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

[Cardgame]

3:49pm

Joel Smith KC, prosecuting, says that the majority of the prosecution's case has now been heard.
From 12pm tomorrow the defence will begin.
The jury has been released for the day.

I really hope that the last bit of the prosecution is an expert they have called to testify about how dangerous it would be to cart a newborn baby around in a Lidl bag.

 

[Nikynoo]

I really hope that the last bit of the prosecution is an expert they have called to testify about how dangerous it would be to cart a newborn baby around in a Lidl bag.

Has there been direct evidence presented that this was the case, or is it something that has been inferred by the prosecution?

 

[GreekGal]

Has there been direct evidence presented that this was the case, or is it something that has been inferred by the prosecution?

I'm pretty certain that the footage of CM and MG dumping the buggy in the Whitechapel area and then emerging from around the corner without it proves this. The way CM is walking and also the bulging bag for life in her right hand indicates that Victoria is not inside her coat or elsewhere. That's one particular instance that stands out but there may well be more evidence from other cameras, taxi drivers and hotel receptionists who had not noticed or heard the baby with the defendants.

 

[Schlitze]

A court artist sketch of Mark Gordon, with a grey jumper over his head,

Constance Marten and Mark Gordon face trial over baby death

An aristocrat and her partner are facing an Old Bailey trial over the death of their baby daughter early next year.

www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk

Ah right, thanks, hadn't seen that sketch before so thought it was from today's court appearance but it's from the first hearing a year ago

 

[Maltesepuppy]

CM is coming across as a fantasist and a self entitled blah (not a nice word). So many people with nothing are desperate for social housing and here is a wealthy, educated woman with a tasty trust fund playing games at being homeless it beggers belief that they were selfish enough to even cinsider having children into this environment. The more i read this the more it make me really angry.

Yes to me she comes across as self entitled and petulant. And so does her idiot boyfriend.
They do not take responsibility for anything. Their other kids going into care? Her family's fault and the "draconian" social services.
Victoria's death? The public's fault for recognising them and "stopping" them from finding accommodation.
They have shown again and again that none of their children were a priority. They were more worried about "being judged" with their first child in a tent than about keeping that baby warm and safe (there was no public recognising them there, what was their excuse?)
They missed contact sessions with their kids and broke their hearts. They happily went for 4 months of not seeing their kids when they were in foster care.
They missed out on seeing their 4th baby in hospital because they refused a frigging covid test.
And then it's the appalling and shocking way in which they treated Victoria in life and in death.
I hope they get at least 10 years so that they are not able to have any more kids.

 

[nb93x]

Is anyone familiar with the purpose of wardship?

Constance Marten trial: aristocrat ‘posed as Irish Traveller’

All four of her older children were put up for adoption because of fears of physical violence between her and Mark Gordon, court has been told

www.thetimes.co.uk

According to google:

Through a wardship the court will have the legal responsibility over a child. By making a child a ward of court no orders concerning a child can be made, and neither can any action be taken which would affect the child unless ordered by the court or the courts permission is sought.

What would the intention of doing something like this be, from a family point of view? Would this be something you would do if you suspect neglect but cannot make contact with the family member? Or is the ultimate hope that the child's care will be handed over to you, if you apply?

I cannot read the link to see context, but I can imagine the wardship in this instance would be around the parental responsibility. This happens for relinquished children when the Court holds parental responsibility rather than the local authority

 

[crespo29]

Hello All, I have a question regarding this case. The initial case started in Manchester so why did the Metropolitan Police take the investigation and why did the case go to the Old Bailey? I know that the media ran with the story and freaked out the couple, but there is no evidence that they actually did much wrong, certainly not enough to justify an Old Bailey trial. She seems to be a vulnerable woman that needs psychiatric help. Not sure about Mark Gordon, do not know enough to comment, is he manipulating her?

 

[DavidAT]

Defence due to start at noon tomorrow.

Is the court sitting from 10? I wondered whether time had been left for legal argument before the defence opens, because surely the defence at the very least will ask for manslaughter to be kicked out.

