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

[Maryanna]

"But, she claimed, a family member obtained a High Court order in 2019 preventing her from travelling abroad and seizing Gordon’s passport. 'I had spoken out about severe abuse by that family member and as a way to get back at me they tried to take my children away from me,' Marten said. 'They stated I was bearing children to sell on the black market and was a drug addict. It was completely outrageous.' "

Constance Marten: My family thought I was selling babies on the black market

As trial continues, court hears of aristocrat’s plan to go abroad with baby she had with Mark Gordon

www.thetimes.co.uk

It sounds as though she was alleging something ("severe abuse") that was a lot worse than not following her grandmother's wishes about the distribution of assets or income, which may not necessarily even have been a civil wrong.

 

[BreadnLumpit]

"But, she claimed, a family member obtained a High Court order in 2019 preventing her from travelling abroad and seizing Gordon’s passport. 'I had spoken out about severe abuse by that family member and as a way to get back at me they tried to take my children away from me,' Marten said. 'They stated I was bearing children to sell on the black market and was a drug addict. It was completely outrageous.' "

Constance Marten: My family thought I was selling babies on the black market

As trial continues, court hears of aristocrat’s plan to go abroad with baby she had with Mark Gordon

www.thetimes.co.uk

It sounds as though she was alleging something ("severe abuse") that was a lot worse than not following her grandmother's wishes about the distribution of assets or income, which may not necessarily even have been a civil wrong.

She may claim that there is a High Court order preventing her from leaving the UK, but IMO it's nonsense - or she would have been able to prove it as part of her defence rather than just claiming it under cross exam.

Likewise the severe abuse. If severe abuse did in fact take place, then why did she "speak out" about it, rather than making a police complaint? Had she done so, then it would have been on record and (again) she could have produced proof of said complaint as part of her defence rather than just claiming it on cross exam.

CM's parents and wider family are NOT the ones on trial here (and nor are SS or the family court).

The defendants in this trial are baby Victoria's parents. They are the ones who made bad decision after bad decision - ending with them sleeping in a tiny, flimsy tent, without any source of heat, hot water or food in the middle of a cold and damp British winter, alongside a newborn baby who appears to have had only one vest and one babygrow to her name, until she died and was stripped of even those inadequate items of clothing.

<modsnip - personalizing>

 

[Baby baby Jane]

That makes an awful lot of sense to me and it's an underlying feeling I've had from the outset.
I think it could have been used by her defence to paint a fuller picture.

CM stated that her family estrangement was years before she met MG, and that SHE never introduced him to her family.

IMO - Defense didn’t paint a fuller picture, because there wasn’t evidence of what CM alleged — Or would not have helped her case.

People die, there’s taxes to pay, we don’t even know granny’s wishes which might have been unrealistic or impossible.
There’s not a lot of buyers for a massive estate, and sale can take a long time with bills and taxes accruing.
CMs view on what the decision makers do with their estate has no relevance to child death. How CM negotiates events in her life, is another story. it matters not if it’s £5,000 or £500,000 - it’s all relative and she is not much different to any grandchild being disappointment about not getting granny’s brooch!

Trusts - we don’t know the details, but tax beneficial trusts, decisions are made by Trustees (not parents) for the benefit of the recipient. Any of the family, will have Trustees involvement, not just CM.
Would imagine being Trustees for CM not the job they expected.

Trusts can have restrictions or events that release more money. Legal marriage can release funds, birth of children can release funds, certain ages can be reached and more paid. Some can require employment, reward education milestones.

Some trustees manage all bills and payments, credit card, car insurance, parking tickets, private medical, taxes, rent - Trust is the official address. The “beneficiary” just does their life and all the bills (to budget) are just paid. The trustee will contact person to remind of MOT, court appearance (speeding etc), tell over spending. But they don’t get involved in personal life, they get requests for money & not all are approved.
There will be required meetings, some might even request her to attend with other family members about decisions to be taken that impact all, certain investments, rental or sale of family valuables/property.

If they need her present with family to agree sale of a valuable asset - they would get a PI to find her. If she refuses to attend, they need evidence of every effort made to locate her.
Also She could get outvoted.

