constance marten and mark gordon : Most liked Posts

I was a child removed from my Mother by FANTASTIC Social Workers. At the age of 8 I slept with a kitchen knife under my pillow afraid of which one of her boyfriends would come into my bedroom. She wasn't a drug addict, she was an alcoholic and a narcissist. I thankfully didn't suffer any SA but physical and mainly emotional abuse. I silently thank my SW's every time a story like this makes the headlines.

SOME.WOMEN.SHOULD.NOT.BE.MOTHERS.

I hope she gets a prison sentence. I hope it does her good and I hope when she is released she is no longer child bearing age.

My Nan moved back home from Spain to bring me up and a bloody good job she did too. I hope CMs other children are getting lots of love and support wherever they are

Lucyxxxx said:

They were living in a tent BECAUSE of social services wanting to take the baby. People so desperate to keep their child shouldn't have been hunted like dogs.

Click to expand...

Social services wanted to take the baby because they suspected and have probably been proven correct on numerous occasions that Constance and Mark are unable to properly look after a child. The amount of second chances and opportunities you would be given in the process of losing three babies would be mindblowing.

So I would reverse your statement and say that social services wanted to take the baby because they knew the couple's parenting capacity was so poor that they would do something as stupid as live in a tent with a days old newborn who is now very likely dead as a result of the parents choices.

As others have said they will have been given so many chances to 'prove themselves' and have such a history of risk and child endangerment to have got to this point. And now sadly they have proved SS to be right in pretty much every way.

I don't think that Constance is 'evil' or bad in any way. I think she probably has severe mental health issues which have led to her making these horrific choices. But sadly when you are endangering children to this extent, someone has to intervene. I don't know how you can't see that?

Just to add a little bit insight from my own experience. My children were removed to the care of family members (who had to register as foster carers with the local authority). Prior to this the LA had to meet a legal threshold to say I was unfit in order to place an interim care order. I then had to follow a programme set out by the family court (FDAC) to show I could achieve and maintain abstinence from alcohol. During this time I was allowed supervised access visits and these took place at the foster carers homes and also days out. I have photos from this time where we look like a normal family. The carers had to observe and write reports on how I presented and how the children responded, along with daily reports on how the children were doing. I was told and checked on (drug/alcohol testing, conferences with the judge and other professionals) that if I didn’t stick to the agreed behaviour the children would be handed over to my relatives under special guardianship orders, meaning I would lose parental responsibility. During proceedings I had shared PR with the LA. This meant I could have a say in things like schooling and medical care. I was given support and time to make the changes and even when things didn’t go well it was always the aim to reunite the family. I didn’t have to be a perfect parent, I just had to demonstrate I would make a life for them that was safe and that’s what I did. They would have been given ample opportunities over what looks like years to secure accommodation and establish a support network if they wanted to care for their children. They weren’t constrained by finances by the looks of it. I just think they have refused to compromise on their chaotic lifestyle and would not swallow their pride to admit their way of parenting was not safe or acceptable.

I've got 2 birth children and recently adopted my third child. My little one is his birth mum's 6th pregnancy and the pregnancy was concealed in the hope she could somehow keep him. Obviously, pregnancy was revealed, hence me having him now
I think about my son's birth mum's mental health on an almost daily basis and I really hope she's surviving. I understand that she loves my son with every fibre of her being like I do, but she could not keep him or his siblings safe and concealing the pregnancy proves even more to me that she could not keep him safe. If she wanted to keep the baby safe the best thing to do is the right thing, even though it hurts your soul. Constances actions were selfish and her actions benefited her alone. that poor baby has paid the ultimate price and no amount of mental health issues will justify that for me.

So I got there at 9 this morning and was first in line to get in when the courts open at 10.

They let friends and family in first (no checks or any sort of proof needed) but I was first in line for court 5. No friends or family of CM or MG lining up.

I waited until lunchtime with no explanation as to why I was not allowed in. Whilst I was lining up outside a group of about 10 women were outside the court with banners and signs with “justice for CM” etc on them. They kept shouting “We support CM. Babies need their Mums”. A couple of the women from this group tried to line up to gain access, but Security moved them on.

