UK - Constance Marten & Mark Gordon charged, Newborn (found deceased), Bolton Greater Manchester, 5 Jan 2023 #6

[DavidAT]

Maybe you can order to branch. I think it’s one thing racing about and turning up randomly for a withdrawal and another thing ordering a card to a certain branch though. Very risky that.
If it was in the ‘on the run timeframe’ that is. If before then grand.

How much you can withdraw in cash at a branch with no notice depends very much on what kind of area the branch is in, in my experience. Cambridge near the older colleges, or better still High Street Kensington, withdraw several thousands, no problem. Would fifties be okay, Sir? In more downmarket areas, no chance; you can get given the evil eye and asked (in all seriousness) "Did someone tell you to make this withdrawal?" even for £500.

 

[rockthecasbah]

Is there live reporting today?

 

[InstantCoffee]

Argus has only just started its Live Feed - just after midday. Nothing up yet but here's the link:

Recap after trial of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon adjourned

Live updates as the trial of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon continues.

www.theargus.co.uk

 

[Henrymoggington]

Argus has only just started its Live Feed - just after midday. Nothing up yet but here's the link:

Recap after trial of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon adjourned

Live updates as the trial of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon continues.

www.theargus.co.uk

Looks like a later start once again!

 

[InstantCoffee]

 

[choc drop]

DBM - Duplicate post

 

[Kye Zeeb]

View attachment 486217

Another change of legal representation, maybe? JMO

 

[EricAcaciaAvenue]

May well be related to the evidence about the prior Family Court proceedings. That is likely to be very sensitive - that background is obviously relevant to possible motive (indeed might be relied on by both sides in different ways) but there might be difficult questions about how it is presented, and ultimately how the jury will be directed, in terms of whether inferences can be drawn from past conduct/allegations which might bear on the allegations against them in this case.

 

[Alyce]

	Central Criminal Court​	5​	T20237104​	constance marten mark alton gordon​
Details: Trial (Part Heard) - Resume - 12:13 Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 14:00 - 12:50 Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 00:00 - 14:12 Trial (Part Heard) - Resume - 14:55 Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 16:15 - 15:18

www.thelawpages.com

 

[rightsaidfred]

May well be related to the evidence about the prior Family Court proceedings. That is likely to be very sensitive - that background is obviously relevant to possible motive (indeed might be relied on by both sides in different ways) but there might be difficult questions about how it is presented, and ultimately how the jury will be directed, in terms of whether inferences can be drawn from past conduct/allegations which might bear on the allegations against them in this case.

You'd think that they'd have sorted that out before the trial began, though the chopping and changing of KCs cannot have helped.

I don't think I've ever watched a trial so closely before, but surely this level of delay is really unusual?

 

[Skigh]

The jury have been sent home. This is all getting ridiculous now. I wonder if Constance and Mark are deliberately doing everything they can to cause as much disruption as they can

 

[Alyce]

The jury have been sent home. This is all getting ridiculous now. I wonder if Constance and Mark are deliberately doing everything they can to cause as much disruption as they can

That wouldn't surprise me at all.

Plus, being on remand is a lot better than being a convicted criminal in prison.

 

[EricAcaciaAvenue]

You'd think that they'd have sorted that out before the trial began, though the chopping and changing of KCs cannot have helped.

I don't think I've ever watched a trial so closely before, but surely this level of delay is really unusual?

I think it is fairly unusual, although it is probably unfair to characterise it all as "delay". I doubt there would be many multi-week multi-defendant Crown Court trials where the jury is sitting 10-4 every day.

As you say, even if there is some work done before trial to agree in respect of evidence, it may be affected by the evidence as it has come out so far from other witnesses, or by the change in legal team. It would also need the Judge's approval - which may not have been possible prior to trial.

 

[EricAcaciaAvenue]

That wouldn't surprise me at all.

Plus, being on remand is a lot better than being a convicted criminal in prison.