Of course,it’s possible the recipient can choose to pay own bills and manage own life.
IMO

Nothing to do with baby care.

 

[Yellowbelly]

It looks like we might be back with this trial somewhat sooner than anticipated. Fiona Beal has pled guilty to murder this morning.

BBC News - Fiona Beal admits murdering and burying partner in Northampton

Fiona Beal admits murdering and burying partner in Northampton

Fiona Beal sent messages to Nicholas Billingham's friends using his mobile phone, a trial hears.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Maryanna]

She may claim that there is a High Court order preventing her from leaving the UK, but IMO it's nonsense - or she would have been able to prove it as part of her defence rather than just claiming it under cross exam.

Likewise the severe abuse. If severe abuse did in fact take place, then why did she "speak out" about it, rather than making a police complaint? Had she done so, then it would have been on record and (again) she could have produced proof of said complaint as part of her defence rather than just claiming it on cross exam.

CM's parents and wider family are NOT the ones on trial here (and nor are SS or the family court).

The defendants in this trial are baby Victoria's parents. They are the ones who made bad decision after bad decision - ending with them sleeping in a tiny, flimsy tent, without any source of heat, hot water or food in the middle of a cold and damp British winter, alongside a newborn baby who appears to have had only one vest and one babygrow to her name, until she died and was stripped of even those inadequate items of clothing.

<modsnip - personalizing>

A defendant is allowed to say why she carried out her actions, and to make allegations against other people, whoever they are, whether they are family members or public officials, if that explains the material circumstances and state of mind that led her to carry out her actions. Then it's for the jury to decide whether that' s reasonable or a lot of poppycock based on untruths.

<modsnip - quoted post was snipped>I am simply saying that she did assert a reason why a family member whom she did not name was trying to take her children away from her - and that reason according to her was not because of a distribution or non-distribution of money or valuable assets that she considered to be tortious, criminal, ethically wrong, or against her grandmother's wishes, but because she had spoken out about "severe abuse" that the person had carried out.

As for the High Court order allegation, it's possible to look at this from another direction and say that if this was untrue it was surely an open goal for the prosecution. The prosecutor could ask her whether she has a copy of the order. If she hasn't got one, he could ask her which court and what date, and can she remember who gave evidence, who the judge was, who gave evidence, or if she was represented then who by. Then look in the records. And if it turns out that no such order exists, put it to her that she is lying or fantasising. Of course this breaks the usual rule of cross-examination, "Never ask a question to which you don't know the answer", but the point is that if what she said was false it would surely (IMO) have been easy to debunk, and as far as we know (going by reports) it wasn't debunked. But the allegation was made in live testimony and the judge is presumably going to have to mention it in his summing up if he hasn't already done so.

 

[Maryanna]

CM stated that her family estrangement was years before she met MG, and that SHE never introduced him to her family.

IMO - Defense didn’t paint a fuller picture, because there wasn’t evidence of what CM alleged — Or would not have helped her case.

People die, there’s taxes to pay, we don’t even know granny’s wishes which might have been unrealistic or impossible.
There’s not a lot of buyers for a massive estate, and sale can take a long time with bills and taxes accruing.
CMs view on what the decision makers do with their estate has no relevance to child death. How CM negotiates events in her life, is another story. it matters not if it’s £5,000 or £500,000 - it’s all relative and she is not much different to any grandchild being disappointment about not getting granny’s brooch!

Trusts - we don’t know the details, but tax beneficial trusts, decisions are made by Trustees (not parents) for the benefit of the recipient. Any of the family, will have Trustees involvement, not just CM.
Would imagine being Trustees for CM not the job they expected.

Trusts can have restrictions or events that release more money. Legal marriage can release funds, birth of children can release funds, certain ages can be reached and more paid. Some can require employment, reward education milestones.

Some trustees manage all bills and payments, credit card, car insurance, parking tickets, private medical, taxes, rent - Trust is the official address. The “beneficiary” just does their life and all the bills (to budget) are just paid. The trustee will contact person to remind of MOT, court appearance (speeding etc), tell over spending. But they don’t get involved in personal life, they get requests for money & not all are approved.
There will be required meetings, some might even request her to attend with other family members about decisions to be taken that impact all, certain investments, rental or sale of family valuables/property.

