invite that.

 

[Nikynoo]

Ooh wheres that show up?

It was reported when the belongings in the car was discussed in court (including the revelation of the cat). It’s on the podcast also https://podcasts.musixmatch.com/pod...don-into-the-woods-01hnjxjxmrxbxz46rnk4ya4f27

 

[Zuleika]

Just to refresh my mind .
Are we guessing that they're both on Legal Aid now ?

 

[Twittens]

The £25k parking/LEZ fines debt is interesting imo because it implies that CM's state of mind fluctuates wildly.

If the address visible in the correspondence in the post-fire photos is genuine (perhaps a big if) it implies she was organised and law-abiding enough at that time to run a car that was registered in her legal name and update the address with the DVLA when she moved there. To me, that's quite at odds with the off-grid and sometimes chaotic picture that's emerged during the trial - not just the crazy flight after Victoria was born, which might be seen as 'in extremis' behaviour, but for instance living in a tent and putting on accents to lie about her identity when she was pregnant with Baby 1, among other things.

I'm wondering whether she alternates between being reasonably sorted and being a bit of a train wreck for some reason.

Of course, perhaps the address the DVLA held was false, which would account for why the fines went unpaid, despite the trust fund etc.

jmoo

edited to add link to photo:
Runaway aristocrat Constance Marten trial shown heartbreaking images

 

[Pidgy]

I thought this might be useful in regards to the charge of ‘causing or allowing the death of a child’. (Apologies if posted before and I’ve managed to miss it.)

Homicide: Murder, manslaughter, infanticide and causing or allowing the death or serious injury of a child or vulnerable adult | The Crown Prosecution Service

It must be proved that:

• the suspect is aged 16 or over, or is a parent of the victim;
• the victim was a child or vulnerable adult;
• the victim died or suffered serious physical harm;
• this was the result of an unlawful act (i.e. not an accident or natural cause);
• the unlawful act must have been committed by a person who was a member of the same household as the victim;
• the unlawful act must have been committed by a person who had frequent contact with the victim;
• the suspect was also a member of the same household as the victim;
• the suspect also had frequent contact with the victim;
• there existed at the time of death or serious physical harm, a significant risk of serious physical harm being caused to victim by the unlawful act of any member of that household; and
• either, the suspect was the person whose unlawful act caused Vs death;
• or, the suspect was, or ought to have been, aware of that risk and failed to take such steps as they could reasonably have been expected to take to protect the victim from that risk of serious physical harm; and
• the death occurred in circumstances of the kind that D foresaw or ought to have foreseen.

The offence is not restricted to parents, and siblings aged 16 or over, but to others who join the household, including new partners, other family members, domiciliary carers or au pairs. It is unlikely to extend to care homes or nurseries. The elements of the offence involve careful fact-sensitive analysis. This includes reasonableness in the light of the suspect's circumstances, intellectual and emotional capabilities and their ability to make independent decisions and choices.

Foresight of the risk of serious physical harm may either be addressed by asking "what did this particular suspect foresee?" or "what ought this particular suspect to have foreseen?" This involves an assessment of foresight by a person with the suspect's characteristics and capabilities and the inferences to be drawn about what they knew about risk. Risk of serious harm and foresight of it may most often be demonstrated by previous incidents of violence and the suspect's awareness that they had occurred.

More than one suspect​

Where there is more than one suspect, and all the suspects are in the same household as the victim, then the section 5 offence may be charged. Section 5(2) provides that the prosecution does not have to prove whether any one suspect caused the death or failed to take steps or prevent it.

Nonetheless, by the close of all of the evidence in the case, the prosecution should be clear about the basis on which the case is put against each suspect. If convicted, the judge must be sure of the basis on which sentence is to be passed. Prosecution submissions at sentence will be informed by the basis on which the jury was asked to convict each defendant. It may or may not be possible after all of the evidence has been heard to invite conviction for one defendant on the basis that they caused the death (the jury may nonetheless convict on the basis of allowing) and the remaining suspects on the basis of allowing.

I think the obvious tricky part is demonstrating it was not a death through natural causes, however, I do think the evidence so far in lack of foreseeing risk where there was obvious risk is pretty clear. Especially as it’s supported by a previous baby living in a tent and SS involvement where they’d have been given this advice. However, I’m wondering if the advice they were given before will come up in this case? Is it allowed to? Or does it matter as the situation carried clear risk anyway?

