UK - Constance Marten & Mark Gordon charged, Newborn (found deceased), Bolton Greater Manchester, 5 Jan 2023 #6

[Alyce]

Telegraph doing a blog again today




9:41AM

Constance Marten to be cross examined over baby death​

Good morning and welcome to our coverage of Constance Marten who will continue giving evidence at the Old Bailey today.
Follows this blog for the latest updates.

​

Access Restricted

 

[Nikynoo]

Argus here Updates as Constance Marten to continue evidence at baby death trial

 

[rockthecasbah]

A bit more detail in this article.https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/24170474.constance-marten-tells-old-bailey-trial-brighton-baby-death/
Victoria died whilst they were in Newhaven, and they regularly caught the bus to Brighton.

I knew I'd read something about them being on a bus. I wonder if CCTV has been recovered of that, buses usually have it

 

[Nikynoo]

I knew I'd read something about them being on a bus. I wonder if CCTV has been recovered of that, buses usually have it

Yes, it would have been useful I think, to have a media thread.

 

[DavidAT]

It's not free cash, its family money, free cash would be benefit handouts. The trustees are appointed to dispense it on an agreed basis.

Inherited wealth through whatever means of transmission is the biggest free handout there is.

 

[Obergine]

Looks like they took the 'Coaster' route. Brighton bus company buses definitely have CCTV. So unless it wasn't working that day you'd think there would be. If so, the prosecution/defence may argue whether a live or dead baby is in the Lidl bag, assuming it's visible. I think the Seaford Head golf receipt was something they picked up to work out the date. I do believe poor little V died up there and that the receipt and later newspaper purchase marks this.

 

[Obergine]

Also the newspaper would indicate if they were still hot news in the press and inform how safe they felt to move.

 

[Nikynoo]

PI's were:
Two sets of people within family instructed PIs

Blackstone
London Consulting Limited
Hacking into emails and personal information accessed.

Source: The Trial Podcast Episode 12.

 

[InstantCoffee]

Argus:
11:45am

Francis Fitzgibbon has asked Marten: "did you do anything or fail to do anything that caused her [Victoria's] death.
Marten replied: "She was our pride and joy. I have had four kids, I know how to look after children.
"I do feel responsible for falling asleep on her because that is what happened."

So much cognitive dissonance going on here.

 

[DavidAT]

PI's were:
Two sets of people within family instructed PIs

Blackstone
London Consulting Limited
Hacking into emails and personal information accessed.

Source: The Trial Podcast Episode 12.

Thanks for this! I've only been reading textual stuff.
Someone sounds stingy - all that money and they didn't hire Kroll!

Blackstone:

Investigations and Litigation Support - Blackstoneconsultancy

blackstoneconsultancy.com

Am not familiar with London Consulting Limited in the investigation world.

 

[Nikynoo]

Thanks for this! I've only been reading textual stuff.
Someone sounds stingy - all that money and they didn't hire Kroll!

Blackstone:

Investigations and Litigation Support - Blackstoneconsultancy

blackstoneconsultancy.com

Am not familiar with London Consulting Limited in the investigation world.

Kroll aren't all that.

 

[bobbymkii]

11:46am
Marten has now finished giving her evidence-in-chief.
We are now taking a short break.
Afterwards, Marten will be cross-examined by the prosecution.

Will she not be cross examined by Femi-Ola before the Crown?

Recap: Constance Marten cross-examined at baby death trial

Constance Marten is to continue giving evidence in the trial centring around the death of her baby daughter

www.theargus.co.uk

 

[DavidAT]

OK another angle: regardless of how one feels about CM's views of her own actions, or her culpability, let's assume she fell asleep on top of Victoria and accidentally suffocated her.

Where is the case against MG for manslaughter, cruelty, and causing or allowing the death?

I haven't been following the evidence today, but I'm assuming he went to sleep before she did, and that she is telling the truth when she says that when she awoke and noticed something was amiss with Victoria she woke him up.

 

[DavidAT]

11:46am
Marten has now finished giving her evidence-in-chief.
We are now taking a short break.
Afterwards, Marten will be cross-examined by the prosecution.

Will she not be cross examined by Femi-Ola before the Crown?

Recap: Constance Marten cross-examined at baby death trial

Constance Marten is to continue giving evidence in the trial centring around the death of her baby daughter

www.theargus.co.uk

Yes, if Femi-Ola wishes to cross-examine. In the interests of his client, he may well wish to ask CM when it was that MG went to sleep that night. But this is the Argus.

