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

[DavidAT]

"Marten claimed that a family member had got a court order which banned her from leaving the country." <- The truth or otherwise of this statement must be determined by the court.

Who was it? Which court?

 

[DianaWW]

You may think that CM is correct and the state 'stole' her children for no reason...but none of that is even relevant to these charges. She may think it's a valid excuse for the way they were living and the sub-par care that they showed baby Victoria (to put it mildly), but it's not. They did have other options. The jury need to decide whether or not they grossly failed in their duty to parent Victoria, and if that is what lead to her death. The rest is just waffle and distraction. JMO.

 

[Smccat]

From the Independent Live Stream

11:32

Marten refutes claim she ‘dumped’ her baby in a rubbish bag

Taking issue with Mr Smith’s phrase that her baby Victoria was “dumped” in a Lidl rubbish bag, she said: “Don’t use that word, I would say the word placed not dumped”.
When countered that a sandwich wrapper and a beer can had also been found in the bag, she responded: “The can was quite a while afterwards.”
“I don’t think you can comprehend something unless you’re going through it,” she told jurors. “Mark and I weren’t in a good place, we were completely gripped with fear and grief.”


11:14

Mother grilled on baby clothes and use of sling​

Beginning his questioning, Mr Smith has repeatedly asked Marten about her use of a homemade sling, and whether it was appropriate to hide a newborn child under a jacket.
“I’ve always done that will all my kids,” Marten replied.
Recalling the items she and Gordon were carrying with them to keep Victoria warm, she recalls that they had a blue onesie, two baby grows, the clothes she was wearing and some undergarments. They also carried a quilt, a red blanket and a pink sheet.

 

[OrangeCash]

I've just finished listening to The Trial podcast from yesterday. The way CM avoids answering questions is the same way a politician does. Someone has to be quite clever to do it so easily and effortlessly, IMO

LINK

 

[Smccat]

From the Independent Live Stream

12:03

Couple were ‘ridiculously ill-prepared’ to care for newborn baby​

Accusing the couple of treating their newborn in a “cavalier fashion”, Mr Smith showed the jury a video of them holding Victoria in a kebab shop in East Ham which appeared to show her head unsupported.
In response, she repeatedly stressed: “You’re trying to make something of nothing, she’s fine, there’s nothing wrong with her.”
Mr Smith replied: “Is that the issue in this case, you never understand what’s wrong?”
Becoming frustrated, Marten responded that her older children had been taken from her and that social services had said that they were “happy, well-feed, well-looked after, content children”.

 

[DavidAT]

Thanks for this Porky. I've always had the same kind of feelings about MG but did not know how to put it into words.

It's my belief that both CM and MG both snapped while on the run and with their tiredness and paranoia they purposely put the baby, who would not settle down, into a permanent sleep.


JMO

The hardness required to be able to commit such a murder of an innocent does not fit well with the fact that they did not dispose of the body. Disposing of the body would have been extremely easy, in every sense other than the emotional.

 

[Smccat]

From the Independent Live Stream

12:27

Marten criticises ‘Western perspective’ when facing questions about use of tent​

Marten has repeated her claim that the court is looking from a “Western perspective” at the couple’s decision to use a tent.
“You thought this was okay?” Mr Smith repeatedly asked. “I wouldn’t have done it if I didn’t think it was okay,” Marten responded.
“I just think you’re looking at this from a Western perspective, people live in shanti towns and people have lived across the world in tents.”
This echoed her comments during last week’s cross-examination, when she referred to refugees living in Calais and people living in igloos.
“We weren’t intending to live in a tent, we were intending to lay low for a while,” she said.

 

[rightsaidfred]

Her top comment infuriated me, even though I didn’t expect differently. There’s pittance in UK foster care and you add petrol, complete disruption to your family’s schedule (eg. If a contact session changes, that takes priority, so your plans are cancelled, attempts to do several school or nursery runs), FC often topping up very small social services allowances and providing clothes out of their own pocket for youngsters, there’s no financial aspect at all.

This "in it for the money" accusation is never one that seems to be levelled at childminders, nursery nurses, teachers, or paediatric nurses... all of whom earn significantly more ph than foster carers.

I saw an advert from my local authority for supported lodgings carers (seems to be like foster care lite, for 16-21 year old care leavers). The money on offer was only about £100 per month more than I currently rent out the spare room to a lodger - and with that £100 I'd have to provide food and many hours of support. It's just not realistic - if I were seriously interested I'd expect to be paid market rent for the room, minimum wage for the hours, and the food reimbursed.

