She’s infatuated with him though, unless something’s changed since they were last in court togetherYou would think her best defence would be to blame it all on him.
They’re in out in out more than the Hokey CokeyWhy are the court proceedings so bitty?! They seem to say one thing and then have a break every 5 minutes.
Yes I think there may be some cognitive issues with her like she was a student in her late 20s and then met him and disappeared. What was she doing up until that point of her life…Hi, new to posting on the thread, I've read all the previous threads, I've followed the case since last year.
I read the details last night from yesterday in shock. The details about the Lidl bag is heartbreaking.
I think Constance is a very troubled and easily led individual. I don't think she ever intended any harm to come to any of her babies but is completely deluded and out of touch with reality.
The cult thing is very fitting with the easily led thing too.Yes I think there may be some cognitive issues with her like she was a student in her late 20s and then met him and disappeared. What was she doing up until that point of her life…
The prosecution need to prove guilt. The defence need to disprove the evidence put forward by the prosecution. The defence does not prove innocence.You would think her best defence would be to blame it all on him.
I honestly don't think it's that straightforward as her being a sociopath. It's not that uncommon for social services to see women who have had children removed repeatedly get pregnant and have subsequent children removed at birth. They simply cannot get their heads round it. They do not seem to have the ability to change or comprehend why it happens, they just blame social services.Or she’s just sociopathic
It’s not just a one off with one child. It’s repeated attempts to have children and get one over on the authorities . No consideration of engaging with services in the first place and a total inability to think well actually maybe if I lose the relationship I could be supported to have children. I could be supported by family and social services . Someone with previous kids removed would know full well the heartache of not doing so resulting in another child being removed. Unless of course they are just incapable of feeling it
Thank you for updating , I had a Quick Look online to see but couldn’t find anything.Marva from the protecting children programme now lives in Nottingham and had 5 children with guy from show and 1 more in 2015 (I think) who was also taken. She is on FB and has pictures of few of her boys who she said hopes they find her when they’re 18.
I think all the charges except causing or allowing the death of a child are pretty straightforward. Causing or allowing the death of a child might be harder to prove as the baby's cause of death couldn't be determined.Witnesses seeing the baby alive will be significant, as if the baby had been still born that wouldn't be manslaughter. Not sure how they are going to be found innocent of concealing a death of a child, unless they blame each other.
No it isn’t but in most of those cases there is genuine remorse and a sense of loss of the children. There appears to be very little remorse or accountability in this case and that’s a key differenceI honestly don't think it's that straightforward as her being a sociopath. It's not that uncommon for social services to see women who have had children removed repeatedly get pregnant and have subsequent children removed at birth. They simply cannot get their heads round it. They do not seem to have the ability to change or comprehend why it happens, they just blame social services.
Causing or allowing the death of a child they have several strands they could follow a) previous history of removing children from an unsafe and neglectful environment yet putting a newborn baby back into that very environment (baby that was found living in a tent with them)I think all the charges except causing or allowing the death of a child are pretty straightforward. Causing or allowing the death of a child might be harder to prove as the baby's cause of death couldn't be determined.
Does anyone who more about CM other than she comes from an aristocratic family. Does she have learning difficulties?I honestly don't think it's that straightforward as her being a sociopath. It's not that uncommon for social services to see women who have had children removed repeatedly get pregnant and have subsequent children removed at birth. They simply cannot get their heads round it. They do not seem to have the ability to change or comprehend why it happens, they just blame social services.
Yes I agree. GNM will be difficult to prove.I think all the charges except causing or allowing the death of a child are pretty straightforward. Causing or allowing the death of a child might be harder to prove as the baby's cause of death couldn't be determined.
I have honestly wondered this.Does anyone who more about CM other than she comes from an aristocratic family. Does she have learning difficulties?
She doesn’t seem to, she was a drama student and then working, but friends say she was changed by trauma when she left the cult.Does anyone who more about CM other than she comes from an aristocratic family. Does she have learning difficulties?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?