I know obviously previous children have to be protected so limited details will be given in that respect (as it should be), but my thought was more highlighting general advice to show they were very aware - or is that simply assumed by the previous SS involvement, mum and baby unit with one baby and so on?

This offence depends on at least one of the two other harm offences (manslaughter and neglect), because it would need to be proved that death was the result of an unlawful act (and nobody else is accused of an unlawful act in relation to Victoria other than the defendants).The jurors may be instructed to consider the other two harm offences first, because if they return NG on both of those then they must return NG on causing or allowing too.

 

[Pidgy]

Yes, assuming that the jury find evidence of serious neglect, the issue is obviously causation.

In that sense, staying on the run to create maximum uncertainty as to the cause (and time and location) of death was obviously a smart move. We don't yet know what the pathology evidence will be able to say.

Of course a jury is entitled to draw inferences from the fact that they didn't come forward even after the baby had died, just as it can (eg) when someone is kidnapped but the body is never found. So maybe the prosecution will invite that.

Yes - the circumstantial nature of the evidence given the forensics hole makes this case similar to a murder trial without a body. Such trials are rare but have occurred.

 

[Pidgy]

The £25k parking/LEZ fines debt is interesting imo because it implies that CM's state of mind fluctuates wildly.

If the address visible in the correspondence in the post-fire photos is genuine (perhaps a big if) it implies she was organised and law-abiding enough at that time to run a car that was registered in her legal name and update the address with the DVLA when she moved there. To me, that's quite at odds with the off-grid and sometimes chaotic picture that's emerged during the trial - not just the crazy flight after Victoria was born, which might be seen as 'in extremis' behaviour, but for instance living in a tent and putting on accents to lie about her identity when she was pregnant with Baby 1, among other things.

I'm wondering whether she alternates between being reasonably sorted and being a bit of a train wreck for some reason.

Of course, perhaps the address the DVLA held was false, which would account for why the fines went unpaid, despite the trust fund etc.

jmoo

edited to add link to photo:
Runaway aristocrat Constance Marten trial shown heartbreaking images

The amount payable for the parking or LEZ violation shown on the letter in the bag is £204. Probably just a normal part of modern life and not germane to the case for either side.
Where does the £25K figure come from?

 

[Twittens]

The amount payable for the parking or LEZ violation shown on the letter in the bag is £204. Probably just a normal part of modern life and not germane to the case for either side.
Where does the £25K figure come from?

It was mentioned upthread (post #700).

But you're missing my point. If the address on the letter is genuine, it points to a level of personal administrative organisation that is at significant odds with the chaotic, non-compliant picture that emerges from just about every other piece of information heard in court or revealed in the media.

I just think that's odd and wonder if it has an explanation.

jmoo

 

[Obergine]

I go back to addiction issues, some people can be 'on and off' rather than on a constant trajectory. So if they have money for a short period it can all be blown on substance of choice, with a more stable interim period. I know of addicts that have jobs and will blow their paycheck then have nothing until the next paycheck - living on food banks in the interim.

 

[Rolypolyoly]

The £25k parking/LEZ fines debt is interesting imo because it implies that CM's state of mind fluctuates wildly.

If the address visible in the correspondence in the post-fire photos is genuine (perhaps a big if) it implies she was organised and law-abiding enough at that time to run a car that was registered in her legal name and update the address with the DVLA when she moved there. To me, that's quite at odds with the off-grid and sometimes chaotic picture that's emerged during the trial - not just the crazy flight after Victoria was born, which might be seen as 'in extremis' behaviour, but for instance living in a tent and putting on accents to lie about her identity when she was pregnant with Baby 1, among other things.

I'm wondering whether she alternates between being reasonably sorted and being a bit of a train wreck for some reason.

Of course, perhaps the address the DVLA held was false, which would account for why the fines went unpaid, despite the trust fund etc.

jmoo

edited to add link to photo:
Runaway aristocrat Constance Marten trial shown heartbreaking images

Re the debt, I think she just didn't like paying for things. She had the means to pay the fine, she had the means to pay rent but they got evicted for non payment.
There is sometimes a huge sense of entitlement among the 'upper class' and people with that kind of money are often tight with it.
This is obviously just my own opinion.