The whole foster care system is stuck in the 1950s, when stay at home house wives were the norm and many people had spare rooms because housing was affordable. I don't think the model is fit for purpose in 2024, when dual incomes are an economic necessity.

If foster carers were paid a proper wage plus expenses then I'm sure more would be able to afford to be a foster carer.

 

[DavidAT]

I don't think there is anything rational about their decision making ever since they met. You can see why there were such significant concerns

Your first sentence here is such an extremely blanket assertion.

 

[Smccat]

from above exchange via Independent

BBM
“You thought this was okay?” Mr Smith repeatedly asked. “I wouldn’t have done it if I didn’t think it was okay,” Marten responded.

Oh dear.

 

[Maltesepuppy]

Thanks for this Porky. I've always had the same kind of feelings about MG but did not know how to put it into words.

It's my belief that both CM and MG both snapped while on the run and with their tiredness and paranoia they purposely put the baby, who would not settle down, into a permanent sleep.


JMO

I have wondered whether once things started to go wrong, the fantasy of keeping the baby went bust.
Perhaps not as far as putting the baby to sleep but taking less care than they would have done otherwise.
In neither of the 2 clips of CM with baby Victoria does she show any tenderness. I have wondered if there was a degree of guilt and resentment towards the baby which mixed with everything they were going through.
For example, I can imagine an exhausted CM Perhaps not attempting to feed as often as she needed to, especially if Victoria was feeling irritable.
Just speculation on my part.
JMO, MOO

 

[guiser]

From the Independent Live Stream

12:27

Marten criticises ‘Western perspective’ when facing questions about use of tent​

Marten has repeated her claim that the court is looking from a “Western perspective” at the couple’s decision to use a tent.
“You thought this was okay?” Mr Smith repeatedly asked. “I wouldn’t have done it if I didn’t think it was okay,” Marten responded.
“I just think you’re looking at this from a Western perspective, people live in shanti towns and people have lived across the world in tents.”
This echoed her comments during last week’s cross-examination, when she referred to refugees living in Calais and people living in igloos.
“We weren’t intending to live in a tent, we were intending to lay low for a while,” she said.

Nobody lives in igloos anymore except when showing Inuit kids or TV travelogue presenters how it used to be done.
I had a close friend who had two children while living her dream in an isolated cabin in Shropshire. She and her partner were attempting to live 'off grid' and be self sufficient.
Social services took more than a passing interest in them and I think it's fair to say they expressed concern and maybe borderline disapproval at the way they chose to live but my friend never felt they were trying to have the children removed.

 

[Baby baby Jane]

The hardness required to be able to commit such a murder of an innocent does not fit well with the fact that they did not dispose of the body. Disposing of the body would have been extremely easy, in every sense other than the emotional.

Disposing the body VS hiding evidence.

They were not in remote area.
Burning baby in that area likely to call attention and possible discovery
Burying likely to be discovered or dug up by foxes, dog, badger and discovered.
Carrying it around, they had possession, maybe they come across a better disposal location than by the shed.

Hiding evidence of neglect, not murder.

Not convinced that they thought disposal with no chance of discovery was going to be “easy”. Perhaps she was sentimental … but beer can contradicts

 

[DavidAT]

If cross-examination were an intellectual debate, Joel Smith wouldn't be doing well today at all.

Constance Marten denies she ‘dumped’ baby in Lidl bag with beer can – trial latest

Marten and partner Mark Gordon deny gross negligence manslaughter of their daughter Victoria

www.independent.co.uk

"Beginning his questioning, Mr Smith has repeatedly asked Marten about her use of a homemade sling, and whether it was appropriate to hide a newborn child under a jacket."

"Is that the issue in this case, you never understand what’s wrong?"

"Appropriate", "cavalier fashion", "never understand"... "Home-made" may have been his word too, although it's not directly attributed. This is hardly a "forensic" cross-examination.

But of course it isn't an intellectual debate either. He's trying to rile her and establish she's an "I'm always right" type of person in the minds of the jury, IMO.

There's scope for some effective re-examination if the defence are on the ball.

