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

Status
Not open for further replies.
In China there is technology in current use that can identify people from their gaits and images even when they are wearing face masks. A newborn baby weighs a fair few pounds. There is footage of MG walking when he is not carrying her. I find it hard to believe that it would be difficult to establish whether or not she was under his jacket when they said she was. The idea that she was in a bag when she was alive appears (JMO) to be little short of fantasy. I can't see the jury buying the prosecution line that she "must" have been concealed in the bag when alive.

Perhaps if they were accused of killing the baby by carrying the baby in the bag, they would have followed the line of enquiry further.

But, to a normal, feeling person, the placing of their recently deceased infant into a bag for life, in a dirty nappy, covered by rubbish, would be utterly unthinkable.

Given that the baby was in the bag after death, I find it quite easy to believe that they kept her in there while alive.

The idea that the child was "deeply loved" is belied by their treatment of her post mortem. I don't know why the prosecution haven't made more of that. JMO.
 
I thought that was a very strange thing to say too.
Agreed with whom?

It's the agreed facts that the defence agreed to pre trial.

It means they didn't call witnesses as CM didn't contest the facts.

Then when she gave evidence she contested loads of the facts she had previously agreed.

This would fit with narc style obfuscation IMO.
 
Yes, makes no difference what her name means and reinforces that she's posh by referring to Latin.
Arguing by the meaning of a person's name is a technique of Aristotelian rhetoric:


The lioness thing is clever too, and is capable of influencing even those who think they are not susceptible to such influence - as are many rhetorical techniques. MG has got himself a good lawyer there IME.
 
Perhaps if they were accused of killing the baby by carrying the baby in the bag, they would have followed the line of enquiry further.

But, to a normal, feeling person, the placing of their recently deceased infant into a bag for life, in a dirty nappy, covered by rubbish, would be utterly unthinkable.

Given that the baby was in the bag after death, I find it quite easy to believe that they kept her in there while alive.

The idea that the child was "deeply loved" is belied by their treatment of her post mortem. I don't know why the prosecution haven't made more of that. JMO.
I don't think they coveredher with rubbish immediately.
It doesn't matter if they carried her in a balloon, actually.
She would not have survived exposure for a single hour in those conditions, let alone a few weeks..
The bag is meaningless.. has zero evidentiary value.
There is no proof it had anything at all to do with her death no more than a Harrods bag would. <modsnip: disparages the prosecution/sub judice>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Perhaps if they were accused of killing the baby by carrying the baby in the bag, they would have followed the line of enquiry further.

But, to a normal, feeling person, the placing of their recently deceased infant into a bag for life, in a dirty nappy, covered by rubbish, would be utterly unthinkable.

Given that the baby was in the bag after death, I find it quite easy to believe that they kept her in there while alive.

The idea that the child was "deeply loved" is belied by their treatment of her post mortem. I don't know why the prosecution haven't made more of that. JMO.
But then, do you not think, that any disposal of a dead child is flawed? What if they had cremated her? What about burial in a grave? Would V have been found? If cremation or burial, they probably would have been charged with murder. If they had said that they had held a service of some kind in conjunction with a burial/creamation, would it have made a difference? I guess it wouldn't, so I don't see why there is this hang up about being placed in a bag post death.

It seems to me, that the only way these two could have redeemed themselves is if they either handed themselves straight away (as soon as they became aware of the alert) or attempted to get help when discovering V had died. If the latter, a cause of death MAY have been established, but it MAY have NOT.

MOO - if there has been a discrete alert, V may have been saved. if, CM was not a 'trust fund kid' there would not be this much attention to the case. So many if's......
 
I don't think they coveredher with rubbish immediately.
It doesn't matter if they carried her in a balloon, actually.
She would not have survived exposure for a single hour in those conditions, let alone a few weeks..
The bag is meaningless.. has zero evidentiary value.
There is no proof it had anything at all to do with her death no more than a Harrods bag would.

<modsnip: disparages the prosecution/sub judice>
I agree completely.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
agreed between the prosecution and defence. How much say the defendants have in respect to these agreed facts, I don't know (other than CM disagreed with at least one fact when she was testifying).
she had been stalked twice at least by her parents using private detectives.. '21-'22 though I'm not sure whether that means an entire year or a short period between those dates? and again in 2023?

I'd be paranoid too..

May well have been something else going on with her family or somebody else..
she considered the car fire was an attempt on their lives..It's all very understandable.. woman in isolated world with one other person, God only knows what else went on in her family..

what I'm trying to say is that the facts that her parents stated they had not been pursuing her on this occasion does not mean that somebody else was not.. either a family member or a dodgy person, possibly from the cult or whatever else she got herself mixed up in..

Is that a possibility?
Does she still believe the car fire was arson?

We will never know..
Anything.

US cases are so much easier..
 
If all the other care of a baby was unquestionably safe and nurturing, I see no particular problem per se with carrying a baby, well wrapped up, in a sturdy shopping bag for short periods of time.
In fact a baby might be better off than at risk of suffocation stuffed under a zipped up coat.

