constance marten and mark gordon : Most liked Posts

ImDavidBrent said:

I know the defence have a job to do, but describing this woman as a lioness protecting her cubs is far from the truth!

Click to expand...

Actually, Lionesses sleep outside with their cubs all the time. Such a western human standpoint. SMH.

I’ve not read up any of the reporting or caught up on this thread yet, but was it reported re her being an au pair/nanny?

She mentioned she had looked after 3 children in Switzerland (I think it was ?). She said she took the baby that she looked after down the slopes in a blizzard in a pram wearing a baby grow and it was warm and comfortable. She was really prickly at this point as she was being challenged by Mr Smith.

I couldn’t believe what I was hearing….

Emsie said:

And the way she said "you always put babies down on their front" ... I know things change all the time but my eldest neice is 14 and it was on their backs, back then.

Click to expand...

Jesus. she is basically knowledge-proof, isn't she?

As a childless person who never wanted kids, even I know that stomach sleeping is a huge risk factor for SIDS. Cots deaths fell by a massive percentage once people were informed that the safest way for babies to sleep was on their backs. There have been HUGE information campaigns about this over my lifetime that anyone possessed of ears and eyes would have seen. I was born a long time before Dear Constance, so she definitely would have been exposed to this knowledge one way or the other.

Again, stupidity, sent to college. She's articulate and massively over-confident in the way that people confuse for intelligence, a result of her background and expensive education. but the reality is that functionally, she is stupid to the fucking BONE.

neroli said:

CM's potential future babies have human rights too.

Click to expand...

They do once they're born, they don't before.

I'm not saying this is right or wrong BTW, it's just the law.

Once you have forced sterilisation you are in a very very murky place.

“Daddy bear”

From the bbc
---
Constance Marten and Mark Gordon hid baby's location from police, court hears https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68218831

CabalofBolorneaise said:

I think it’s hard to make blanket statements to be honest.

A wrong removal can do a hell of a lot of damage to both the child(ren) and the parent(s) especially if the placement is not suited to the child.

It’s still a better alternative than the extreme cases we hear about but most removals don’t fall into that category.

I feel sorry for the individual SWs on the ground because they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t and trapped by a failed system but the issues with the system as a whole have been patently clear for a long time and the upper figures need to stop whining about damned either way and overhaul it. It’s not anti-SS to say they make a hell of a lot of mistakes and while yes, they get more flack for it than Roberta in the office who messed up a spreadsheet and ordered 20000 bics instead of 200, that’s because their mistakes have massive consequences. They face the same amount of flack as eg a doctor who makes a mistake and it has life changing consequences. Some mistakes are worse than others.

Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood me a little bit to honest. I was involved in the social care system myself as a child and I also studied social care at Masters level.
Trust me when I say, I get it.

I wasn’t meaning “let’s literally remove children by mistake because that’s better”. The main part of my point was that it’s better to take a child that you deem to be of high risk, even if that risk never plays out, than to leave them with the possibility that that risk might play out,

It’s also far better for social services to take concerns seriously and then find out that they were unfounded, rather than just ignore.

Bottom line being, it’s better for them to be thorough than miss opportunities to take children in serious need.

There is a lot of extremist behaviour out there at the moment from people that don’t trust the “authorities” and that genuinely don’t understand the system and while they’re bleeting on about all the harm that the social do when they take children, they’re missing the fact that children are slipping through the net everyday and dying everyday in awful circumstances.

This is different to those that are just pointing out their mistakes, some of their behaviour is actually very extreme.

Being a social worker is a very much “dammed if you do dammed if you don’t” and I found it far too distressing for me to continue down that line work unfortunately.

I can't help but feel with these two that they've had a lot of practice at avoidance, hence his court refusals etc. They're going to try every bloody trick in the book to avoid justice... and I've got a horrible feeling that a lot of the charges will end up being dropped. I've had 4 children, one of whom was stillborn and handing him over to the midwives to send him to the mortuary was honestly the hardest thing I've ever had to do. The thought of discarding any baby under a pile of rubbish in a shed is unthinkable.... that poor darling little girl

My opinion has always been that she is still mentally scarred from the cult. The dissociation, detachment and emotional numbness is a huge symptom of PTSD.

I’m absolutely not excusing what she’s done, or saying that it’s even a factor for consideration in sentencing - but it is likely to be something that has negatively affected and shaped her and so may have been part of why she seems so cold hearted. She is emotionally not there.

When you have a combination of smoke, nappies, damp unclean clothing, sanitary/maternity pads confined to a small hotel room, it won’t take much for it to stink.

I believe the scenario she describes, but that specific scenario just wouldn't have happened had they not been in a tent on the run from social services. Victoria wouldn't have been in her jacket because she would have been in a warm home. I don't think the fact she suffocated her in her sleep makes one tiny bit of difference.

Hope this is ok and don’t want to derail the thread but I have just seen this . Currently on trial . Different but what struck me is the face down issue and CM’s defence.

MedeaWho said:

This probably explains the screaming baby. She was in agony.

Click to expand...

I’ve no doubt she was. Cold, hungry and in pain. IMO every single choice they made were ones to conceal Victoria and therefore were only to benefit themselves. Never what would have been best for her and often ensuring she was especially vulnerable.
Carrying her around zipped up so she’d be unable to breathe properly- the concealment was more important than the risk of her dying every single time. That is why it would not shock me at all if the baby herself had become too inconvenient to them and too hard to conceal that they did deliberately kill her or watch her slowly die without seeking help.
She was literally disposed of like rubbish in a bag of shit. No child of theirs was ever more important than each other. No child was ever worth inconveniencing them or putting effort into. They didn’t want to risk him going to prison, that was more important than their daughter’s safety, comfort, dignity and ultimately her life.

