I’ve wondered what impact the long delays might have on the jury. In one sense they have had plenty of time to mull it over and be clear in their own minds what they think before deliberations begin. This could make the verdict really quick if they all agree. But if anyone is unsure or against the rest of the group, I wonder if it’s much harder to come to agreement when so much time has passed since evidence had finished.
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Another murderer who ( like Letby) put what she had done in writing and then kept it for the police to find.
---
I think a lot will come down to how sympathetic the jurors are to Constance. If they believe she was a good mother who made some bad decisions under pressure they may look to find her not guilty of the manslaughter charge.
Is this trial ever gonna end I’m sure it was meant to be 3 weeks?! I get the fire caused delays but seriously just get it over with now it’s getting beyond a joke
Would a good mother have had 4 children removed just because she made some bad decisions...repeatedly? Would a good mother put her newborn baby at risk just to prove a point? Would a good mother dump her dead baby in a bag along with all the rubbish in an attempt to hide the evidence of her" bad decisions"? Would a good mother brazenly stand up in court and attempt to justify the actions which had such a predictably tragic outcome for the poor baby who never stood a chance?
CM is mentally unstable. I genuinely believe there is undiagnosed or unmanaged mental illness at play.
MG is either hugely paranoid, or has taken advantage of CM’s state to manipulate to his benefit - eg the ‘detonation’ of cars.
They are both guilty of GNM in my eyes. Without question. But I do not think anything will ever change CM’s mind that she was ‘protecting’ her baby or ‘doing the best thing’ for her because she is not able to see it herself.
I hope the sentence doesn’t allow for her to ever be pregnant again, but I think it’s unlikely. This will happen again
MG is either hugely paranoid, or has taken advantage of CM’s state to manipulate to his benefit - eg the ‘detonation’ of cars.
They are both guilty of GNM in my eyes. Without question. But I do not think anything will ever change CM’s mind that she was ‘protecting’ her baby or ‘doing the best thing’ for her because she is not able to see it herself.
I hope the sentence doesn’t allow for her to ever be pregnant again, but I think it’s unlikely. This will happen again
I don't think these questions require a response. I think we can all agree that the answer is no a good mother, in fact just an okay mother, would not do any of these things.
For me it comes down to intent and if I was on the jury this would be my thought process. I don't believe there was any intention to kill her baby. She didn't wrap her up in furniture stuffing as an attempt to kill her.
I agree that everything CM and MG was probably done to keep Victoria as safe as possible in their eyes. However just being with them put Victoria at risk never mind camping in a festival tent in January.
I really couldn't call this. They absolutely should get jail time but I don't know whether it should be a long sentence.
This has been such an interesting case to follow. I honestly don't know how I feel.
Don't get aggy with me... its not my fault court isn't on iykyk
It has been an interesting case and Constance Marten is a fascinating character. Born into wealth and privilege, she did well at school and travelled widely. Then she married a penniless convicted rapist, went to live in tents surrounded by pots of p*ss and had all her children removed. Something must have gone wrong somewhere.
She hasnt been painted sympathetically in this case by any barrister, however the evidence is there to show her as a victim of domestic violence and cocevice control, His previous jail sentence for a violent rape, medical reports after she "fell out of a window", her family was concerned enough to hire private detectives and apply for a ward of court, the family courts felt her children needed adopting to protect them against domestic violence. Yet he seems happy to sit back and kept her come across as an upper class arrogant prat. She appears to wear the trousers but it's hard to know the true nature of their relationship.
I do think she deserves to go to prison for a long time for what she did to Victoria and there are no excuses for letting the baby suffer. There was however something very wrong. Surely even prison would be nicer than sitting day after day in a freezing shed with no food and a smelly bag for life.
She hasnt been painted sympathetically in this case by any barrister, however the evidence is there to show her as a victim of domestic violence and cocevice control, His previous jail sentence for a violent rape, medical reports after she "fell out of a window", her family was concerned enough to hire private detectives and apply for a ward of court, the family courts felt her children needed adopting to protect them against domestic violence. Yet he seems happy to sit back and kept her come across as an upper class arrogant prat. She appears to wear the trousers but it's hard to know the true nature of their relationship.
