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

New Posts

Baby baby Jane said:
Mainly it’s down to words.
There’s no evidence of hypothermia, no factual evidence of “cot death” unless you think CM conclusion is correct. She was asleep during the death, so how the heck would she know the cause.
The expert can confidently say “no evidence” of hypothermia. There is no evidence of any cause. I do hope that this is clarified.

The baby was so long dead & decomposed at autopsy, that there is no evidence of actual cause - which could have been a few things - cold, virus, malnutrition and cot death or something else or combo of anything.

CM and MG hid the body under dirt and carried it around to keep V and evidence of cause of death from being found.
Click to expand...
'CM and MG hid the body under dirt and carried it around to keep V and evidence of cause of death from being found.'

That is only if you don't believe her?
 
kittythehare said:
'CM and MG hid the body under dirt and carried it around to keep V and evidence of cause of death from being found.'

That is only if you don't believe her?
Click to expand...
In her own words (during her testimony under oath) she has both described herself as wanting to "dispose of the evidence" and as having a desire to hide baby Victoria's body from the authorities because "if there's no body then they can't prove I gave birth". I believe that they deliberately hid Victoria's body precisely *because* I believe her.

The prosecution's case is that baby Victoria died because her parents made a deliberate decision to subject her to dangerous conditions. I'm paraphrasing deliberately, but that is the gist of this case.

The cold, wet and unsuitable conditions, IMO, did lead to Victoria's death even if you believe CM's version of events on the day/night that Victoria died. The two are not mutually exclusive. We already know that Victoria cannot have been simply lying in her mother's lap after breastfeeding, because we know (from CM's own words under oath) that the only way to keep Victoria warm - ever - was to have her zipped into a coat with an adult, which precludes laying horizontally.

But, for the sake of exploring all possibilities: if she wasn't zipped in, then hypothermia becomes a possibility (as it can be neither ruled in nor out as a CoD). Overlying because her exhausted mother fell on top of her, as CM claims is also possible in this scenario of course. But why was her mother exhausted? In CM''s own words, it was as a result of choosing to go on the run immediately after giving birth.

If, on the other hand, Victoria was zipped into CM's coat, she would have been at risk of positional asphyxiation and suffocating from CO2 build up even without the danger of her exhausted mother falling on top of her.

In either scenario though, it seems to me that the entire situation (exhaustion, sleeping sitting up in a tiny space, being unable to lay down and breastfeed Victoria safely because of insufficient space and simultaneously cluttered and cold/damp surroundings) was down the CM & MG's choice to live in a flimsy tent with insufficient clothing and equipment, in winter, with a newborn, having eschewed any medical treatment or checks for both mother and baby.

IMHO, semantics over language aside, that is the meat of the prosecution's case in terms of gross negligence and MOO is that they have a good case.
 
Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc said:
When are they back in court? I thought it was today but I was obviously mistaken.
There really doesn't seem like there is long left, I don't understand why they are not getting it done with.
Click to expand...
Back in court on the 8th April. The case has significantly overrun, so the judge and barristers all have other pre-standing commitments this week, which they need to attend to.
 
kittythehare said:
'CM and MG hid the body under dirt and carried it around to keep V and evidence of cause of death from being found.'

That is only if you don't believe her?
Click to expand...
Not really - certainly it is an objective fact that their actions after the baby's death (which at that point cannot have been justified by any desire to "protect" her from social services) made it more difficult to establish the cause of death.

A jury is entitled (but not required) to draw inferences from that.
 
The Crown Court at Central Criminal Court

Daily Courtroom List for Monday 08 April 2024​
FINAL 1​
Court 5 - sitting at 10:00 am

THE RECORDER OF LONDON​

SITTING AT 10:30 am

Trial (Part Heard)

T20237104GORDON Mark A01MP1072723SUSWMCPS
MARTEN Constance01MP1072723

DTA, Order made under Contempt of Court Act 1981


www.courtserve.net
 
EricAcaciaAvenue said:
Not really - certainly it is an objective fact that their actions after the baby's death (which at that point cannot have been justified by any desire to "protect" her from social services) made it more difficult to establish the cause of death.