If they need her present with family to agree sale of a valuable asset - they would get a PI to find her. If she refuses to attend, they need evidence of every effort made to locate her.
Also She could get outvoted.

Of course,it’s possible the recipient can choose to pay own bills and manage own life.
IMO

Nothing to do with baby care.

The only PIs known to have been hired were hired by her parents, not Hoares.

 

[guiser]

CM stated that her family estrangement was years before she met MG, and that SHE never introduced him to her family.

IMO - Defense didn’t paint a fuller picture, because there wasn’t evidence of what CM alleged — Or would not have helped her case.

Exactly this.
The defence could have had a field day on the reasons why CM felt compelled to make the choices she made - hell, they managed to find an 'expert' to testify that having a newborn living in an Argos tent in January was just fine - but instead they just left it all hanging in the air with no corroboration, confirmation or proof.

 

[Maryanna]

Exactly this.
The defence could have had a field day on the reasons why CM felt compelled to make the choices she made - hell, they managed to find an 'expert' to testify that having a newborn living in an Argos tent in January was just fine - but instead they just left it all hanging in the air with no corroboration, confirmation or proof.

It's quite possible that

* the fact that so many barristers stepped away from representing her was because of disagreements over how to present her case, including perhaps over how to respond to directions from the bench

* the defence sought to have certain witnesses brought to court, but the judge said no

* she was in a position where she felt she had to raise what she could get away with under cross-examination.

^ All total speculation.

But whether under cross-examination or in chief, it's still evidence.

 

[Baby baby Jane]

The only PIs known to have been hired were hired by her parents, not Hoares.

Always possible her parents thought she needed to attend to certain things for her own benefit. Reason for PI was not entered into evidence which is very telling - prob would have looked bad for CM otherwise it would have been entered & agreed.

Cannot think of a way she could live off grid in the UK, if only income source from her trust. Either of them could have got a job and paid rent, cut ties.
The effort to get council house was so her address wouldn’t be known to Hoares who prob need to provide evidence of funds for rent.

IMO, from what’s been presented in court - the only times she has suffered unfortunate events since family estrangement are by her own (or MG) actions.

 

[jackal67]

She may claim that there is a High Court order preventing her from leaving the UK, but IMO it's nonsense - or she would have been able to prove it as part of her defence rather than just claiming it under cross exam.

Likewise the severe abuse. If severe abuse did in fact take place, then why did she "speak out" about it, rather than making a police complaint? Had she done so, then it would have been on record and (again) she could have produced proof of said complaint as part of her defence rather than just claiming it on cross exam.

CM's parents and wider family are NOT the ones on trial here (and nor are SS or the family court).

The defendants in this trial are baby Victoria's parents. They are the ones who made bad decision after bad decision - ending with them sleeping in a tiny, flimsy tent, without any source of heat, hot water or food in the middle of a cold and damp British winter, alongside a newborn baby who appears to have had only one vest and one babygrow to her name, until she died and was stripped of even those inadequate items of clothing.

<modsnip - personalizing>

I 100% agree with you. Whatever happened in CMs past does not excuse the way she lived and made her children live going right back to Baby number 1 and ending in the death of baby number 5 !!!

 

[Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc]

and I cannot understand why some posters seem intent on attempting to paint Victoria's grandparents as villains in all of this

I am not intent on painting the grandparents as villains; I am intent on speaking my own opinion and thoughts on it, though, and sincerely hoping that if there were severe abuse, the abuser would get held accountable.
Before it is thrown in my face, I understand this case is regarding the death of a small and vulnerable newborn, and the decisions made by CM and MG were not the best choices. Did these choices lead to Victoria's death? Possibly, but as has been said in court, it could also happen to someone tucked up in a nice warm house with all the mod cons. I mean, if someone really wanted to, I am sure they could find blame on parents in these situations too. It has been done many times, with innocent parents (normally mothers) being locked up.
For example, Kathleen Folbigg had her convictions quashed in December last year.
Kathleen Folbigg’s convictions for killing her four children quashed by NSW court

and she is not much different to any grandchild being disappointment about not getting granny’s brooch!