Told court would not be sitting before lunch and so went to Tattle for lunch. After lunch I saw the back of CM’s mother, her brother and someone that I recognised from the Vogue wedding shoot. They have that “quiet luxury” look about them - you know when you just know when someone has money!!!

Came back and went to watch a conspiracy to murder case but the security guard said he would find me if court 5 opened to the public.

It did! I was allowed in but I can’t report on what was discussed (without the jury). If it ever does get reported, I will give my take on things but I don’t want to cause any sort of trouble. MG was there but CM was unwell and not in court. I think/hope it’s ok to say that??

There were a couple of people that I got chatting to (one ex police) who had been attending throughout the trial who mentioned a few things. Now I have no idea if these are true or not and so please don’t take these as “truth”:

He is in Belmarsh prison and not having an easy time
She is in Bronzefield and apparently segregated
The protest today was organised by Ian Joseph who was mentioned yesterday
The state of the nappy she was found in was horrific - as if Victoria had been wearing it for a long, long time
They both mentioned that CM comes across as really intelligent (I did not get that impression from the day I saw her get cross examined)
Apparently MG has looked absolutely furious when she has perhaps said too much (again, I did not see this when I saw her give evidence and he was there)
His sister has been in court to support him (I’ve not seen this reported anywhere) and his Mother is too ill to attend

I can say that the jury is down to 11. 5 women and 6 men. The court has a week and off and will be back on the 25 and 26 March and there is someone coming to give expert evidence on her behalf. I am sure that I heard that there will then be a break and court will return on the 8 April.

Planning to go back on the 25 March and so will report back then.

Have a fab weekend everyone

'Sad outcome' doesn't really cut it. It is not sad. It is appalling. Avoidable. Totally unnecessary. Cruel. Barbaric.

They clearly started zig zagging the country to avoid social services who thought they were not fit to be parents. I would put money on them being hard drug addicts. What a couple of scumbags. I hope they both get severe prison sentences.

This was never about keeping baby Victoria, this was simply their big F YOU to authority, the pathetic idiots. She’s clearly got zero maternal instincts, she chose her violent rapist over her children every time. SS will have made her aware that him being on the sex offender registry would mean she can’t keep her children & stay with him. But she stayed with him. She was warned unsafe/unsuitable living arrangements such as living rough meant she couldn’t keep her kids, she chose to keep living rough with him despite being a millionaire. She had every opportunity at her feet to keep her children & repeatedly chose him. Victoria wasn’t her much loved baby she was desperate to keep, she was just a pawn in her pathetic F the establishment game because she’s a spoilt indulged bitch who’s lurched from one disaster to another in her very privileged gilded life. Doesn’t care about anyone but herself & her rapist. Let that baby freeze, starve & suffer to simply prove a point! Hard faced bitch now refusing to engage in her trial! Hope the jury don’t fall for any of the defence bullshit & jail her for as long as possible, him as well of course!

Lucyxxxx said:

Can I ask. What makes someone tapped in the head for NOT wanting to hand their baby over to a government agency and go about their day? Confused by that statement a little bit.

Click to expand...

Tapped in the head, like I even have to explain this, would be giving birth in a car at the side of the motorway, and running off to live rough in freezing temperatures with a vulnerable (and possibly drug addicted) newborn.

I feel sick. What absolute pieces of shit they both are. How is a dead baby better than a baby in care? Selfish bastards

Lucyxxxx said:

Abit pedantic but I'll bite. What's so tapped in the head about not sitting around waiting to give birth so your baby can be forcibly ripped from you? Madness how some people think.

Click to expand...

As if the only two options are have the baby removed or flee and take a newborn to live in a tent.
She could easily have engaged with social services and made the effort to keep her child. She has access to money. She could attend all the rehab, therapy, parenting classes she wanted to. She clearly doesn't want to.
Whether that's to do with coercive control or pure selfishness we don't know yet.
Children are not property and we aren't all blindly entitled to keep our children. The care system exists for a reason.

Sorry if this is long! If anyone has any questions or anything is not clear, I am happy to answer!

Was there early again and the protestors supporting CM were outside court again, but not as many as the other week. There were no friends or family for either of them in the public gallery and I did not see any of her family in the building today.

So, CM was late this morning because the van taking her from Bronzefield to the Old Bailey broke down!

