UK - Constance Marten & Mark Gordon charged, Newborn (found deceased), Bolton Greater Manchester, 5 Jan 2023 #7

[QB2022]

That's interesting. Thanks. So in other words, if he had committed that same crime here he would have been sentenced more leniently or gotten out sooner. Possibly with less long term repercussions.

Do you know if a juvenile record in this country would have prevented him from moving to the USA in the first place?

A sexual crime like his, absolutely

 

[Nikynoo]

That's interesting. Thanks. So in other words, if he had committed that same crime here he would have been sentenced more leniently or gotten out sooner. Possibly with less long term repercussions.

Do you know if a juvenile record in this country would have prevented him from moving to the USA in the first place?

Not with any certainty. I know that when we went to live in the USA in the early 80s, we needed a visa, whether there were any criminal declarations or disclosures to be made, I would not know (my parents dealt with this). A lot has changed since 1989.

 

[Doughy]

Not with any certainty. I know that when we went to live in the USA in the early 80s, we needed a visa, whether there were any criminal declarations or disclosures to be made, I would not know (my parents dealt with this). A lot has changed since 1989.

Interesting. I wonder if the motives of the move to the USA were on the back of something that had already been going on over here.

 

[Nikynoo]

Interesting. I wonder if the motives of the move to the USA were on the back of something that had already been going on over here.

I don't think that was the motivation for the move. I think he was about 11 then?

From the Independant - Constance Marten: The missing aristocrat, her rapist partner and the family rift
Gordon was born in Birmingham, moving with his mother and half-siblings to Florida. No mention of a father.

and from the Mail TOM RAWSTORNE: Chance spotting of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon

Gordon, by contrast, was raised in Birmingham, the youngest of seven children born to nurse Sylvia, who came to Britain from Jamaica as part of the Windrush generation. When Gordon was 11, the family moved to America.

‘My mum bought a house in Hollywood, Florida, and everything was good and we thought we were going to have a great life there,’ Gordon’s 52-year-old sister, who asked not to be named, told the Mail.

 

[Baby baby Jane]

No child should ever hear that their extended family is embarrassed by their very existence - especially when it's something completely outside their control, like the circumstances of their birth.

But that is what the four older children will now, inevitably, read when they are older.

The children are all victims in this sad case, and this is meant to be a victim-friendly website.

Is it fact that her family was “embarrassed” by the children, embarrassed by MG?
Is CM confusing her families “concern” for her well-being and safety, the children’s?
It’s clear that CM is a vulnerable adult, whether the result of MH diagnosis (perhaps never diagnosed), or injury/trauma or combination of both.
Perhaps CM is confusing family wish to protect her from harm is being confused with embarrassment and “persecution.” Perhaps unwilling to acknowledge that she might have disordered thinking.

From a trust /fund, inheritance point of view - It is interesting that CM never legally married MG … she has total monetary control and they have no joint assets (that public aware of)

No. He was 14 when the offence was committed (in 1989). I do not know whether Claire's Law would fit this scenario, nor whether it is retrospective. In addition, the Sex Offenders Register did not come into effect until 1 September 1997 and is also not retrospective.
Source:- What is the sex offenders register and when will someone be put on it? - claims.co.uk ™.

ETA - Essentially, it would come down to what the charge was and the sentence he would have received as a Juvenille at that time (1989) as to whether he would have still been on the Register. I don't know what the sentencing regime was in the UK in 1989 for those under 18, but it could have been anything from 10 years to an indefinate period.

A little more information here -
The length of time required to remain on the register is calculated as follows:

• If an individual has been sentenced to life imprisonment; for more than 30 months; or imprisonment and admission to hospital under a restriction order – they will be placed on the sex offenders register indefinitely
• If an individual has been sentenced to imprisonment for more than 6 months but less than 30 months – they will be placed on the sex offenders register for 10 years
• If an individual has been sentenced to imprisonment for 6 months or less – they will be placed on the sex offenders register for 7 years
• If an individual has been cautioned for an offence under the Sexual Offences Act – they will be placed on the sex offenders register for 2 years. If the offender was under 18, they will be placed on the register for 1 year

If you believe these 2 were prevented from overseas travel- alternative view that not her “influential” family somehow got her passport permanently blocked without her knowledge - (however if could have been reported stolen but that’s easily fixed by getting a new one).

possible that the travel problem is MG. USA deported him when he was released from prison, maybe it’s USA put flag on his UK passport so that he cannot enter US. The flag is there, other nations may see it and decide to decline entry / require interview. It’s reported that they went to Peru some time ago … EU might handle differently from Peru. (If they actually went)
I’m not sure any nation required to tell you why they decline entry.
At some UK ferry/tunnel ports to France - there is French passport control you must clear before departing UK. They might see flag on passport, plastic bags on feet, and say Non!

 

[EricAcaciaAvenue]

What's not clear from the reporting is whether/how these weird assertions are being challenged by the prosecution. You don't see much of it in the reporting, but we have no idea if it is complete. Certainly quite a bold (although potentially effective) strategy just to leave it to the jury to see that it is all .

 

[jackal67]

They will most likely be told names and age appropriate facts straight away. This is done gradually and considers both the age and understanding of the child. Children reprocess trauma (and facts or experiences) differently as their brains grow and so a 6 year old will have different questions to a 10 year old. The story grows in detail with the child really. If you want to look at your file (when 18+), you usually have to go in and read it with a social worker as an adult because they worry about certain facts being very hard to find out and process.

Often it’s about being factual, but also empathetic about birth parents. It’s important it isn’t a sudden revelation but a long term and normalised process of understanding your own history.