 

[Smccat]

Re the debt, I think she just didn't like paying for things. She had the means to pay the fine, she had the means to pay rent but they got evicted for non payment.
There is sometimes a huge sense of entitlement among the 'upper class' and people with that kind of money are often tight with it.
This is obviously just my own opinion.

There is also with the a.d.d. aspect (which we don’t know as any fact) a huge fear of admin type things and they need really good clear high functioning days to do them but mostly bury their heads in sand most of the time. Opening mail. Calling up to sort something. Like mountains. JMO. Have seen this in someone close. Still I’m no expert or anything.

 

[Smccat]

If MG loved and knew her, flaws, and possible conditions taken into account why wasn’t he hyper vigilant for his partner and child. Who was driving who. Will we ever know?
Was it just as they said with Lori vallow and Chad daybell the perfect storm.

 

[Pidgy]

It was mentioned upthread (post #700).

But you're missing my point. If the address on the letter is genuine, it points to a level of personal administrative organisation that is at significant odds with the chaotic, non-compliant picture that emerges from just about every other piece of information heard in court or revealed in the media.

I just think that's odd and wonder if it has an explanation.

jmoo

All I can see in #700 is @Nikynoo wondering where the £25K debt is from.

You referred to "(T)he £25k parking/LEZ fines debt". If she has that amount being demanded from her for parking or LEZ violations, that would be extremely odd and given she is not a diplomat enjoying immunity from prosecution I agree it would require some kind of explanation.

A £204 demand indicates hardly anything. Many people come back home after a few weeks away and find one of those on their doormats in respect of an alleged violation involving their car. Some unfamiliar 30mph areas, for example, aren't easy to spot until you have already entered them. I'm not defending breaking speed limits, but this kind of thing isn't rare.

Has someone got a link to a readable source (i.e. not video or podcast) for £25K debt whether for parking or LEZ fines or something else?

If she has £25K of personal debt to moneylenders, that's considerably less than average for a British person in these tough times in which we live. Many native Brits are also in debt who don't need to be, or who think student debt, or debt secured on a house, or debt they pay off every month, or debt they're not behind with their payments on, or money they borrow on their credit card to buy food with, isn't real debt. They include some rich educated people.

 

[Rolypolyoly]

If MG loved and knew her, flaws, and possible conditions taken into account why wasn’t he hyper vigilant for his partner and child. Who was driving who. Will we ever know?
Was it just as they said with Lori vallow and Chad daybell the perfect storm.

I guess maybe because he spent most of his formative years in an American prison he possibly has no real life skills, or sense of relationships and how they should work, he has basically spent the majority of his life being told what to do and when to do it.
So I think you're right, perfect storm.

 

[Obergine]

They were both 'institutionalised' in their own way, so no experience of living in the real world. I compare it to the number of homeless forces veterans...they're often people that were recruited from deprived backgrounds and given a highly structured life who the don't know how to cope back on civvy Street.

 

[Nikynoo]

All I can see in #700 is @Nikynoo wondering where the £25K debt is from.

You referred to "(T)he £25k parking/LEZ fines debt". If she has that amount being demanded from her for parking or LEZ violations, that would be extremely odd and given she is not a diplomat enjoying immunity from prosecution I agree it would require some kind of explanation.

A £204 demand indicates hardly anything. Many people come back home after a few weeks away and find one of those on their doormats in respect of an alleged violation involving their car. Some unfamiliar 30mph areas, for example, aren't easy to spot until you have already entered them. I'm not defending breaking speed limits, but this kind of thing isn't rare.

Has someone got a link to a readable source (i.e. not video or podcast) for £25K debt whether for parking or LEZ fines or something else?

If she has £25K of personal debt to moneylenders, that's considerably less than average for a British person in these tough times in which we live. Many native Brits are also in debt who don't need to be, or who think student debt, or debt secured on a house, or debt they pay off every month, or debt they're not behind with their payments on, or money they borrow on their credit card to buy food with, isn't real debt. They include some rich educated people.

The podcast has a transcript and it mentions it there.
Link in My post 706 to the transcript. Attached here.