When Court 5 finally opened it was lunch time. CM was there in black trousers, cream shirt, claw clip and black scrunchie! MG was there in a suit and tie and is completely focused on CM when she is giving evidence. The first thing CM did was to say that she thought that she would get some lunch before she had to be questioned! The judge was kind, but firm and told her that there would be a lunch break in 15 minutes or so! I just want to say that Judge Lucraft is absolutely brilliant in the way he handles her and also the way he speaks to the jury and barristers is so good. I think his summing up and sentencing remarks (if it comes to that) will be really interesting and worth attending.

A lot of discussion about the state of the tent and the suitability of the tent and as to why/when they moved to the shed. One thing she did say which did not really get picked up on was she said that they bought replacement items for the tent when things got ruined. I have not seen any reports of them buying anything other than the stuff that they got in Argos?? I cannot tell you how she does not answer questions and they have to be repeated again and again to her – she just goes off talking about other things e.g. how lots of people live in tents all over the world, etc… It is really frustrating, and you can see the prosecuting barrister getting more and more irritated with her! At one point she told him off for speaking to her in what she claimed was “a patronising tone”

Discussion around them planning to lie about what to say to police when they were arrested. She said that MG wanted to protect her because if she told them she had been holding Victoria then she would be blamed for her death. She said she wanted an autopsy done to find out if there was another reason why Victoria died. She said she told the truth to the police. The barrister then challenged her why she lied to the police about her name when she was arrested and also lied in not saying where the body was when arrested. She was also challenged about how if she really wanted an autopsy, why did she not be honest and tell the police where the body was. She then when off on one about how the police pile up charges against people, everyone would blame Mark, etc…

Could not see this bit covered anywhere, but I thought it was interesting. The prosecuting barrister asked her about the state that she was in when she was arrested. How she was absolutely filthy and had not taken care of herself and that if she was in this state, then how could she possibly have looked after Victoria. He referenced pictures that were taken of her on arrest which showed that she had two large welt marks on her back and her legs were covered in scratches and scabs. At this point she went off on one saying that the police had no right to take pictures of her and that these were private and should not be shared with anyone, including the jury. She claimed the police had told her that these would not be shared. The judge told her off for making this statement. She did not explain the welts but said that the scabs on her legs were due to walking through brambles. She also justified that it was because she loved Victoria so much that she neglected to care for herself and that showed just how much she did not neglect Victoria.

The prosecution ended things rather suddenly I thought! Her barrister then questioned her over a few things that I think have been reported. She said she had not lied to the jury and had not lied about the circumstances around Victoria’s death. He also asked her about access to funds and she claimed she did not have access because her bank card had gone, and she could not access her phone for internet banking. When she went back to sit with MG, he gave her the thumbs up sign and there was a fair bit of whispering and looking at each other, etc…

Next in was Professor Fleming. He gave all his background details but then he started to get asked about his opinion on how old Victoria was when she died, etc… He was not very good! He started talking about things that were not relevant or actual facts and so the prosecuting barrister and the judge objected, and he had to stop. Apparently the barristers will group tomorrow morning to agree what he can comment on and he can speak again tomorrow. Every time Professor Fleming got interrupted by the prosecution, CM and MG were very agitated and obviously not happy with how they viewed he was being treated.

Court is sitting tomorrow but only for a short time I think I heard. There is then a break to the 8 April. I did not get the impression that there is much more coming up and so expect the summing up to be done fairly soon.

I am not there tomorrow, but hope to go back for the summing up.

neroli said:

I think that is her plan though to get a cushier sentence and suggest post partum trauma/ paranoia? personally I think she's a pathological liar and is cruel and calculating.

Click to expand...

I think she's utterly self-absorbed, disgustingly entitled rich girl type and a foot long sandwich short of a picnic to boot and never had any of the normal pressures on her to hold down a proper job, so never needed to iron out her quirks and mature past a fascination with slumming it with bad boys at home and abroad and just assuming money rained from the sky.

She strikes me as someone who had she made a slightly different turn in life would still not have had any jobs short of a couple of days or a month here or there, and would still revolve her life around her man and various odd obsessions but the man would be some boring guy with a business that provided a large enough income for her even without her trust fund to fuck about taking spiritual 'workshops' or do Findhorn/Glasto retreats or become a very, very part-time yoga/Reiki instructor/boho jewellery maker and they'd have a cleaner, boarding schools and a series of au pairs or nannies to do the hard work of taking care of the kids while Flakey Martin played with her crystals and her hair and went on plentiful mini breaks and spas to recover from her stressful life and keep herself nice for her man.