Possible but seems pretty unwise to take the risk the jury may infer this is the case, and or to irritate the Judge who is going to sum up the case.

I could understand such game-playing more in an open-and-shut case where the defendants know they are going down for decades, but (subject to the forensic evidence yet to come) this seems like a case where the homicide charge (which would carry the long sentence) is seriously contested.

 

[DavidAT]

Possible but seems pretty unwise to take the risk the jury may infer this is the case, and or to irritate the Judge who is going to sum up the case.

I could understand such game-playing more in an open-and-shut case where the defendants know they are going down for decades, but (subject to the forensic evidence yet to come) this seems like a case where the homicide charge (which would carry the long sentence) is seriously contested.

If we make a guess and say there have been 15 contested issues since the trial began, defined as requiring discussion in court in the absence of the jury and lasting more than half an hour, we don't know what the score is between the prosecution and the defence. In instances where the prosecution have wanted to do something and the defence have objected, which may be the majority of instances so far because it's the prosecution that's presenting its case, we don't know which side has irritated the judge more, or whether either side has. It may be pointless to speculate. Interesting that CM has had so many barristers though.

I once served on a jury in a trial in which there were quite a few intra-day "back to your room" periods. We were were mostly silent and sombre at these times - bored, for sure, but not irritated - and the case was a much less harrowing one than this. Nobody speculated aloud as to what might have been happening, or cared which side had first asked for us to go out, and usually the vibe was that both sides plus the judge all wanted us out so they could indulge in some lawyering. During our later discussion of what verdict to reach, nobody intimated that any of the lawyers had been irritating at all. There were unpleasant sexist comments from two male jurors (to each other) about a woman lawyer, and most of us felt for the barrister who'd caught himself on his file clip - that was about it. Conclusion: jurors really are insulated from all the stuff that goes on in their absence.

 

[missmargot]

I have just caught up on The Trial and In Court and have some thoughts.

Firstly, MG refusing to confirm where Victoria was born. I wonder why? Is it crucial to their timeline in some way or does he simply not know what version CM had given at this stage and so is saying nothing?

Secondly, his insistence that everything was going to plan until the car caught fire. This makes me think they were on their way to somewhere, that they had a place to stay. Maybe another holiday let to be paid in cash and booked under a fake name? He makes more than one reference to keeping on moving, which tallies with them believing that if they didn’t stay in any local authority for more than 3 days then nobody had jurisdiction over them.

For a long time I couldn’t understand why they hadn’t used their time and money to concoct a proper plan. But actually, I now think that this was the plan. Keep moving around the country every few days, albeit in a car instead of taxis and living in rental properties rather than a tent, but I think that was as far as their planning got. But for how long, until Victoria reached adulthood? Or just until they were confident nobody knew that they had had a fifth child and they could stay put where they weren’t known?

The references CM makes to her family being in league with social services keep playing on my mind too. She talks about her children being with a foster family and doesn’t mention kinship care (e.g. her brother or mother), but would she be privy to that level of detail and know if they were with her family if they were?

All MOO and confused musings, trying to make sense of something that makes no sense.

 

[Cardgame]

I have just caught up on The Trial and In Court and have some thoughts.

Firstly, MG refusing to confirm where Victoria was born. I wonder why? Is it crucial to their timeline in some way or does he simply not know what version CM had given at this stage and so is saying nothing?

Secondly, his insistence that everything was going to plan until the car caught fire. This makes me think they were on their way to somewhere, that they had a place to stay. Maybe another holiday let to be paid in cash and booked under a fake name? He makes more than one reference to keeping on moving, which tallies with them believing that if they didn’t stay in any local authority for more than 3 days then nobody had jurisdiction over them.

For a long time I couldn’t understand why they hadn’t used their time and money to concoct a proper plan. But actually, I now think that this was the plan. Keep moving around the country every few days, albeit in a car instead of taxis and living in rental properties rather than a tent, but I think that was as far as their planning got. But for how long, until Victoria reached adulthood? Or just until they were confident nobody knew that they had had a fifth child and they could stay put where they weren’t known?

