constance marten and mark gordon : Most liked Posts

pommobear said:

So just to clarify, you think mothers have more of a responsibility to ensure their babies don't come to harm than fathers do? Apologies if that isn't what you meant but it reads that way.

Click to expand...

I also believe mothers and fathers should have shared responsibility. However, in “real life” this is not what ends up happening though is it? Let’s be real, doesn’t mean it’s right, just how it is

PS. I’m also a mother, I also wished it was different

Here’s a long piece from the Standard yesterday. It says she has a multi-million pound trust fund.


Isn’t it sad that this beautiful, massively privileged woman, who could have done anything she wanted, ended up living in squalor and losing custody of her children? I can only assume she fell into drug addiction.

I really don't understand their obsession with living in tents. I don't even like glamping so clearly the polar opposite, but who wants to be cold and uncomfortable and never clean and be surrounded by their own piss and rubbish? Clearly they see themselves as wonderful and exciting and clever people who live outside of society with their so-called 'alternative' lifestyle but most people don't sacrifice their own comfort for their principles - especially people with loads of money in the bank and loads of options - even 'alternative' ones.

spillallthetea said:

Mr Fitzgibbon is laying it on thick now

Click to expand...

Where's the fucking logic, Fitz?! If she was so distraught by her first four children being taken away, why didn't she bend over backwards to give the fifth a safe and contented life?!

I think it’s human nature to try and see the good in people, but sometimes there just isn’t any.

people are questioning if she had postnatal depression because of the rough handling, others are questioning why they didn’t buy warm clothes when they had the money to.

maybe the only reason is that they did do/do not care.

social services took those other children for a reason. A good reason by the looks of things. These two do not come across as caring parents that are scared to lose their child.

sebanna said:

The jury must see that she's unhinged. A good few of them are probably parents and will know that two baby grows is not enough to keep a baby comfortable in a cold tent. If CM had any sense she would be in floods of tears and beating herself up, saying no court could punish her more than she punishes herself, for causing her baby to die.

Click to expand...

This! If I was me and my baby had died in a clear cot following all safe sleep guidance, i would probably still blame myself and question what i could have done differently. She downplays every possible action she took - she genuinely thinks Victoria would have died had she been in a hotel. But were she in a hotel, Victoria wouldn't have been asleep in her jacket. And she wouldn't have fallen asleep from exhaustion while sat on the floor, she would have been lying in a bed and even if Victoria was bed sharing, there would have been less of a possibility of her being smothered. Sure, the risk would still be there, but she wouldn't literally have fallen asleep on top of her while suffocating her in a coat.

Ok so she loved her children SO MUCH she was planning to leave the country illegally and never see them again

windowlickinggood said:

No, not all children should be with their birth families. There are situations where this is absolutely NOT in the best interests of the child. This situation being the obvious one.

Click to expand...

You're misunderstanding what I mean. Children belong in their birth families, as in they should be because their birth family should be safe.
I'm a parent by adoption and it hurts my soul that his birth family is not safe as he is dealing with the consequences of that. No one else, just him. What I should have said is children DESERVE to be with their birth families.. my bad.
---

goldengyal said:

I have to agree here. I understand the sentiment and in an ideal world we should never need to separate a child from it’s birth parents as there should be support systems in place to help parents with their issues and keep families together. However, issues run far too deep sometimes and as has been said in this thread a few times already, some people are just callous and beyond help.

(Edited to amend grammar)

Click to expand...

You explained it better than I did

I have to agree that I’m yet to see any evidence she has a maternal instinct. Those videos of a baby zipped up in the jacket with NO CHECKING and then the way she plonks Victoria into a buggy makes he doubt there was any maternal love involved.

She is clearly infatuated with Gordon (‘I can’t bear it! Let him go! Daddy bear!’) but her children…? Not sure.

I hope we will here more from their background as parents further in the trial.

I have been lurking on this thread and finally screwed up the courage to comment ! Thank you to @InTheDollsHouse for comments echoing my thoughts. I’m a therapist but mainly work with anxiety as that was my driver to train and study as I had an anxiety disorder. So I’m fascinated by people and looking beneath behaviours even abhorrent behaviour.
I have to offer empathy , non judgement and unconditional positive regard to my clients as that’s the foundation of the theory I trained under. I try ( mostly ) to look at non clients the same way . I can abhor the behaviour but I have a drive to understand it. If we can’t understand it how can we learn any lessons from anything . We are used to thinking poverty , abuse , addiction can set people off into criminal activities so I can understand those being flummoxed by CM who perhaps had everything materialistic wise. Which in a way means something more must have been going on in her family ?
I really think there’s a weird religious aspect to this. CM and her mother have some extreme Christian characters linked to their social media’s and mums LinkedIn.
I know it was briefly touched on before along with the cult stuff.
Aa a mum I admit I do focus on her . I’m trying to not excuse her at all and I hope justice is served . Victoria deserved safety , warmth and all her needs met. I would lay down my life for my child but I understand that’s not everyone’s thinking ( certainly wasn’t my daughters fathers ) . I also feel drawn to the folie a deux theory . Not sure if I’m contributing much but wanted to say what I’m thinking .

The hair clip is a little in-joke and I can't help wondering whether any of the court reporters are also watching these threads and then mentioning its appearance as a signal to Tattle.

Anyone going to court should deffo wear a hair claw so you can be identified by other Tattlers. It's like a secret handshake.