 

[Smccat]

From the Independent Live Stream

12:58

“I’ve grown up with a lot of luxury”, Marten says​

Answering questions about the couple’s decision to purchase a tent and live off-grid, Marten refused to be drawn on whether it was a “big” choice, stressing that she did so to ensure her child was not taken by social services.
“I don’t particularly want to be in a tent, I’ve grown up with a lot of luxury,” she said. “I like the feathered duvets and comfort but i will do whatever is necessary. I will do anything for my baby, anything.”
When pressed about the suitability of a tent for a newborn, she said: “Of course it’s not comfortable, I’d rather be in a plush bed in a palace.”
However, she stressed that the decision to live in a tent was only meant to be for a “pitstop” until they found somewhere to live in the countryside.
“It’s a situation you can’t really prepare for, you act on instinct,” she said. “A mother’s love for her child is very strong and no way was I going to part with my child.”

 

[iamshadow21]

From the Independent Live Stream

12:58

“I’ve grown up with a lot of luxury”, Marten says​

Answering questions about the couple’s decision to purchase a tent and live off-grid, Marten refused to be drawn on whether it was a “big” choice, stressing that she did so to ensure her child was not taken by social services.
“I don’t particularly want to be in a tent, I’ve grown up with a lot of luxury,” she said. “I like the feathered duvets and comfort but i will do whatever is necessary. I will do anything for my baby, anything.”
When pressed about the suitability of a tent for a newborn, she said: “Of course it’s not comfortable, I’d rather be in a plush bed in a palace.”
However, she stressed that the decision to live in a tent was only meant to be for a “pitstop” until they found somewhere to live in the countryside.
“It’s a situation you can’t really prepare for, you act on instinct,” she said. “A mother’s love for her child is very strong and no way was I going to part with my child.”

To this I would say, swallowing ego and accepting help or stepping back to let others care for Victoria doesn't come under "whatever is necessary" in CM's worldview.

MOO

 

[DavidAT]

Disposing the body VS hiding evidence.

They were not in remote area.
Burning baby in that area likely to call attention and possible discovery
Burying likely to be discovered or dug up by foxes, dog, badger and discovered.
Carrying it around, they had possession, maybe they come across a better disposal location than by the shed.

Not convinced that they thought disposal with no chance of discovery was going to be “easy”. Perhaps she was sentimental … but beer can contradicts

I don't know what they thought, but disposing of the body would have been objectively easy.

Chop it up and put it in a few public bins, maybe double-bagged. Leave for seagulls, perhaps also in a few pieces - they'd pick all the flesh off within an hour. Go back and get the bones if thought necessary, and bin them.

JMO but re. these repeated accusations that she treated the body like "refuse", I don't think she did. One chucks refuse away. There's no emotional problem in doing it.

I don't buy the murder hypothesis at all, but if two parents had thought "We've got more chance of evading the heat if we kill the baby, so let's just do it and get it over with", it's hard to see why they would have kept the decomposing body for weeks. And if such parents weren't 100% brutes but allowed their actions to be influenced by feelings of nostalgia, morals, etc., i.e. they were "sentimental", why not just hand the baby to the SS for adoption? I'm not sure they'd even have been arrested.

CM's thoughts at the time regarding burning could have been usefully explored in the witness box. Or maybe they were but they weren't reported. Perhaps they will be explored more if she hasn't been discharged yet. More relevant for the jury IMO than western values this, homemade sling that, tents, a beer can, and here's a meteorologist to confirm the air temperature, and always the bag from a downmarket supermarket.

 

[Smccat]

From the Independent Live Stream

13:15

‘Jesus survived in a barn,’ Marten counters to scrutiny over tent use​

Questioned further on their use of tent during sub-zero temperatures with a newborn, Marten responded: “Jesus survived in a barn, didn’t he?”
She repeated that their intention had not been to live permanently or for a prolonged period in a tent but had decided to do so after a manhunt was launched by police.
Following media appeals for their whereabouts, she said: “We weren’t just running from private investigators, running from my family or social services, we were running from the entire public.”
She also recalled that she and her husband had previously lived in a tent before the birth of their eldest child, and stressed: “My number one priority was to keep my baby.”

 

[Smccat]

From the Independent Live Stream

13:16

Court breaks for lunch​

The trial has adjourned for a lunch and will return at 2pm.
Cross-examination is expected to continue as Marten faces questioning about the couple’s decision to live in a tent last January with their newborn.

 

[DianaWW]

She also recalled that she and her husband had previously lived in a tent before the birth of their eldest child, and stressed: “My number one priority was to keep my baby.”

I'm not sure she is doing herself any favours by repeating this assertion. Her number one priority should have been to look after her child properly, and keep her safe and warm. I do believe that she loved her, but she just can't see that it's not enough on it's own. JMO.