Constance Marten and Mark Gordon Case #3

[Emsie]

Mostly I'm angry as my beautiful baby will be traumatised his whole life. Taken from the one thing he loved the moment he was born (even if she is crap, he only knew her) and will have to process that sense of loss forever. His brain will not develop in the same way because of trauma and I can't love that away. Then she doesn't even bother to engage with him, collect our letters or write back. So I can't even tell him anything about her to plug those holes in his identity. And he doesn't deserve that. He deserves the world.
---
Having an angry day today... sorry for the rant and derail.

 

[Dogmuck]

Jesus.
Can we leave the colour of people's skin out it please. The race of either adds nothing to the story.

I’m sorry you feel offended by this. I did consider this before writing it and I believe it is relevant in context, we’ve seen how the aristocracy treat POC historically and even more recently, for me their race adds to the complete juxtaposition of their situation.

 

[Dogmuck]

Ok back again - hope this is ok and not too boring, apologies for the length but hope it makes it understandable. If not please fire questions at me which I will try to answer tomorrow.

So I read the article the PCMH is on 22/9, this is when they should be arraigned. They can plead guilty at this point. This would give them maximum credit.

So it seems they have been charged with;
1. Gross Neg Manslaughter
2. Concealment of birth
3. Perverting the course of justice
And the two new ones
4. Child cruelty
5 allowing the death of a child (which I’m amazed wasn’t on the original indictment)


So this is how it works 1 is the most serious offence. Sentencing guidelines for 1 are

The judge needs to determine the category of the offence based on the defendant’s culpability. The culpability is top line A very high, B high, C medium, D lower. There is a list of characteristics that the Judge considers when determining the category. Once they’ve determined this they can then look at the starting point and the range and then consider factors that may increase the seriousness (aggravating factors) of the crime eg previous convictions or reduce its seriousness (mitigating factors) eg good character (obvs there are loads examples but I’m already concerned I’m boring you all to death).

Ok so imagine the judge decides this is a category B offence, so the starting point is 8 years custody. They’ve considered aggravating factors and so it’s looking like 10 years, but then their mitigation is pretty compelling so he’s gonna say 9 years. (Please remember this is just an example and I'm pulling these figures out of my butt)

So the sentence is 9 years but they’ve pleaded guilty at the first instance and that automatically reduces your sentence by 1/3 So that’s 6 years.
They have served let’s just say 6 months, so that reduces the sentence to 5.1/2 years.

Now remember that is for 1. Usually when there are other offences the judge has to consider the totality and the sentence and the remaining 4 charges would not be given any more than 6 months a pop. So maximum another 2 years. These will be served concurrently as the offences arise out of the same incident. So let’s go back to the 9 years he gave for 1. It’s possible he may think that’s enough of a sentence for totality and so he may think ok I’ll wrap all these up into a 9 year sentence so I’ll say 7 years for 1 and 6 months each for the other 4 giving a total of 9 years - then credit for early guilty plea and time served to date 5.5 years. They would serve 36 months and then be out on tag…I’m sorry to say.


I don’t know all the details of the case but I have a niggling suspicion they will get a much lesser sentence than what I put above. I imagine they will plead guilty to 1 2 3 and NG to 4 & 5 - I don’t imagine it would be considered in the public interest to run a trial on 4 & 5 and CPS will accept this. Obviously I could be talking absolute nonsense and there might be some really serious aggravating factors that make this more serious in category and sentencing terms.

I know everyone probably wants maximum on this but I’m just trying to prepare you for disappointment.
ETA - sorry this is all based on them pleading guilty at the PCMH. They may be brazen af and go to trial and then all that is nonsense.