The references CM makes to her family being in league with social services keep playing on my mind too. She talks about her children being with a foster family and doesn’t mention kinship care (e.g. her brother or mother), but would she be privy to that level of detail and know if they were with her family if they were?

All MOO and confused musings, trying to make sense of something that makes no sense.

My speculative guess is that the date and location of the birth is key because the prosecution and defence disagree about the date of the death. Presumably the age of the baby is something they can determine through hair analysis or something (?) and so if MG and CM are obfuscating around when the baby died, then they may also need to conceal when the baby was born.

But that might all be way off the mark. All we know for sure, IMO, from the prosecution opening statements is that the birth date and the death date are contentious issues, and therefore the date and location of the birth are crucial to the timeline for that reason.

 

[rightsaidfred]

Firstly, MG refusing to confirm where Victoria was born. I wonder why? Is it crucial to their timeline in some way or does he simply not know what version CM had given at this stage and so is saying nothing?

Probably the latter. If they can't agree on such a fundamental fact, then it will make them look deeply unreliable to a jury - and what sort of parent doesn't know their child's birthday?

But we haven't had the defence yet.

Secondly, his insistence that everything was going to plan until the car caught fire. This makes me think they were on their way to somewhere, that they had a place to stay.

Given that they headed to multiple ports, the general thought is that they were trying leave the country. Ireland has a reputation for being more likely to let parents keep their kids, and the ferry doesn't strictly require a passport.

Or just until they were confident nobody knew that they had had a fifth child and they could stay put where they weren’t known?

To be fair, the authorities didn't have a clue about the baby until they found the placenta in the burned out car. I think this was a genuine sliding doors moment for the family.

The death of Dylan Seabridge shows how easily parents can keep the authorities from their children. He was from West Wales, home educated, never saw a doctor or dentist, and died of scurvy. Scurvy! Had the parents chosen a home birth, not registered the birth, and buried him in secret (they lived very rurally), I'm not sure the authorities would ever have known he existed.

Boy who died of scurvy 'invisible' to authorities, says leaked report

Dylan Seabridge not the only child going ‘completely under radar’ in Britain, children’s rights campaigners fear

www.theguardian.com

The references CM makes to her family being in league with social services keep playing on my mind too. She talks about her children being with a foster family and doesn’t mention kinship care (e.g. her brother or mother), but would she be privy to that level of detail and know if they were with her family if they were?

CM would have to be party to the court processes, so she would know if they were in foster care, kinship or adoption.

Of course if there's safety concerns (e.g. if they might try and abduct them) then a kinship carer might have to move house and keep their new address a secret, or the birth parents wouldn't be told who the adoptive parents are.

 

[ShadowPuppet]

I have just caught up on The Trial and In Court and have some thoughts.

Firstly, MG refusing to confirm where Victoria was born. I wonder why? Is it crucial to their timeline in some way or does he simply not know what version CM had given at this stage and so is saying nothing?

Secondly, his insistence that everything was going to plan until the car caught fire. This makes me think they were on their way to somewhere, that they had a place to stay. Maybe another holiday let to be paid in cash and booked under a fake name? He makes more than one reference to keeping on moving, which tallies with them believing that if they didn’t stay in any local authority for more than 3 days then nobody had jurisdiction over them.

For a long time I couldn’t understand why they hadn’t used their time and money to concoct a proper plan. But actually, I now think that this was the plan. Keep moving around the country every few days, albeit in a car instead of taxis and living in rental properties rather than a tent, but I think that was as far as their planning got. But for how long, until Victoria reached adulthood? Or just until they were confident nobody knew that they had had a fifth child and they could stay put where they weren’t known?

The references CM makes to her family being in league with social services keep playing on my mind too. She talks about her children being with a foster family and doesn’t mention kinship care (e.g. her brother or mother), but would she be privy to that level of detail and know if they were with her family if they were?