In other words, she'd probably still be an annoying, immature mess of a woman but she probably wouldn't be on trial for suffocating her own kid while playing at outlaws in the damp British countryside with a comvicted sex offender.

Lucyxxxx said:

What proof is there though? Children can be removed from parents for POTENTIAL EMOTIONAL HARM IN THE FUTURE. Children can be removed at birth for the parents HAVING AN IQ OF UNDER 90. Someone whos gone to the lengths and extremes Constance has to try keep the baby shows that she probably isn't going to hurt them - WHICH IS WHAT FAMILY LAW IS BASED ON (PROBABILITIES).

Click to expand...

Someone that goes to the lengths of sleeping in a tent in sub zero conditions with a newborn who cannot regulate their own temperature isn't likely to harm a baby? Are you serious?

Popcornshovel said:

Imagine how the jury will see that! Is she expecting the average person to agree that it's fine for a baby to live in an igloo/tent when the parents have enough money for a house.

Click to expand...

Children in igloos are kept toasty warm. They don't sleep in thin sleeping bags under a flimsy tent wearing only a babygro.

And any children at Calais are there because their parents are fleeing warzones ffs.

As the daughter of a refugee this fetishisation of poverty and other cultures really fucks me off. My paternal grandmother had 10 babies in a small 2 bedroom house, 4 of whom died in childhood because of inadequate healthcare. Seriously, fuck these people. It's not a fucking lifestyle choice.

The pair of them are clearly not capable of rational thought, but what did they expect would happen?

They apparently were so desperate to protect their baby that they went on the run to evade SS, only to dump its dead body in the bushes and then trot off to go and buy fish and chips. The depravity is just shocking.

I hope all the Facebook huns that have been defending them and criticising SS take a good hard look at themselves. These people clearly should not be parents.

Edited to correct grammar. I'm too upset and angry to type.

This verdict shouldn't take more than five minutes. It's very obvious to me that they are guilty on all counts.

The jury I served on were thick as mince though (sorry, but it's true) and we spent a long time explaining to people things like 'Their blood at the scene definitely proves they were there' and 'Your invented hypothetical scenario of how this could have happened a different way that nobody involved in the case remotely suggested in their evidence or used as a defence isn't something we need to consider'. And 'We don't need to be debating this bit, even the defendant agrees this bit happened and we saw that on the CCTV'. Actually blood boiling just remembering. I would never want to be tried by a jury of my peers because it turns out my peers are fucking idiots.

Lucyxxxx said:

They were living in a tent BECAUSE of social services wanting to take the baby. People so desperate to keep their child shouldn't have been hunted like dogs.

Click to expand...

You're coming across as a very odd person, I'll be honest. As a parent, I couldn't imagine being away from my kids, but I'd rather social services take my baby and engage with them in order to move forward in a way I can still have contact with my child than go on the run and have no medical checks for either of us, live in woods and tents in the middle of winter with said newborn and risk us both getting very sick. Why do you think social services wanted to take the baby in the first place?! She's an irresponsible mother, who didn't meet the needs of her previous children, either of her own accord or through the coercive control of the father. I'm not sure why it is so difficult to comprehend why these people were being "hunted like dogs". The baby was/is in danger thanks to it's own parents and quite clearly would have been better off away from them!

spillallthetea said:

Well will the claw clip make an appearance today ?
Are they due to sit today? Will this trial ever end?

Click to expand...

The year is 2074. England is an apocalyptic wasteland. In court, Constance still sits, claw clip in hair, wanging on about Bedouin tents and Mongolian yurts. Several members of the jury have passed away from old age, those that haven't wish for the sweet release of death to provide respite from her nonsensical ramblings...

Mojojojo67 said:

Constance May have had PND but that doesn’t excuse her partner not seeking help for the welfare of the child.

Click to expand...

PND occurs post birth. It doesn't make someone conceal a pregnancy, give birth in a car and then go into hiding.

This is why protection and removal orders are put on unborn children. This is utterly tragic for everyone involved.