<modsnip: sub judice>

 

[DavidAT]

Yes to me she comes across as self entitled and petulant. And so does her idiot boyfriend.
They do not take responsibility for anything. Their other kids going into care? Her family's fault and the "draconian" social services.
Victoria's death? The public's fault for recognising them and "stopping" them from finding accommodation.
They have shown again and again that none of their children were a priority. They were more worried about "being judged" with their first child in a tent than about keeping that baby warm and safe (there was no public recognising them there, what was their excuse?)
They missed contact sessions with their kids and broke their hearts. They happily went for 4 months of not seeing their kids when they were in foster care.
They missed out on seeing their 4th baby in hospital because they refused a frigging covid test.
And then it's the appalling and shocking way in which they treated Victoria in life and in death.
I hope they get at least 10 years so that they are not able to have any more kids.

<modsnip - asking for guilt/innocence answers - sub judice>

Unrelated: is there a normal practice for which defendant gives evidence first if both defendants in a joint trial wish to give evidence? MG is the first defendant because G comes before M in the alphabet. Of course even if there is such a rule, a canny defendant wouuld be able to get around it, so long as he didn't involve his barrister. Same goes for the normal practice of a defendant being the first defence witness if he wishes to give evidence. This can be circumvented by means of an asserted change of mind.

In this case if they're both going to give evidence it might be better for the defence if CM goes first. (But who knows what will happen? I don't think anyone will be surprised if the defence doesn't open its case until Monday.)

 

[amaraya]

Dr Nat Cary told the Old Bailey on Thursday that baby Victoria was wearing just a nappy and had signs of “significant decomposition” when he examined her.

Has it been mentioned before that Victoria was only wearing a nappy? I think this is very strange... either she was only in a nappy when she died (which is unthinkable in a tent in winter) or she was taken out of whatever she was wearing after death. Is this perhaps so that it can't be seen that her clothing was completely inadequate?
Unless they are trying (once again) to cover something up, you would naturally expect her to be wearing what she died in. And I think from a respectful POV if the child you love has died, you surely still want them to look as comfortable as possible. Our whole culture around death is to present the person looking as peaceful and as cared for as possible. I mean, we choose outfits for them! Add in the Lidl bag with soil on top as well and it makes for unfathomable behaviour.

Perhaps when they tried cpr or whatever they took off her clothing? Either way i just simply couldnt imagine at least not swaddling her little body.

 

[DavidAT]

Better write-up from the state broadcaster today than in the Argus:

Constance Marten and Mark Gordon trial: Pathologist not able to say how baby died

A pathologist said it was not possible to determine how Constance Marten and Mark Gordon's baby died.

www.bbc.co.uk

"Giving evidence on Thursday, Dr Cary told jurors a joint post-mortem examination was undertaken with a paediatric pathologist two days after baby Victoria's body was found.

He said that there was no evidence of natural disease or a congenital condition that could have caused the baby's death, nor were there any injuries on the baby consistent with any form of assault or restraint.

Dr Cary told the jury on the cause of death: "I can tell you more about what it is not than what it is".

The pathologist said: "A number of causes have been ruled out.

"Really when you start to take into account the circumstances, which is really a matter for the jury, hypothermia, being out in a cold environment, is a very important cause of death".

He said: "The other would be co-sleeping, sharing facilities with another person where overheating may apply or rebreathing, breathing in expired air.

But Dr Cary added: "It's fair to say none of that is provable. You cannot do a blood test".

Dr Cary said there were no apparent signs of old or recent injuries during an external examination, adding he could not determine when the baby died.

When cross-examined by Mr Gordon's lawyer, John Femi-Ola KC put to the pathologist that it was "important not to guess" about possible causes of death since the pathological cause of death was unascertained.

"Absolutely", Dr Cary replied.

The barrister responded: "On the one hand you say it could be overheating, on the other hand it could be too cold. You simply have no evidence to support either".

"Yes that's true", the pathologist said."

(BBM)

 

[MadMcGoo]

As a reminder,

As this trial is in the UK, the case is under sub judice, so please stick to discussing the trial content without posting anything that violates the following principles:

- Basically, anything that may prejudice the accused’s right to a fair trial.
- Any suggestion, opinion, or direct accusation that the accused is either guilty OR innocent
(i.e. the accused cannot be called "the killer"; use "the accused", "the alleged killer", or "the defendant").
- A defendant’s previous history of any offense is off limits.
- Scandalizing the court (disparaging judges, lawyers, any officer of the Court) is off limits.
- Broadcasting anything about proceedings which happen in the jury's absence is off limits.
- Any non-compliance with an Order of the court is off limits.