All MOO and confused musings, trying to make sense of something that makes no sense.

Yes, she would know but is unlikely to know the actual address (letters etc through SS) unless continued contact was deemed appropriate which is still less usual in UK for birth parents (but common for siblings).

Essentially, once all the support had been put in and there just wasn’t progress and improvement in the parenting or serious risk continued and the children were permanently removed from the family, different routes would have been explored for the children. This would involve continued assessment of the children’s own needs, kinship care and adoption. Sometimes kinship carers are assessed and found not to be able to provide the support needed, sometimes they realise themselves they don’t have the skills required to help a child through trauma and developmental delay or sometimes there’s lots of thinking to do around physical health issues etc if grandparents. SS want the child to have a permanent home where possible as they’ve already been through so much, so if there are questions around how they’d manage long term (eg. Progressive illnesses) this is often discussed too. However, kinship care has a different slightly lighter assessment to adoption (which is very, very in-depth) as remaining with functioning able-to-parent family is seen as less traumatic in general in most cases.

Siblings might be assessed as needing separate homes. This tends to happen due to the needs of the child, but the age can be an impacting factor (eg. Few adoptive parents would take on a 9yo and a 2yo). SS work incredibly hard to avoid this separation, but it becomes harder when less parents are willing to be matched with an older child. Occasionally, children have long term foster care plans together instead and the bond between siblings is a consideration in this. It’s less important in this case as the children were all young, but they may have been assessed as having needs that meant placing them together wasn’t possible.

The adoption process also now has foster to adopt placements and concurrency, which tend to occur for younger children. Both are aimed at reducing the number of moves for young children. Foster to adopt is where the council has decided the best plan for the child is to be adopted, but it hasn’t been decided by a court yet. Concurrency is where neither the council nor the court has decided whether adoption is the best plan for the child yet. In both cases, a number of children return to their birth family, so it’s a very child-centred decision for potential adoptive parents to make, as they may care for and bond with children, but ultimately not become their parents. In these processes, the potential adopters must carry out the same things a normal foster carer would do, including taking the child to birth parent contact sessions.

Lots of parents claim their family are ‘in league’ with SS, but (in most cases) there have to be actual concerns for a child to be removed. Some things can be complex and a child might be placed in Care while an assessment is done, but usually if there are no other concerns and the person reporting has accused a family of things that make no sense, timelines don’t add up and no one else has other concerns, the child won’t be placed in care. Occasionally birth parents succeed in pulling wool - like with little Star Hobson.

IMO, when looking at the normal process, either CM (and potentially MG’s) parents realised they didn’t have the ability to parent children who’d experienced trauma and delay for whatever reason (age and health etc) or that they weren’t found suitable for some reason (doesn’t have to be a huge emotional reason, could be as simple as large amounts of travel that they couldn’t give up for work/charity work, which doesn’t suit a traumatised child or their progressing health due to age etc). All of this would be considered in the context of each child and the children as a unit to find what the court and SS thought best outcome.

CM and MG are likely to have had contact either at a contact centre or (less common) at the foster carer’s home throughout the fostering process. Once adoption was seen to be the best plan by the court, they would have gradually reduced contact and had a final session together to say goodbye. For the child, the introductory period to the adoptive parents (if matched) then begins. So, CM would know her children were in foster care and probably know their carer/s, but would be likely to not know the address and meet in a contact centre in the area. She’d be aware of how the child was progressing and kept up to date until the adoption process started to move forwards.

If they were placed in kinship care placements, there are usually restrictions on when birth parents can see the children (can also be a reason for not being suitable in some cases) and she would be fully aware this was where her children were placed. Even in adoption, birth parents are usually told who is adopting, even if they are only given indirect contact via SS and not the adopters address (letters/emails once a year etc).

 

[Alyce]

Finally....



www.thelawpages.com

Central Criminal Court​	5​	T20237104​	constance marten mark alton gordon​
Details: Trial (Part Heard) - Resume - 11:44