Not all adoptees do want to trace their birth parents - and not all birth parents feel able to meet their children again, but the children will know their own story and why they were found an adoptive family. It can be difficult to reconnect emotionally. However social media has been the biggest nightmare because birth parents are often easily located and teenagers often struggle to process their traumas and go in search of their parents.

Thank you. Good to know

 

[jackal67]

On Thursday, Marten told jurors she was “not a disgruntled parent” but did disagree with the findings in her children’s case.

She said: “It’s abhorrent. My case might not be the same as other parents.

“The problem I had was I was not just up against social services but family members who were very influential with huge connections in high places including Parliament.

“If they said to social services ‘jump’, social services will say ‘how high’.

“They were highly embarrassed about the fact I had children with Mark and the fact they do not come from an upper class, privileged background.”

She added that the unnamed family members would go to “any lengths” to get what they wanted.

Constance Marten says she went up against ‘influential' family over children’s care

Marten and her partner Mark Gordon deny charges including manslaughter by gross negligence

www.standard.co.uk

This is her view point to justify herself again and gain sympathy IMO. Maybe the families embarrasment was more about the fact that MG had been given a 40 year prison sentence in Florida as a 14 year old!!
Has MGs criminal history been mentioned in the trial and has CM acknowledged it anywhere?
I would like to know how soon in the relationship was CM told about it by MG? And who told her family??

 

[Rolypolyoly]

This is her view point to justify herself again and gain sympathy IMO. Maybe the families embarrasment was more about the fact that MG had been given a 40 year prison sentence in Florida as a 14 year old!!
Has MGs criminal history been mentioned in the trial and has CM acknowledged it anywhere?
I would like to know how soon in the relationship was CM told about it by MG? And who told her family??

Im pretty sure they aren't allowed to introduce prior offences.

 

[jackal67]

Yes that’s a good point!

Lack of hygiene seems to be a constant theme of these twos story!

 

[jackal67]

Im pretty sure they aren't allowed to introduce prior offences.

OK just thinking how it has been splashed all over the media since they went on the run? I also wondered if it played any part in SS involvement ?!

It's just another thing to add to the list isn't it? She would do anything for her child, anything! Except staying put and accepting help, except not dragging her across the country shoved under a coat, except buying her warm clothes, or any clothes at all, or the feel of a soft bed, or a warm bath, except give her up to be loved and cared for by someone else because she couldn't do it, and the very last thing she should have done for her beautiful baby girl, the one thing she should have given her after she failed her at every other turn, was dignity in death, and she couldn't even do that for her.

She is a disgrace. She said that she would rather Victoria had been taken into care and lived, but that's not true. She did make a sacrifice, she sacrificed her child's life to get one over on the system.

She knew if she had another baby that they would be taken away, if she would do anything for her children then she should have stopped having them.

Selfish, despicable and deluded.

I agree 100% .The thing that got me was her saying as soon as Victoria died oh no! how will I get my other kids back now or words to that effect!!
They had all been adopted FGS !
If that was what she really wanted she could have sorted her life out ,found decent accomodation, complied with and got help from SS to regain custody of those other 4 children ditched MG if that was the problem too.
But no she had to keep churning them out with no regard to the consequences!!

 

[jackal67]

I agree. However I do also feel empathy towards someone who seems to me, very unwell and wonder how she got here. MOO.

I dont feel any empathy towards her sorry. I dont think she is unwell either just really full of herself and her own views and opinions are the only ones that matter to her. JMO

 

[jackal67]

No child should ever hear that their extended family is embarrassed by their very existence - especially when it's something completely outside their control, like the circumstances of their birth.

But that is what the four older children will now, inevitably, read when they are older.

The children are all victims in this sad case, and this is meant to be a victim-friendly website.

But that is only what CM has said in court. She could hardly mention the probable real reason for their disaproval?
The fact that her father had them made wards of court indicates that the family had concerns for the childrens welfare regardless of who their father was IMO

 

[jackal67]

On X. Note the comments by CourtNewsUK - that the jury will not sit today - the court is sitting but nothing can be reported.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1768572861134918075

Seriously !! What is wrong with some people!!

 

[rightsaidfred]

But that is only what CM has said in court. She could hardly mention the probable real reason for their disaproval?
The fact that her father had them made wards of court indicates that the family had concerns for the childrens welfare regardless of who their father was IMO

And yet the children will hear it, which is an unfair thing for them to hear, regardless of its veracity.

 

[Maltesepuppy]

I dont feel any empathy towards her sorry. I dont think she is unwell either just really full of herself and her own views and opinions are the only ones that matter to her. JMO

Same here. To me she comes across as a narcissist who knows better and can do no wrong. And when the evidence is showing otherwise she will twist everything to blame others.
I don't feel sorry for her or MG. They were adults who could make decisions.
Baby Victoria didn't get the chance to make decisions. She was fully reliant on those around her to care for her. She had a miserable short life and even after death she was treated with so little respect.

 

[Alyce]

Court listing for Monday shows Judge Lucraft doing a pre trial review for Fiona Beal.
Nothing for CM and MG

 

[Smccat]

Court listing for Monday shows Judge Lucraft doing a pre trial review for Fiona Beal.
Nothing for CM and MG

Thanks very much

 

[Skigh]

Court listing for Monday shows Judge Lucraft doing a pre trial review for Fiona Beal.
Nothing for CM and MG

I thought he was on holiday next week, maybe he has agreed to postpone it.

 

[Baby baby Jane]

Seriously !! What is wrong with some people!!

Would ANY of them let CM babysit their child?