Contempt of Court Act 1981

An Act to amend the law relating to contempt of court and related matters.

www.legislation.gov.uk

 

[DianaWW]

Better write-up from the state broadcaster today than in the Argus:

Constance Marten and Mark Gordon trial: Pathologist not able to say how baby died

A pathologist said it was not possible to determine how Constance Marten and Mark Gordon's baby died.

www.bbc.co.uk

"Giving evidence on Thursday, Dr Cary told jurors a joint post-mortem examination was undertaken with a paediatric pathologist two days after baby Victoria's body was found.

He said that there was no evidence of natural disease or a congenital condition that could have caused the baby's death, nor were there any injuries on the baby consistent with any form of assault or restraint.

Dr Cary told the jury on the cause of death: "I can tell you more about what it is not than what it is".

The pathologist said: "A number of causes have been ruled out.

"Really when you start to take into account the circumstances, which is really a matter for the jury, hypothermia, being out in a cold environment, is a very important cause of death".

He said: "The other would be co-sleeping, sharing facilities with another person where overheating may apply or rebreathing, breathing in expired air.

But Dr Cary added: "It's fair to say none of that is provable. You cannot do a blood test".

Dr Cary said there were no apparent signs of old or recent injuries during an external examination, adding he could not determine when the baby died.

When cross-examined by Mr Gordon's lawyer, John Femi-Ola KC put to the pathologist that it was "important not to guess" about possible causes of death since the pathological cause of death was unascertained.

"Absolutely", Dr Cary replied.

The barrister responded: "On the one hand you say it could be overheating, on the other hand it could be too cold. You simply have no evidence to support either".

"Yes that's true", the pathologist said."

(BBM)

We’ve known from the start they can’t give a cause of death. What they do know, is that Victoria did not die of natural causes. The prosecution state that regardless of that, the death would not have happened if the parents had not been grossly negligent in their duty to her.

I am hoping there are no more delays tomorrow and if all goes to plan, we may see one of them on the stand (unless they opt not to of course).

 

[wowiezowie]

Hello All, I have a question regarding this case. The initial case started in Manchester so why did the Metropolitan Police take the investigation and why did the case go to the Old Bailey? I know that the media ran with the story and freaked out the couple, but there is no evidence that they actually did much wrong, certainly not enough to justify an Old Bailey trial. She seems to be a vulnerable woman that needs psychiatric help. Not sure about Mark Gordon, do not know enough to comment, is he manipulating her?

No evidence that they did much wrong? I'd say there's no evidence that they did anything right, that's why an innocent baby girl died in their sole care.

 

[Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc]

Hello All, I have a question regarding this case. The initial case started in Manchester so why did the Metropolitan Police take the investigation and why did the case go to the Old Bailey? I know that the media ran with the story and freaked out the couple, but there is no evidence that they actually did much wrong, certainly not enough to justify an Old Bailey trial. She seems to be a vulnerable woman that needs psychiatric help. Not sure about Mark Gordon, do not know enough to comment, is he manipulating her?

IIRC, it went to Old Bailey via the Met's involvement earlier on in the case, when they were in London, and the home counties and then their arrest in Brighton had many jurisdictions involved. MG was initially taken to Worthing and CM, Brighton, I think. They had their first court appearance in Crawley, which I didn't understand then. I assumed if it were to go to Crown, it would have gone to Lewis CC. It appeared they were just moving them more North gradually towards the city. AFAIR, it was quickly established it would be heard at the Old Bailey.

 

[ShadowPuppet]

Yes to me she comes across as self entitled and petulant. And so does her idiot boyfriend.
They do not take responsibility for anything. Their other kids going into care? Her family's fault and the "draconian" social services.
Victoria's death? The public's fault for recognising them and "stopping" them from finding accommodation.
They have shown again and again that none of their children were a priority. They were more worried about "being judged" with their first child in a tent than about keeping that baby warm and safe (there was no public recognising them there, what was their excuse?)
They missed contact sessions with their kids and broke their hearts. They happily went for 4 months of not seeing their kids when they were in foster care.
They missed out on seeing their 4th baby in hospital because they refused a frigging covid test.
And then it's the appalling and shocking way in which they treated Victoria in life and in death.
I hope they get at least 10 years so that they are not able to have any more kids.