Rippedjeanmaybe said:

I think there are lots of parents that don’t love their children or maybe they think they do, but they really don’t.

There’s been a few cases on the news over the last few years of parents killing their children or allowing their children to be killed, these people do not love their children.

....

I don’t see how CM could care about that baby after she manhandled her like a rag doll. I don’t believe they wanted to keep her because they loved her. There’s something more sinister about all of this.

Click to expand...

I agree. I think some parents don't see their children as separate humans with their own needs. The child is an extension of them and also their possession. The adult wants overrides the child's needs, but the parents sense of self is so damaged that they won't give up their child as that is somehow winning. It's all about the fight to get THEIR child back. The child belongs to them so they can do what they like. I'm thinking of Finlay Boden and Ellie Butler as cases where the children were both removed after social work and courts but then returned to the parents who killed them

^^ don’t forget the Lucy Letby plumber was named.. Luigi .. and the poor guy was very evidently baffled how he ended up testifying about toilets in a major crown court case!

FFS_stopit said:

Sorry I’ve been flat out but keeping an eye on things from a distance so haven’t had time to comment..

I can’t get my head around how she thought it was ok??? I honestly believe she thinks walking around with a baby zipped up inside her coat is an ok thing to do and won’t cause any harm!! I have spent a majority of the past decade baby wearing (in a sling) and the number one rule is to make sure their breathing is unobstructed and baby is high enough that you can “comfortably kiss their head”! Not shoved down a padded jacket, where they can’t see, you can’t see them and they are slowly breathing in more and more of their own carbon dioxide!!


I’m looking forward to hearing the judges remarks… although I’m dreading the sentencing if theyre found guilty, there’s been a few cases recently with years and years of awful neglect, found guilty of GNM and they are only sentenced to a few years - it’s awful!!

Click to expand...

I've also carried my babies in slings and even following the guidelines I was so paranoid at first, constantly checking them and their positioning, re adjusting them etc. The guidelines state baby should be Tight, In View, Close Enough to Kiss, Keep Chin Off Chest, Supported Back, having a baby slumped inside a jacket supported only with your arm outside that coat literally goes against all of them. I wore my babies inside my coat but with it zipped as far as the back of the sling, their head fully out of the top, with a hat on if it was cold. I did that because I read it is safer to do so because if you're too hot they are and vice versa. Constance being the all knowing excellent mother that she is would surely know this too? It wasn't about keeping Victoria safe or warm it was about keeping her hidden and I don't believe she would have kept her that way in the tent when they were "away from prying eyes".

The podcast also includes the directions given to the jury by the judge, so much is missed from the live reporting!

Lynn’ssnazzycardigan said:

Thanks for that, I hadn’t thought about it in that way. The historical conviction in itself wouldn’t be enough to remove the children but it would certainly be in the SS reports and in their minds when assessing the case.

With regards to her Jesus comment I think that’s horribly flippant when this case is brought considering the death of her own child. She’s showboating and trying to appear superior when most people would be regretful, and I hope that’s not lost on the jury.

Click to expand...

Totally. A few of her comments have come across so so badly today. Latest being 'we didn't have a penchant for tents'. And earlier 'I like the feathered duvets and comfort' and 'I'd rather be in a plush bed in a palace'. So snotty - all of it. It doesn't sound like someone who is devastated and sorry and driven to the edge of despair. It sounds like what she is - someone who was arrogantly determined that they knew what was best, and still is despite their actions likely having caused the death of their child.

A headstrong woman who is no shrinking violet is always wheeled out as a reason why she can’t have been abused
Anyone can be taken in by an organisation that is designed to take people in. Anyone can end up in an abusive relationship. Anyone can fall victim.
Especially a poor little rich girl seeking meaning in life, love and acceptance. And one dealing with metal health problems.

She doesn't need a MH assessment. She's a crackpot conspiracy theorist. Like the ones that believe the Obamas wear children's skin, the queen was a lizard and all that. All the things she had "read" are from other nutters in forced adoption groups on Facebook.
---

pommobear said:

I dunno if I wholly buy that she was the victim of coercive control here TBH, rather than simply being utterly deluded.

Click to expand...

I don't buy it at all.

EllsBellsWells said:

I feel like I have to keep saying this- I’m not defending their actions. I’m also not suggesting they deserve our kindness.

What I am saying though, is that we should be kind to each other. There will undoubtedly be women (thousands of people are reading this thread) who are reading the comments here and wondering why they’ve failed because they’ve no maternal instinct. Even women who might have just had their 3rd/4th baby and still not felt that. When they’ve not failed at all. It’s just an expectation that we as women pile on each other in a way we don’t do to men.

I’m not wanting to police the thread either- I always notice how for the most part these threads become a safe space where people are able to share their experiences and I’ve personally learned a lot from reading and listening to people. On a topic that is so horrendous it’s genuinely nice to be reminded of the fact that 99.999999% of human beings are decent people.

Click to expand...

I understand what you’re saying.

People say you’ll feel an instant rush of love and immediately be a new person with these deep seated instincts when you first see your newborn baby, and for some that just does not happen. There’s no rhyme nor reason to it, it’s no-one’s fault, it’s just something that doesn’t come instantly for some.