Constance Marten and Mark Gordon #11

[Here2BNosey]

I think there's some confusion over the first couple of charges. The judge didn't instruct them to find guilty on ANY of the charges. The first 2 were broken down into 3 or 4 parts, the first ones were not disputed but the last part on each charge was up for debate and the jury had to decide that and that would be the deciding factor in if they were guilty or not.

I think the FB posts are interesting, as much as we have all thought there is a lot we obviously don't know or haven't heard it makes me wonder if the jury heard some things that did put questions in their mind into whether they were indeed "forced" off grid as the defence says. I'm also now wondering due to some of the wording if the children were placed with Martens family initially and that was the abusive Foster placement. Especially given some of the things she's said about her dad/family member.

 

[Emsie]

I don't feel sorry for thre jury... why would anyone? But I do commend the 9 that remained. Sitting on this jury for all this time stop start stop start and listening to CM ramble on about things you're not supposed to know must have been tedious. Better people than me, I would have walked.

 

[Kebab girl]

How do we know the other kids are in LA care? Given their young ages they would be adopted or placed with family

 

[ThisIsMyDragName]

Surely whatever happened in the past only counts to a certain extent. A huge amount of people who come into contact with the criminal justice system have had unspeakable amounts of trauma in their past. They still end up being found guilty/sentenced to prison for the crimes they’ve committed. Because having an awful childhood or something terrible happen in your last does not excuse you from the crimes you commit. It might, however, go some way to explain why you did something.

If the only charge was failing to register a birth and Victoria was alive and well, then the Social Services back story and the hints of whatever it is that is supposed to have happened that is bad would absolutely explain why they committed that crime. They’d still be found guilty of it, they just might be let off with a conditional discharge or something (I have no idea what the sentencing guidelines are for something like that. It’s not likely to be jail time though!)

Statutory services in this country are on their knees. They’re woefully underfunded, people working in them are poorly supported so are probably burned out. That’s allowed to be true concurrently with the fact that CM and MG neglected their other children/failed to listen to sound advice about sleeping with the baby, etc.

I’m more perplexed with every passing day.

 

[CabalofBolorneaise]

Surely whatever happened in the past only counts to a certain extent. A huge amount of people who come into contact with the criminal justice system have had unspeakable amounts of trauma in their past. They still end up being found guilty/sentenced to prison for the crimes they’ve committed. Because having an awful childhood or something terrible happen in your last does not excuse you from the crimes you commit. It might, however, go some way to explain why you did something.

If the only charge was failing to register a birth and Victoria was alive and well, then the Social Services back story and the hints of whatever it is that is supposed to have happened that is bad would absolutely explain why they committed that crime. They’d still be found guilty of it, they just might be let off with a conditional discharge or something (I have no idea what the sentencing guidelines are for something like that. It’s not likely to be jail time though!)

Statutory services in this country are on their knees. They’re woefully underfunded, people working in them are poorly supported so are probably burned out. That’s allowed to be true concurrently with the fact that CM and MG neglected their other children/failed to listen to sound advice about sleeping with the baby, etc.

I’m more perplexed with every passing day.

If Victoria was alive it wouldn’t be concealing a birth, it would be failing to register a birth which I’m pretty sure the max they can do for is a fine.

I personally think the issue is that if SS and potentially others involved have been shown in a negative light in the unreportable parts of the case it means the jury then have good reason to doubt their accounts of what happened this time even if to us as outsiders it sounds black and white that they told CM this, this and this so she was fully aware things she was doing were dangerous and why. If the jury heard SS gave an untrue account related to their first child for example and the evidence is SS told them in relation to the same child that their cosleeping was unsafe I can absolutely see why a jury would go “well they say they told her, but did they really when they were lying about the other thing?”.

That combined with CM’s obvious mental illness does bring a hell of a lot of doubt around how much she realised she was putting Victoria at risk and whether she truly believed that she was doing the best for her. A lot of people would find it really difficult to reach a conviction decision then.

 

[Emsie]

How do we know the other kids are in LA care? Given their young ages they would be adopted or placed with family

We or I think the younger 2 have been adopted. The older one is probably in Foster care and the second eldest who knows.
I'm sure I read somewhere that the eldest was five when they were having contact with her at the contact centre so quite old by adoption standards.