 

[rockthecasbah]

Looks like they took the 'Coaster' route. Brighton bus company buses definitely have CCTV. So unless it wasn't working that day you'd think there would be. If so, the prosecution/defence may argue whether a live or dead baby is in the Lidl bag, assuming it's visible. I think the Seaford Head golf receipt was something they picked up to work out the date. I do believe poor little V died up there and that the receipt and later newspaper purchase marks this.

IIRC she said they still had one phone which would give them the date but presumably it ran out of battery at some point and they didn't have a place to charge it

 

[BackseatDriver]

So after hearing CM's evidence today - it leaves me with a question regarding the gross negligence manslaughter charge.

I think it's clear that there has been child neglect occurring (was this one of the charges? I can't recall) regardless of who's
story is true. However, if the jury were to believe CMs version of events - could they really prove beyond doubt that negligence was the actual cause of death?

We know that their living situation was negligent, but the living situation isn't actually what caused Victoria's death (if CM truly did fall asleep whilst holding her - which noone seems to particularly disagree with). There are plenty of children who die due to unsafe co-sleeping, but AFAIK, that doesn't result in a criminal charge (happy to be disproven if anyone knows of a case)

<modsnip - sub judice>

 

[Alyce]

Argus:
11:45am

Francis Fitzgibbon has asked Marten: "did you do anything or fail to do anything that caused her [Victoria's] death.
Marten replied: "She was our pride and joy. I have had four kids, I know how to look after children.
"I do feel responsible for falling asleep on her because that is what happened."

So much cognitive dissonance going on here.

Well, yes, given birth to 4 previous children. But baby 3 and baby 4 were both taken away from her at birth




source The Trial Podcast

Constance Marten and Mark Gordon: Constance Marten gives evidence | The Trial

Listen to Constance Marten and Mark Gordon: Constance Marten gives evidence from The Trial. In this episode, Caroline and Jack bring you all the latest from the first day of the evidence of Constance Marten in the witness box at the Old Bailey, where she told jurors that she was fleeing from her...

shows.acast.com

 

[DavidAT]

So after hearing CM's evidence today - it leaves me with a question regarding the gross negligence manslaughter charge.

I think it's clear that there has been child neglect occurring (was this one of the charges? I can't recall) regardless of who's
story is true. However, if the jury were to believe CMs version of events - could they really prove beyond doubt that negligence was the actual cause of death?

We know that their living situation was negligent, but the living situation isn't actually what caused Victoria's death (if CM truly did fall asleep whilst holding her - which noone seems to particularly disagree with). There are plenty of children who die due to unsafe co-sleeping, but AFAIK, that doesn't result in a criminal charge (happy to be disproven if anyone knows of a case)

<modsnip - sub judice>

The jury don't even have to believe it. They just have to think it may be true. Which ISTM the prosecution accepts. It's not clear why GNM should even go to the jury, and especially so in MG's case.

I'm surprised there hasn't been more on how they were lying in the tent, where the three people were positioned, where they put their stuff, was Victoria at an edge or between her parents; and also where they were getting water from, did they have a means of heating it, did they get it from a hot tap in a petrol station toilet and put it in a flask, what exactly did they do regarding the practicalities of looking after Victoria? Instead we get questions such as did she do anything to harm the baby.

The thing to look out for in reports of CM's cross-examination by the crown is any imputation of lying. If they're going to say in their closing speech that in their submission she's lying, they have to put it to her.

 

[Alyce]

11:46am
Marten has now finished giving her evidence-in-chief.
We are now taking a short break.
Afterwards, Marten will be cross-examined by the prosecution.

Will she not be cross examined by Femi-Ola before the Crown?

Recap: Constance Marten cross-examined at baby death trial

Constance Marten is to continue giving evidence in the trial centring around the death of her baby daughter

www.theargus.co.uk

Telegraph report is slightly different - doesnt clarify that it is the Prosecution next - could be Mr Femi-Ola




12:02PM

Marten concludes evidence​

Ms Marten has now concluded giving evidence in chief and the court has taken a short break before she is due to be cross examined.

Access Restricted

 

[Nikynoo]

OK another angle: regardless of how one feels about CM's views of her own actions, or her culpability, let's assume she fell asleep on top of Victoria and accidentally suffocated her.

Where is the case against MG for manslaughter, cruelty, and causing or allowing the death?

I haven't been following the evidence today, but I'm assuming he went to sleep before she did, and that she is telling the truth when she says that when she awoke and noticed something was amiss with Victoria she woke him up.

In essence, the prosecution's case is that they did not provide adequate care for a new born baby and by taking unnecessary risks, put that new born at unnecessary risk. Parents have a Duty of Care for their children and the prosecution's case is that CM and MG failed in that Duty of Care.

The added factor here, is that we only have what is reported, we have not been privvy to every nuance or word spoken, the Jury has.