 

[Dogmuck]

I’ll

Here’s an article about it https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/aristocrat-accused-killing-newborn-run-31630823.amp

Edit to add to save folks clicking through
“Marten today appeared via video link at the Old Bailey, which heard she is now receiving legal aid to fund her defence. She had previously told the court that the trust fund which controls her finances had failed to pay her solicitors and they had withdrawn their services.”

wow! That’s mad. Why isn’t daddy or mummy helping. Didn’t daddy say he’d do anything to help her when she was on the run? Can’t believe these two wasters are both getting legal aid. The amount of tax payer money that has been used on these 2 in their lives, if social services and foster/adoption care has been needed for kids they are banging out and other administrative stuff for him and his sex offender registry, the police search for them, the cost of housing them at prison…Neither contribute to society and she’s sat on a fkng massive trust fund and we are paying for their mistakes-Jesus the trust fund should be compelled to pay for her defence, there’s people that genuinely need legal aid and that’s what it’s for!

 

[Aberscot]

Contrary to what a lot of people think you have to be really crap parents before social work will recommend removing a child , so the previous children removed must Have been at risk of being harmed or neglected badly. So why would they think they could do a better job of parenting this 5th child never mind under the circumstances of living rough!

 

[Tofino]

@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

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!

 

[GalaxyGirl70]

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

 

[rather not stop]

Heads up: The Mail are doing a podcast on this trial.

 

[KatieMorag]

Heads up: The Mail are doing a podcast

Really glad to hear this. They did such a great job on the Lucy Letby trial (and I hate to praise the Mail!)

I do want the other kids kept out of it (of course) but I also really hope that it doesn't twist the narrative in the public eye. Going on the run with your baby that social services are trying to steal away from you paints a very different picture to Going on the run with your baby because social services are trying to safeguard that baby because you've done XYZ serious things to your previous kids.

 

[Emsie]

It is possible to love your child and be a shit parent. She isn't a monster, she didn't set out with the thought "I'm going to kill my baby" but she put herself before her a child and parents don't do that.
Her need to keep her child overrode victoria's need to keep safe with the worst consequences.
People romanticise children "they just need love" no they don't, they need love and a million other things.

 

[Dogmuck]

Going back to the trust fund - soz but it’s just irks me! So trust funds tend to have conditions but this is a “live or living trust” it’s not like some great great grandma bequeathed it in Victorian days, trusts can be altered (unless it’s an irrevocable trust) but regardless there must be trustees who’ve made this decision not to pay for her legal costs and that’s just fkng unacceptable! Like legal aid is means tested, that bitch has the means, she’s probably got more means than all us put together and we are paying her fucking legal fees for a bastard flight of fancy The trust should be compelled to pay. With that said, if she goes with her current spenny legal team legal aid won’t cover that.

Trustees are usually there for protection, so, I imagine she’s possibly tried to pay for his legal fees and the trust has gone nope! so she’s had a tantrum and said this.

 

[Dogmuck]

I think Gordon probably genuinely doesn’t believe he’s done anything wrong (note I am not saying he hasn’t - just that his perception and perhaps also Constance’s may be that they’ve not done anything wrong) and thus when advised to go guilty likely believes it means the solicitor is “out to get him” or similar. Based on what we heard of his history while they were on the run at least.

Agree - I was going to write exactly that. It’s possible that CMs counsel is already set to go guilty and may throw Gordon under the bus to some degree with her mitigation. Also if she goes guilty and he is tried under a separate indictment she will be called as a witness for the prosecution and she, as the only other party present, who has already gone guilty, will have to answer questions, that will have formed part of her testimony for her guilty plea, that will have to be answered honestly, or at least in line with her mitigation, which could make things much worse for him at trial. I imagine he is saying it was CM who was the mastermind, she was the one who was pregnant, had and wanted to keep the baby and he was just taking care of her and the baby or something along those lines. If this is the case and CM has wind of this then her defence won’t be holding back with that bus they plan to throw him under. Gordon may well be feeling pressured in to going guilty because of CM stance.

Seasoned criminals don’t tend to boot their solicitors, they are usually really pally with them knowing their advice is sound for getting the best result for them, time and again. Even though Gordon has spent a huge chunk of his life incarcerated his experience was with the US legal system, which is very different from here. If he’s new to UK system he may well feel he’s being stitched up.