A jury is entitled (but not required) to draw inferences from that.
Click to expand...
Surely the obvious thing to do would have been to bury her somewhere. I'm guessing that one reason that they didn't was that they weren't physically up to it. It would only have needed a tiny grave :( but it was winter and the ground would have been rock hard, so perhaps it was beyond them.
 
Cherwell said:
Surely the obvious thing to do would have been to bury her somewhere. I'm guessing that one reason that they didn't was that they weren't physically up to it. It would only have needed a tiny grave :( but it was winter and the ground would have been rock hard, so perhaps it was beyond them.
Click to expand...
I don't know how criminologically minded they were (probably not very) but hastily dug graves can be very easy to spot by well trained detectives. They can spot signs of disturbed ground from satellite imagery, or if they chose to bury her in woodland there would be treeroots in the way of possible burial sites and little vegetation on the surface to provide cover for the grave. Plus the reasons you mentioned, which are also very valid.

I don't think burial would have been a successful way to hide the body unless the police didn't have a particularly narrow area to search. Having now followed way too many true crime cases I've come to the conclusion that the only thing a murderer(*) can rely on to get away with it is sheer luck and no amount of planning can be a guarantee of escaping justice.

(*) Edit: Not that these two are accused of murder - but manslaughter is still a criminal homicide offence.
 
Aristocrat Constance Marten is returning to court on Monday as the trial into the death of her newborn baby enters its final days.

Jurors are expected to retire in the couples Old Bailey trial later this week


28 minutes ago

Welcome to our live coverage​

Welcome to our live coverage as the Old Bailey trial against Constance Marten and Mark Gordon is set to conclude this week.
We’ll be bringing you all the latest updates here.




www.independent.co.uk

Constance Marten: Aristocrat accused of killing newborn baby back in court

Jurors are expected to retire in the couple’s Old Bailey trial later this week
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
 
Alyce said:
snap Bobby -

Why am I not surprised. I will be astonished if they do actually get finished this week
Click to expand...
Especially with all the summing up still to go.

It really does annoy me how long opening and closing statements take for trials in this country, it's such a waste of time! Compared to the other trial I'm following in America where both the state and defence took less than an hour each and the first witness was on the stand before lunch!
 
bobbymkii said:
Especially with all the summing up still to go.

It really does annoy me how long opening and closing statements take for trials in this country, it's such a waste of time! Compared to the other trial I'm following in America where both the state and defence took less than an hour each and the first witness was on the stand before lunch!
Click to expand...
The closing speeches and the judge's summing up are a help for the jury.

Re. duration, I doubt there will be a verdict this week. That would require no more than 3 and a bit days - assuming no more witness evidence, no adjournments, and no submissions in the absence of the jury - for 3 closing speeches (2 defence, one prosecution) plus the judge's summing up. Unlikely.

Not a problem, though. Let it take as long as it needs to.
 
Maryanna said:
The closing speeches and the judge's summing up are a help for the jury.

Re. duration, I doubt there will be a verdict this week. That would require no more than 3 and a bit days - assuming no more witness evidence, no adjournments, and no submissions in the absence of the jury - for 3 closing speeches (2 defence, one prosecution) plus the judge's summing up. Unlikely.

Not a problem, though. Let it take as long as it needs to.
Click to expand...
It's not that they aren't helpful, or important, I just wish they didn't take so bloomin' long in our jurisdiction!
 
Alyce said:
No listing for tomorrow :(

The only scheduled case for Judge Lucraft is Fiona Beal - a pre trial review
Click to expand...
Not good. Hopefully the juror will be better soon. I did ask myself what the minimum number of jurors was to still continue with a trial in England and Wales and it turns out the answer is nine, so even if it turns out that the juror can't continue the trial isn't going to immediately collapse.
 
"Aristocrat Constance Marten is returning to court on Monday ..... "
I wish the media would drop the label "aristocrat". Where did that start? I've never heard that word used to define someone in this way. It's not necessary, her name is enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 154 more.
Total: 3,569 (members: 155, guests: 3,414)

Online statistics

Members online
155
Guests online
3,414
Total visitors
3,569
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,597
Messages
17,971,589
Members
228,839
Latest member
Shimona
Back
Top