I do think she deserves to go to prison for a long time for what she did to Victoria and there are no excuses for letting the baby suffer. There was however something very wrong. Surely even prison would be nicer than sitting day after day in a freezing shed with no food and a smelly bag for life.
Do you think CM is a victim of domestic violence and coercive control? I don't think it one bit. It would have been a great defence if she was but the fact it hasn't even been implied makes me think not. In fact her barrister said something along the lines of she isn't a woman to be pushed around.
I wonder if the first barrister wanted to go down that route and she refused to co operate and that's why she got a new barrister.
The social service involvement and the children's adoption were partly due to the risk of domestic violence. They must have had some grounds to suspect it. I just wonder if maybe he manipulates her, he kept passing notes in courts to her but doesn't want to actually tell anyone his story.
I also do not think CM is a victim of domestic violence and coercive control, otherwise that would have been the defence's main strategy. She's got full capacity too and knows exactly what she's doing
Do I think she meant to kill Victoria, no however both of their actions and selfishness led to an inevitable death. Carrying a dead baby to the beach for the day in a bag for life blows my mind.
Maybe she was the perp not the victim. She has the hallmarks too.. position of privilege over MG in terms of class, wealth and race. Seems like she is the leader of the relationship.
Could unconscious bias be at play?
The family court judge removed the children after they witnessed a DV episode between their parents. So it did happen. It doesn’t clarify who did what though.
I am only speculating about what might be going on. They might have a wonderful relationship. There's a lot we are not being told about their backgrounds so it's hard to predict what the jurors are thinking.
I wonder if we will ever know who did what if no charges were bought forward. I suppose they couldn't say if it hasn't been proven. We will never know.
For the record I think they were violent to each other.
Oh yes sorry I wasn’t disagreeing with you! Just backing up the DV.
---
Yes me too I think. It’s the detonation of cars I can’t work out. She could have played on his paranoia though and made him believe that’s what was happening.
It’s all so complex and there’s so much that we (rightly) don’t know.
I reckon loads more will come out after the verdict and we'll get a clearer picture of what went on with them, and also what's been going on with this 84-year-long trial. I was listening to the Private Eye podcast the other day and they were saying how frustrating it can be reporting on these big cases as people want to know all the details but there are quite a lot of restrictions in place, particularly where it involves children.
Manslaughter is by definition unintentional.
Firstly yes, everything about her shouts mental illness - I had an employee with schizophrenia, and it is ringing many many bells - people would be following her on the train, in the street, shouting her name, she would accuse other employees of "spying" on her, peering through shop windows at her. On one notable occasion in York (we are in London) she thought another employee had followed her on the train on her weekend break and was following her around York....fortunately for that person they were definitely in London at the time - and with witnesses.
She would be fine, normal for a considerable time, like 12 months, then slide into paranoia. (I now know she was on medication, then came off it, believing herself well!) The only fortunate thing is she used to go to the police, she trusted authority, so "reported" the "stalking" and then was sectioned, medicated and back to the start....
CM does appear like this, but with a distrust of medication and authority.
I suspect successive barristers wanted to play the mental health card but weren't allowed to.
100% yes - MG was onto a very good thing, she had bags of money and was prepared to put up with him. I think he would have played that for all it was worth. The "detonation" of the cars for example. DV probably went both ways but we'll know nothing until after the trial.
Friend who has had no contact with CM since 2012 tells of previous bad boys she fell for despite warnings.
www.independent.co.uk
Friend of Constance Marten ‘warned’ her about falling in love with dangerous men
The former colleague claimed Ms Marten would fall in love with men and not listen to warnings
Not a surprise given the relationship with her father fell apart (for the whole family) when he had his manic episode and left. Then her brother marrying her best friend would probably have felt that she was being left out/betrayed as they were now a couple and she’d ‘lost’ a friend. She likely rebelled against her societal expectations and - with family history of mental illness too - it got out of control.Friend who has had no contact with CM since 2012 tells of previous bad boys she fell for despite warnings.
Friend of Constance Marten ‘warned’ her about falling in love with dangerous men
The former colleague claimed Ms Marten would fall in love with men and not listen to warnings
(Just my pondering, obviously no idea if I’m right or wrong)