Constance Martins family will not want this to go to trial, they will not want weeks of newspaper coverage dissecting every aspect of their family. This time inside may well have given CM a rude awakening, she may have previously been living “off grid” in a less than perfect life, but she’s always had the trust fund money to enable her to live with, at minimum, a sense of security. Her options are to plead guilty, get this done and serve a relatively short sentence with little public fuss and get on with her life, maybe even get the chance to become a mother again or take the chance of going to trial, being scrutinised in the press for weeks, she’s newsworthy/gossip worthy, being called all sorts in the press, being found guilty, serving a long sentence that takes her beyond her fertile years. I can’t believe she’s so arrogant and naive to not be concerned about what people think of her. It’s one thing being that rich “it girl” wild child who’s strayed from her noble upbringing, that’s all we’ve got right now, but being the woman who let her new born baby die and potentially having other children removed due to “whatever” is a whole different ball game as far as her image is concerned. All that information will come out if she goes to trial, it seems she doesn’t want that information out there or she’d have been ranting about the injustice of it on her Facebook with her “sprog” photos surely?

Gordon, has nothing to lose, he’s already a convicted violent sex offender who has served 20 years, he doesn’t care if his family name is dragged through the mud, he knows he won’t serve 20 years for this and his biological clock won’t be ticking. CM is the difference in this case, she’s the interest story, if she was from the same background as Gordon this wouldn’t be much of a story at all.

ETA
Also, on the point about his solicitors, criminal solicitors will deal with all different crimes and their bios/write ups won’t tend to highlight murder/manslaughter/violent offence successes as that ain’t a good look as there are victims. Unless it’s an appeal for a miscarriage of justice nobody is going to be promoting their success in defending violent matter so they tend to major on “victimless” crimes like fraud.

 

[Dogmuck]

I’ve been shot down for saying that earlier in these threads, but I’m absolutely not saying it excuses anything or makes it okay. Just that unless you’re that person, in that circumstance, with those difficulties, you don’t know what you would do.

Warning
long and possibly very boring post - soz

Tbf it was probs me that shot you down there can’t really be any focus on her mental health, that’s just not how the law works. Her mental health is a footnote in this. They are being charged with gross negligence manslaughter. Thats what has to be dealt with in court. You can’t have a spenny lawyer just saying, she didn’t do it she’s got bad mental health, it’s not a defence. They just can’t. Her mental health is mitigation. The defence will have to be focused on at least one element of the crime, so for example “gross” negligence. They may concede they were negligent but not grossly so. If they can convince the jury that it wasn’t grossly negligent then they go free. The onus is on the prosecution to prove the case.
There are several defences to GNM but some examples of ones used are
- Mistake - D made a genuine mistake but didn’t act in a way that was reckless or careless
- Sudden Emergency - D didn’t have time to consider consequences of their actions
- Necessity - D was acting in a way that was necessary to prevent greater harm

As you can see, none of them lend themselves to mental health conditions but I guess you could argue that their mental capacity meant that they didn’t believe they were being reckless or careless. I think I’ve previously written out the elements of the crime and what the prosecution needs to probe to bring a case. So 1. Duty of care to Victoria ( this can be made out, they are her parents) 2. Breach of that duty - this will be an area for defence arguments 3. The breach resulted in death - this will also be argued 4. The breach was so gross it was a crime - this will defo be the focus of their defence.

I think they will make out that they genuinely didn’t believe what they were doing was wrong and therefore was a mistake, but wasn’t grossly negligent

They only need reasonable doubt…

I think a really good case to compare this with is the Kaylea Titford, you know the 16 year old who had, I think, spina bifida, she was 20+ stone and her parents basically didn’t care at all for her, won’t go into detail, but she died from neglect basically. The mum pleaded guilty and the dad went to trial…his defence was he wasn’t the main carer and wasn’t aware of the squalor, despite the fact he lived there . So the mother got something like 6 years for early guilty plea and the dad got something like 8 years - it was referred for undue lenient sentences and they were upped to about 8 yrs for her and 10 for him. Now bear in mind that this neglect was going on for years, she was morbidly obese and hadn’t been able to get out of bed (because of her weight not her SB), she was just 16 - they could have got her help they could have saved her they left her to rot with maggots in her body . So 10 years max for that, he will serve 5 at the most. Prosecution had cause of death, they had clear evidence of the squalor and conditions, they had text messages of Kaylea asking for help with her wounds, the case was pretty clear cut and tbf the parents looked like scummers which the jury will have hated. The women and many of the men in that jury would have hated the fact the man denied any responsibility for his daughter and basically wanted the mum to carry the can!!