I do agree it isn't the strongest line of the prosecution's argument.

JMO - and for the avoidance of doubt no baby in my care has been carried in a shopping bag.
 
But then, do you not think, that any disposal of a dead child is flawed? What if they had cremated her? What about burial in a grave? Would V have been found? If cremation or burial, they probably would have been charged with murder. If they had said that they had held a service of some kind in conjunction with a burial/creamation, would it have made a difference? I guess it wouldn't, so I don't see why there is this hang up about being placed in a bag post death.

It seems to me, that the only way these two could have redeemed themselves is if they either handed themselves straight away (as soon as they became aware of the alert) or attempted to get help when discovering V had died. If the latter, a cause of death MAY have been established, but it MAY have NOT.

MOO - if there has been a discrete alert, V may have been saved. if, CM was not a 'trust fund kid' there would not be this much attention to the case. So many if's......
Absolutely all of what you said.
A discreet alert...
 
Tomorrow's schedule . I wonder if Court is anticipating Jury out by lunchtime, in order to accommodate the other appointments.

www.courtserve.net

View attachment 497568
I will be amazed if the jury gets sent out by lunchtime tomorrow. FitzGibbon will take a fair few hours and then the judge has to sum up for all three parties and give other directions. If they don't get sent out on Friday morning it could be next week.
 
i searched Twtr in the hope of finding even a small obscure journalist live tweeting.
I found nothing.

I want to know how she was in court.
Was she likeable or nasty?
What did the jurors see when they observed her?
 
If all the other care of a baby was unquestionably safe and nurturing, I see no particular problem per se with carrying a baby, well wrapped up, in a sturdy shopping bag for short periods of time.
In fact a baby might be better off than at risk of suffocation stuffed under a zipped up coat.

I do agree it isn't the strongest line of the prosecution's argument.

JMO - and for the avoidance of doubt no baby in my care has been carried in a shopping bag.
It’s also clear that no “non-western” culture carries babies in shopping bags …
 
she had been stalked twice at least by her parents using private detectives.. '21-'22 though I'm not sure whether that means an entire year or a short period between those dates? and again in 2023?

I'd be paranoid too..

May well have been something else going on with her family or somebody else..
she considered the car fire was an attempt on their lives..It's all very understandable.. woman in isolated world with one other person, God only knows what else went on in her family..

what I'm trying to say is that the facts that her parents stated they had not been pursuing her on this occasion does not mean that somebody else was not.. either a family member or a dodgy person, possibly from the cult or whatever else she got herself mixed up in..

Is that a possibility?
Does she still believe the car fire was arson?

We will never know..
Anything.

US cases are so much easier..
I believe her mother hired PIs in 2016 and her father in 2017 and again in 2021.

I guess I can understand the paranoia especially with the father making the wardship application in respect of the children, but I do truly believe that these two have MH issues. I don’t think we will ever hear the full story around the years 2017-2022.

In respect to the cars, I suspect that they were a series of older cheaper cars that were not maintained and therefore went kaput relatively quickly.
 
It's the agreed facts that the defence agreed to pre trial.

It means they didn't call witnesses as CM didn't contest the facts.

Then when she gave evidence she contested loads of the facts she had previously agreed.

This would fit with narc style obfuscation IMO.
I doubt her parents' statements were made pre-trial.
 
But I think the only reason why the baby wasn't subject to a care order was because authorities didn't know about it, otherwise it would have been.

.
Undoubtedly. I also suspect the reason why the police classified them as 'missing' not 'wanted' and why they stopped papers publicising Gordons RSO status/past crimes was because they had real concerns that backing those two into a corner could result in a murder/suicide type situation.

Still, it means that, at least as far as we know, had they carried on dodging police but also looked after Victoria well, they'd have not been committing any crimes. (Except maybe very minor registration issues.) They had legal custody of the baby by default, and there's no obligation for an adult to present themselves just because they're classed as missing by police.

So the prosecution has to show that their actions in of themselves when caring for Victoria are neglect significant enough to make her death predictable, rather than accidental.

Obviously I think they are criminally neglectful parents, especially in context. I can't see how they get out of some charges, especially concealing a birth. I just worry that the semantics of timelines and such have been so messy it might make the jury unpredictable on some of those other charges.
 
Last edited:
I believe burial and cremation and ceremony are natural human ways to cope with grieving and death. There are other ways too. I just don't think shoving the body in a bag and covering it up, calling it "evidence" and then refusing to reveal its whereabouts in case it incriminates you are the actions of an innocent parent in mourning.

Seems strange to me to ignore that it's relevant and pretend that it's a natural thing to do.

When you find your baby dying or dead, you call an ambulance.

They failed to seek medical attention when they found her not breathing. They left her in her own poo, stuck her in a bag and then covered her in trash. What does it matter if they did it after an hour or four days? She died on their watch. And then they treated her like garbage.

Who that you *deeply love* would you do that to?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
165
Guests online
2,669
Total visitors
2,834

Forum statistics

Threads
594,716
Messages
18,010,706
Members
229,474
Latest member
sammy.was.low
Back
Top