 

[InTheDollsHouse]

How do we know the other kids are in LA care? Given their young ages they would be adopted or placed with family

Care and placement orders were made for all of the children in January 2022 - 3 months before she fell pregnant with Victoria.

They were in care prior to that

Constance Marten and Mark Gordon #6

Nope https://courses.leeds.ac.uk/j555/arabic-islamic-middle-eastern-and-north-african-studies-ba I reckon studying Arabic is pretty challenging though? Leeds is an established renowned uni. She'd surely have to have some intelligence to get in? current average tariff is 3Bs. Nothing special...

tattle.life

 

[WurstHunde]

I don’t think the anonymous poster on FB is a juror. At a stretch they may have been in the public gallery for a day or two like a poster here, but more than likely they are making up utter rubbish for attention like 90% of social media.

I don’t see what bearing anything that might have happened to the older children has on this case. Let’s not forget those children were removed from CM and MG because they weren’t caring for them. The fact they might have been abused in care would never have happened if CM and MG had parented them to an adequate standard. CM and MG’s actions towards Victoria were on trial here, not the possible actions of a foster carer.

I despair of a jury who couldn’t manage to separate the facts of this case from the vague allusions of what possibly happened to the children that were previously taken off them. No one has 4 children taken away because they’re a great parent.

 

[Here2BNosey]

See I do think it 'could' be relevant to a jury. Baring in mind we don't know what they have or haven't heard regarding evidence that hasn't been reported.

If for arguments sake I was abused by a family member, my kids were removed to said family member and abused in their care, even though I had disclosed this to them. Damn right I'm gonna believe my kids are safer with me. Especially if I believe I'm a good parent, my kids are happy and safe with me and any allegations made against me are unfounded.

Obviously I'm not saying thos IS the case, like u said we just don't know what has been kept from the public regarding the older kids and SS.

The relevance for me comes if outlandish claims CMs made can be proven true and/or claims made by SS can be proven false. It then IS relevant because it calls into question the reliability of the witnesses and any evidence they have given. The background is directly relevant in deciding if their behaviour was reasonable, in the circumstances.

 

[Emsie]

See I do think it 'could' be relevant to a jury. Baring in mind we don't know what they have or haven't heard regarding evidence that hasn't been reported.

If for arguments sake I was abused by a family member, my kids were removed to said family member and abused in their care, even though I had disclosed this to them. Damn right I'm gonna believe my kids are safer with me. Especially if I believe I'm a good parent, my kids are happy and safe with me and any allegations made against me are unfounded.

Obviously I'm not saying thos IS the case, like u said we just don't know what has been kept from the public regarding the older kids and SS.

The relevance for me comes if outlandish claims CMs made can be proven true and/or claims made by SS can be proven false. It then IS relevant because it calls into question the reliability of the witnesses and any evidence they have given. The background is directly relevant in deciding if their behaviour was reasonable, in the circumstances.

Yeah I agree. And if I thought I was a good parent and therefore my options were leave my baby to be abused or live in a tent I would pick the tent no questions.

 

[Aberscot]

Yeah I agree. And if I thought I was a good parent and therefore my options were leave my baby to be abused or live in a tent I would pick the tent no questions.

But if you done that as a good parent I bet you would have all the supplies required to look after a newborn.
Like warm Sleepsuits, outdoor clothing etc and remember you have all the funds to get this before and be prepared.
But these two didn’t even bother getting the basics for a newborn Never mind one that lived outside it’s entire life.

 

[Emsie]

But if you done that as a good parent I bet you would have all the supplies required to look after a newborn.
Like warm Sleepsuits, outdoor clothing etc and remember you have all the funds to get this before and be prepared.
But these two didn’t even bother getting the basics for a newborn Never mind one that lived outside it’s entire life.

I'm not condoning I'm trying to see it from a jurors pov. Victoria should have been in Foster or adopted with by one of her siblings parents and living her best little toddler life.
She did say she had baby stuff until the fire and the jurors may believe that.

 

[Aberscot]

I'm not condoning I'm trying to see it from a jurors pov. Victoria should have been in Foster or adopted with by one of her siblings parents and living her best little toddler life.
She did say she had baby stuff until the fire and the jurors may believe that.