There’s another good example case of a 90 year old dad and 60 year old son who were charged with GNM for the death of their daughter/sister (she was in her 50’s) who they were supposed to be caring for…that’s another neglect, squalor type case, really low sentences and age mental health was considered in sentencing.

My point here kids is, don’t expect this to be a throw away the key result, the sentences, if they are found guilty, will be between 1 and 6 years imho. Remember, by the time this trial is over they’ll have done a year in custody, they could be walking after this trial just on days served already. Just brace yourselves is what I’m saying it’s likely not the outcome you desire.

 

[Itchy of Itchington]

The question is where does it end? Baby 6, 7, 8, 9 etc all put in the system, all neglected etc. Its not fair on these kids or potential kids to be treated this way.

I've worked with social services cases before and dealt with a woman who had had 6 children removed and was pregnant with her 7th. She was very very mentally unstable and had ensured a dreadful childhood herself. The 7th child was due to be removed at birth and Social Workers were trying hard to get her to go on a long term contraception. There's a brilliant scheme called Pause

Pause – Creating Space for Change

A charity working to improve the lives of women who have had – or are at risk of having – more than one child removed from their care.

www.pause.org.uk

which works with mothers who have had children removed to give them support and get them to not keep having more babies until they have sorted out their lives. There is little to no support for mother's once they have their children removed which makes them more vulnerable in many ways. They often flit from one terrible relationship to another. Get pregnant as a means to build family or create a bond with a new fella. I always remember one woman saying that even though she knew social workers wanted to remove her 4th child at birth while she was pregnant the baby was just hers.

 

[Dogmuck]

Also, how fkng cheeky is she asking for bail? Jesus love you and Geiselle Maxwell are the biggest flight risks known to man!

OK, well I figured as much!

So we have:

Causing or allowing the death of a child
Manslaughter
Murder

And the difference between “causing or allowing death” and “manslaughter” is the degree of negligence involved?

The difference is the “setting” really. Causing or allowing the death of a child is relatively new legislation that came in under child cruelty and domestic violence legislation. I’m gonna spoiler this TW So it was brought in for cases where a child had been killed by a member of a household but there wasn’t enough evidence to pin the crime on one suspect. So for example where a child has been physically abused for a time by say the mums boyfriend and the mum allows this to happen/maybe gets involved but the final blow could have been as a result of the mums or the bf actions, or simply they “allowed” this to happen. Best example is the Baby P case where 3 adults (one had a 15 y/o gf) were residing at the house, so it wasn’t clear who was ultimately responsible. There was a more recent one where the mum, step dad and step son were all involved - they put the body of the boy in the river pretending he had wondered off and drown? Can’t remember the name of the case. But do you get my meaning here, in these cases everyone has a different story and or blames another for the injuries/death, it’s more about evidence or lack there of, rather than negligence. In the past before this legislation if you couldn’t determine who was guilty of the crime so nobody could be held accountable. This legislation basically lays blame on any adult in that household that knew or should have known what was happening and prevented it.

Murder is where there is clear intent. So X loaded the gun and went out looking for Y to shoot them. That could still be argued that they didn’t intend to kill, just harm. So murder is a pretty tough one to prosecute because knowing what is in someone’s mind (intention) at the time of the crime is tough, unless they left a note saying “just popping out to murder x”.