I'm beyond disgusted - no justice for poor baby Victoria. How much evidence did the stupid jurors need? They have had all their previous children removed into care. They were seen on CCTV handling their half dressed baby like a rag doll. They exposed her to the elements. They carried their baby's dead body around in a bag with actual LITTER on top of her. Disgusting monsters. Please please let there be a retrial - and a proper one this time not this absolute shitshow. I'm really gutted and angry.

I've been listening to 'The Trial' in the car and the actress doing Condo's voice, she is just doing her job bless her, BUT IM GOING TO THROW MY CAR RADIO OUT THE WINDOW. I have never heard Conducive's voice other than that DADDY BEAR (blood boils) clip so I just associate that actress voice with Conditioner's infuriating nonsense.

I'm actually furious, the sanctimonious nonsensical entitled drivel. And my car radio thing is connected to the car and I can't get it out. I can't even access any of my trust money to buy a new car, when my radio ultimately explodes on the motorway in act of espionage. Ruining my mobile phone and placenta collection.

Can't wait for Constipated's guide to Parenting being released in 2024. If her FAMILY don't blow up all the publishing companies and Amazon kindle before that. Spies everywhere!

FFS_stopit said:

They are charged with the same offences, but at this point it’s almost as if she is being treated by the media, and to some degree this thread, as the main perpetrator and he is just an accomplice.

Click to expand...

Agree with all of your comment but this is super interesting. I’ve written before that I’m surprised they didn’t take the very easy route and paint him as the abusive coercive controlling mastermind and her the weak little poor victim to it all. It would have been so easy with him being a man, black, and with a very serious offending history. The fact they haven’t makes it all the more interesting imo.

Society assumes women to be more maternal/caring, and dare I say sensible and measured? So when a woman fails at motherhood there’s a lot more scorn and questioning than when a man does at fatherhood, it’s far more normal for a man to leave a family dynamic than a mother for example? In fact it’s very commonplace for a man to leave his partner therefore his kids, still to this day if a mum left her childcare duties it’s a bit taboo? I know family courts are apparently trying to address the bias towards the mother but it’s historically really upheld the idea of mums as primary/resident parents only with men just picking up weekends (if that), so tl;dr I do think the expectations are higher for women. Also gonna assume most of us are women/if not mums so are going to question how someone similar to us could do this, I wonder if a group of men would speak more on MG? I wonder if we’d speak more on MG if he wasn’t a rapist so evidently fucking unhinged and beyond redemption anyway?

And yes her wealth/privilege is of massive interest. Also agree that she’d have had at least 4/5 months to make a plan and yet this is the shit one they came up with?! She’d have had at least £100k in. Choosing to live this unacceptable and lbr filthy lifestyle when you have such means is always going to pique a gossip site’s interest!

The delusion that she still firmly believes the children were taken for nothing, is truly frightening. As we’ve all said on here, the threshold for removing children permanently is really high. There will have been stacks & stacks of case files and countless hearings detailing all of their wrongdoing yet she won’t have any of it! Utter utter nutcase, what she’s done to these poor children is appalling but she hasn’t even got the decency to admit it & be remorseful!

Aberscot said:

I was thinking more of let out on bail to some fancy rehab facility till the trial since the family are very wealthy,
Not out in public because totally agree I think it wouldn’t be safe for her given the publicity.

Click to expand...

If she was called Shanessa and from a rough council estate would she have a chance in hell of bail? If she gets bail this absolutely stinks. A silk at the magistrates court? This pair of scum bags went for chippy whilst their dead baby rotted in a shed. I think there will be public revulsion if she is granted bail.

Dogmuck said:

@InTheDollsHouse - did I see you said you’d started a Wiki?
Can we get the absolute legend who did the Letby wiki on this one? That was like a piece of art.
I wasn’t up to speed on here today and for anyone else who doesn’t fancy trawling through this thread this X feed is really comprehensive








https://x.com/totalcrime/status/1750525650610557259?s=46

ETA credit to @thisisme20 for bringing this to my attention

Click to expand...

haha it was me that did the Letby wiki. Not sure I’d call myself a legend but I’ll take it

I’ve been lurking here but not sure I can get so invested this time though. Letby’s trial lasting 10 months was intense!

I do wish they would stop referring it to as co sleeping. It’s no more co sleeping than having a baby shoved in your coat is baby wearing.
I’m finding it incredibly frustrating that she’s allowed to spout off about what an amazing mother she is and how selfless and how she would do anything for her children. What utter nonsense. She’s selfish and callous and a horrendous mother and human being. Why is she being allowed to waffle on for so long avoiding answering the question put to her. She makes me so bloody angry. The focus needs to be on Victoria and I feel like it’s become the Constance show.

I think it’s interesting that she says her family accused her of being an addict and for having babies to sell underground or whatever she says .but then admits she was going to pay someone to mind and later smuggle her child out of the country.
She also talks of a fractured family were she either witnessed or experienced some type of abuse / child hood trauma herself , or towards someone else in her family, which may be true.
She then says her family punished her for speaking out against it, has persecuted her, her children and husband , all the stuff re: companies following her, wardship applications, high court orders to prevent her from travelling, conspiring with SS to have her children removed .. but then says she was angry that her family allowed her children to be adopted and didn’t take them in? The same family she doesn’t want anything to do with? Who drove her to live off grid ?

Is she fully aware her baby died? I only ask because all her counter arguments to the questioning seem to forget this one detail. “Jesus was born in a barn”; “Bedouin babies survive in a tent”; “babies don’t need much to cope” - sure these are all true, but they don’t prove her point when the main evidence in this case is her half decomposed baby’s body in a bag for life.