From what CM has said, it wasn't what SHE was or was not getting from her grandmother's estate; it was that her wishes were not being considered. Sure, CM could say it was about granny's wishes and secretly be annoyed about not getting 'granny's brooch,' but her actions after do not seem to insinuate she was motivated by the family money. She has taken money from the trust because she is entitled to it.
I want to point out that I have a personal interest in the situation as it happened to me. My father's wishes were only partially considered; the parts considered were those that benefitted certain family members. When I advocated for the other wishes, they were swept away with 'oh, he didn't know what he was saying'. Yet all the wishes were said simultaneously, so surely, if that was the case, why still consider some of them?
It happened again when my mother passed away; the same family member froze me out from everything, even threatening me if I was to turn up at the funeral. I had to call in some favours from friends to find out which funeral home my mother was at and which law office was dealing with her estate. Once I contacted them, they were surprised as they had been told I couldn't be found and likely did not want to be involved!

Would imagine being Trustees for CM not the job they expected.

I think they are trained to deal with many eccentric kinds of people. There are always stories of wild, trust fund babies leasing mega yachts with drug binge parties or crashing their supercars into trees. If the trustees feel the beneficiary is incapable of making decisions, they can take it further.

Nothing to do with baby care

Agreed. It has nothing to do with baby care but everything to do with it when it causes the parents to act out of fear.

This is, of course, just my own opinion, and like everyone else's opinion is equally valid.
Whether CM and MG are found guilty is completely up to the jury; thus, our opinions mean nothing in the grand scheme.

 

[BreadnLumpit]

Did these choices lead to Victoria's death? Possibly, but as has been said in court, it could also happen to someone tucked up in a nice warm house with all the mod cons.

IMO there is a world of difference between a parent living in a house with all mod cons, and one living in a tent, where there literally was no safe space to lay an infant down to sleep (either in terms of space or in terms of warmth).

The former seems to me to be a tragic accident that happens against the odds. The latter, on the other hand, IMOO looks to be pretty much inevitable - either the baby is exposed to frigid temperatures, or zipped inside the coat of a parent who, at some point, is inevitably going to fall asleep and smother the child ( not least because a tent offers no solid vertical surface to lean back onto).

In a house situation, the chances of overlaying, positional asphyxia, smothering or hypothermia are miniscule. In the situation that Victoria was in, I believe that it was the chances of a good outcome which were miniscule.

You are absolutely correct in that all opinions are equally valid - except of course those of the jury, which I think we can all agree we will be relieved to get to

 

[Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc]

IMO there is a world of difference between a parent living in a house with all mod cons, and one living in a tent, where there literally was no safe space to lay an infant down to sleep (either in terms of space or in terms of warmth).

The former seems to me to be a tragic accident that happens against the odds. The latter, on the other hand, IMOO looks to be pretty much inevitable - either the baby is exposed to frigid temperatures, or zipped inside the coat of a parent who, at some point, is inevitably going to fall asleep and smother the child ( not least because a tent offers no solid vertical surface to lean back onto).

In a house situation, the chances of overlaying, positional asphyxia, smothering or hypothermia are miniscule. In the situation that Victoria was in, I believe that it was the chances of a good outcome which were miniscule.

You are absolutely correct in that all opinions are equally valid - except of course those of the jury, which I think we can all agree we will be relieved to get to

Respectfully, I think you may have misunderstood my meaning. I was referring to a mother falling asleep with their baby and smothering them by accident, which can happen anywhere and has happened to people in a house situation. I was referring to it in a stripped down to the 'falling asleep with baby and smothering way'. It is an unfortunate event that fortunately only happens rarely; obviously, living in a tent is a factor in upping the antes when it comes to probabilities. Yet, if it is true that Victoria's death occurred on the first night of camping out, I wonder what the odds become if taking the stats from any newborn deaths in a Calais migrant camp in a very similar environment on the first night compared to say a week or more?
Although CM and MG were in an uncomparable situation regarding why, the environmental data including sleeping while wrapped up in mum's coat could be similar .

ETA: I agree with bolded