Manslaughter, is easier to prosecute as you don’t need to have intention. So in this case it’s gross negligence manslaughter. No need to establish who was at fault here as both parents owed a duty of care to V so they are both culpable. We all know and it’s documented that they were on the run together and they both had possession of the child, it’s a joint venture and they are both considered to have breached that duty of care by gross negligence. Sorry I could wax on about this shit all day. Hope this helps x
---

I suppose it's intentional negligence or negligence as a result of diminished responsibility?
---

Sorry there’s no such thing as intentional negligence (in UK law). It’s more about the degree of negligence, in this case “gross”.
Diminished responsibility is a special defence for murder not manslaughter but basically reduces a murder charge down to manslaughter because you didn’t know what you were doing at the time so couldn’t have the “intent”

 

[heretoreaditall2019]

I’m not sure I could blame CM’s parents for thinking it was better for everyone involved that the children went somewhere else.

I’m not disagreeing with this, just find it interesting… Like this family have such means, not just high income they’re generationally very wealthy, shipping these 3 or 4 alleged previous children off to the best public schools in the country wouldn’t even register on their bank balance. I can’t understand allowing them to be at the mercy of the state when you have the means to keep them in your own home very easily. It’d be easy for the dad to do this with minimal disruption to his lifestyle (of researching conspiracy theories on Facebook?) thanks to paid staff - they could even be at another property so the dad could keep his mega home completely to himself?! I just can’t understand not caring about your daughter’s child, and even if you’re callous I can’t understand not wanting to keep it all within the family home?!

This sounds awful but I can’t help but wonder what role their race plays in that decision if it’s true :/

 

[Ray_of_Sunshine]

I don't believe her account suggesting SIDS. She also says the child was well clothed and clean, and there's no way that can be true. It's probably true that the child just died in her arms but that doesn't mean there wasn't a cause, e.g. hypothermia, infection, etc. The eyewitness accounts do not paint a picture of a child that was well cared for.

Neither do I. I think it is very convenient for her that no cause of death can ever be found. I think she’s a natural-born liar and highly manipulative. Pretending to be an Irish traveller ffs? Warned not to abandon her baby on a ward but she did so anyway and then came back kicking off over it? I suspect the list of examples of her true character is endless and we will see more of it as the trial progresses. Same goes for that horrid piece of work she’s chosen to be with and procreate with over and over and over! They don’t deserve any sympathy here - sorry if that offends anyone.

 

[potatoface431]

I think this is why I am so intrigued by this case (although intrigued doesn’t feel like the right word) I have suffered with my mental health for as long as I can remember, I have an amazing support network and am very self aware of when I am slipping and need to go back on medication (I’m shit at continuously taking it) however I have recently had a mental breakdown - in hindsight it was terrible, I was not myself at all. Had I not had the support network I do and the access and willing to access medical help I’m not quite sure how bad it would’ve got. Honestly I can’t say I wouldn’t have gone off the rails and potentially lost my kids - who knows. Untreated mental illness can be incredibly dangerous, you completely lose yourself and all sense of normality. It’s really scary. Not excusing what has happened AT ALL. I can just see how things can spiral so terribly when you are mentally unwell.
She could just be a total piece of shit who knows.

 

[GM17]

I’m not disagreeing with this, just find it interesting… Like this family have such means, not just high income they’re generationally very wealthy, shipping these 3 or 4 alleged previous children off to the best public schools in the country wouldn’t even register on their bank balance. I can’t understand allowing them to be at the mercy of the state when you have the means to keep them in your own home very easily. It’d be easy for the dad to do this with minimal disruption to his lifestyle (of researching conspiracy theories on Facebook?) thanks to paid staff - they could even be at another property so the dad could keep his mega home completely to himself?! I just can’t understand not caring about your daughter’s child, and even if you’re callous I can’t understand not wanting to keep it all within the family home?!

This sounds awful but I can’t help but wonder what role their race plays in that decision if it’s true :/

Yes but getting them shipped off to boarding school or being looked after by staff isn’t a loving environment and they would likely be better off fostered or adopted in that case….

 

[thisisme20]

Good one to follow