I wouldn’t believe a word that came out her mouth, she also said she had a car seat that there was no evidence of.
I understand what your saying about running away with her if she thought she could care for her better but she simply couldn’t and poor Victoria death was a result. She had 9 months to get a plan together.

 

[Badirene]

This one picture tells me exactly how much they cared about that little baby. The pair of them wrapped up warm against the freezing temperatures, hats, scarves, padded coats while sitting inside and the baby is in a baby grow only.

She had access to the kind of resources most of us can only dream of, a trust fund, connections to all sorts of people and she let her baby die.
Poor baby Victoria never knew a minute of warmth, love, care, cuddles safe and secure, she lived her short life struggling to stay alive in freezing temperatures, when her short life ended she then was carried around as if she was rubbish in a bag, covered with refuse. This baby has had no justice. This entire thing has been a farce from start to finish.

 

[Emsie]

I feel like I need to be clear that i agree that they are the reason for Victoria's death but the end result is a hung jury so I am merely commenting what may have been the thought process of the jury. No need to quote me to tell me how Victoria died I know man urgh that emoji feels wrong just trying to establish that I'm not being aggy with you.

 

[Onthehop]

Comprehending that poor Victoria spent all of her life outside, cold, miserable, hungry. It’s difficult to imagine how these “parents” haven’t been found guilty.

 

[InTheDollsHouse]

But if you done that as a good parent I bet you would have all the supplies required to look after a newborn.
Like warm Sleepsuits, outdoor clothing etc and remember you have all the funds to get this before and be prepared.
But these two didn’t even bother getting the basics for a newborn Never mind one that lived outside it’s entire life.

That’s the difference between being a good mother and believing you’re a good mother.

Anyone can believe they are the best parent, especially if they believe the other option is abusive. (And being incapable of realising your own situation is chaotic and unsafe)

 

[CabalofBolorneaise]

See I do think it 'could' be relevant to a jury. Baring in mind we don't know what they have or haven't heard regarding evidence that hasn't been reported.

If for arguments sake I was abused by a family member, my kids were removed to said family member and abused in their care, even though I had disclosed this to them. Damn right I'm gonna believe my kids are safer with me. Especially if I believe I'm a good parent, my kids are happy and safe with me and any allegations made against me are unfounded.

Obviously I'm not saying thos IS the case, like u said we just don't know what has been kept from the public regarding the older kids and SS.

The relevance for me comes if outlandish claims CMs made can be proven true and/or claims made by SS can be proven false. It then IS relevant because it calls into question the reliability of the witnesses and any evidence they have given. The background is directly relevant in deciding if their behaviour was reasonable, in the circumstances.

Yeah and if the claims made by SS are proven false then it absolutely casts into doubt that they told her about safe sleeping etc - which was a whole part of the evidence from the prosecution, that CM had been told about it.

Thinking back, even people here said it sounded wrong that SS had offered CM and MG a place in a parent and baby unit cos MG would never be allowed with his history so either it never happened or CM and MG were being set up to fail (couldn’t comply with that condition because MG would never be allowed) and that’s just an SS claim that was reportable.

They were absolutely bad parents who were responsible for Victoria’s death but it sounds like SS fucked up at some points - as they do many times due to the lack of funding, massive caseloads etc and that’s problematic when the prosecutions case relies heavily on testimony from SS that “we told them this was dangerous”.

The prosecution IMO haven’t done a particularly good job in this case.

 

[neroli]

Does anyone think that CM would have paid a blind bit of notice to what SS allegedly advised? Course she wouldn't . It was her way or the high way. Even after having 4 children removed from her care. 5th time lucky? It was only ever going to end in tragedy, car fire or no car fire. This woman isn't stupid. She's completely rigid in her extreme beliefs and will always think she knows best and has all the answers. She rebels against the norm because she's entitled and oppositionally defiant.

 

[Haveyouanywool]

Does it have to be proven that someone has been specifically told not to do a harmful thing for them to be found accountable if harm is caused?
‘Don’t stab someone in the chest’ ‘Don’t throttle someone’ ‘Don’t take a minimally clothed baby out in freezing weather’.
I mean, are these people adults?