Remember though, it may not have been ‘happily went 4 months’. There’s often a lot of chaos in family lives that children have been removed from in general.

The reason it is important here is as evidence that they may have struggled to put the child’s needs first consistently (a big focus of SS). This is often not about the feeling of love, but about parental consistent ability to provide care.

There are plenty of reasons contact can be missed by parents, ranging from a missed bus to domestic violence to embarrassment following a missed session to simply not seeing the importance because of other priorities to finding it emotionally excruciating (and the drugs/alcohol you see in some cases). Equally, many parents do not attend final contact sessions for the emotionally excruciating reason, which is both understandable on their side, but heartbreaking for the children.

The small amount of communication with SW released to the court included a snippet about CM telling SS not to judge her based on an alternative lifestyle and the SW responding she wasn’t judging her, but her job was to protect the child and the way their living situation presented wasn’t suitable. All this is only important in the fact that they were aware of the dangers, had said they would change their lifestyle as requested and chose to take Victoria into a tent in the middle of winter anyway. It could be their defence adequately explains that, but the prosecution is basing the case on the basic needs of Victoria and the fact that, though that had information on how to meet these needs, they did not appear to provide warmth, adequate clothing, adequate shelter etc. We’ve heard from interviews they didn’t plan to live this way for long (However one takes that), so there’s lot of talk about cold exposure for very young babies etc. whereas if there was a crawling baby it would be about safe space to play and so on as well.

Hope this isn’t sub judice, I’ve read all the points but I’m still learning

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I've been pondering 'tent life' and I'm not sure many people do live in tents in the UK winter with the exception of the desperately vulnerable and homeless. It's a completely abnormal concept IMO and I think we've all been slid into the idea that resorting to a tent was quite a rational and normal consequence of being on the run. But it isn't!? Surely not?

The couple made a long sequence of decision in order to end up on the streets and that included, towards the thinnest end of the wedge, *choosing* not to pay cash for some form of cheap accommodation such as a parked up van.

The thing that strikes me as worst about a small flimsy tent is not only does it provide barely any shelter at all but it's got absolute zero security from any form of attack by humans or animals. One thing for an adult to decide this for themselves but quite another for a newborn.

JMO MOO

 

[Nikynoo]

I've been pondering 'tent life' and I'm not sure many people do live in tents in the UK winter with the exception of the desperately vulnerable and homeless. It's a completely abnormal concept IMO and I think we've all been slid into the idea that resorting to a tent was quite a rational and normal consequence of being on the run. But it isn't!? Surely not?

The couple made a long sequence of decision in order to end up on the streets and that included, towards the thinnest end of the wedge, *choosing* not to pay cash for some form of cheap accommodation such as a parked up van.

The thing that strikes me as worst about a small flimsy tent is not only does it provide barely any shelter at all but it's got absolute zero security from any form of attack by humans or animals. One thing for an adult to decide this for themselves but quite another for a newborn.

JMO MOO

I see what you mean, but there is the added strand of not having money for alternative accomodation or accessing that money would lead to the authorities being alerted or finding accomodation could have lead to the authorities being alerted. Which isn't something that probably concerns the vulverable and homeless, Nevertheless, Victorias needs should have been their primary concern.

 

[Cardgame]

I've been pondering 'tent life' and I'm not sure many people do live in tents in the UK winter with the exception of the desperately vulnerable and homeless. It's a completely abnormal concept IMO and I think we've all been slid into the idea that resorting to a tent was quite a rational and normal consequence of being on the run. But it isn't!? Surely not?

The couple made a long sequence of decision in order to end up on the streets and that included, towards the thinnest end of the wedge, *choosing* not to pay cash for some form of cheap accommodation such as a parked up van.

The thing that strikes me as worst about a small flimsy tent is not only does it provide barely any shelter at all but it's got absolute zero security from any form of attack by humans or animals. One thing for an adult to decide this for themselves but quite another for a newborn.

JMO MOO

I think probably because MG and CM had lived that way before it was an obvious solution to them. In fact, they claimed living in a tent was part of their alternative lifestyle, so presumably they quite liked it!

The fact that they knew it was totally unsuitable and potentially dangerous for a newborn baby was of less concern than social services taking the baby.

 

[Doughy]

MG could have gone and withdrawn cash from some distance away then returned and booked a room just for him. CM & baby could have been snuck in after. People were unlikely to have recognised MG alone.