Constance Marten & Mark Gordon - Baby A case

[SportMum1982]

What have I just read? What the actual fuck is wrong with the world. That poor baby. These utter idiots. Sorry I’m so so angry.

Constance Marten and partner ‘killed baby to keep her out of care’

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/24e56090-f175-4bf8-ac07-380621d9954f?shareToken=186074e86c05c4df704ef1889186acdc

Just out of interest how wealthy exactly are her family?

You're suggesting they somehow tampered with legal process?

That’s not what I said my question was how wealthy are her family ?

They will have more children. Unthinkable.

This was my line of thinking when I asked about their wealth level - the worry could be that will they just set her / them up abroad and they’ll repeat this cycle ?

They had children removed and SS only do this when the children are at risk of harm , they then had a child die whilst in their care and video evidence showed they couldn’t even dress her appropriately for cold weather ? It’s neglect maybe unintentional but still neglect and with a lot of money and connections if they walk free how will future dc be protected ?

CM isn’t even able to hold a baby correctly- the footage in a cafe was shocking.

The fact the poor baby wasn’t even dressed well enough for an hour in those type of temperatures tells me everything I’d need to know if I had been on that jury

i can only imagine some apologists on the jury.

There is no doubt that there has been no justice for the poor baby.

But, the jury had to decide if they caused her death and it seems that the pathologist could not say exactly what the cause of death was. Snapshots of the way they held the baby or the clothes they dressed her in create a very poor impression but they do not prove beyond doubt that they killed her. That is what the jury had to consider. It is not just or fair, but it is the law.

I expect it would have been hard to work out the cause due to the condition of her when she was finally found - they withheld that information contributing to further deterioration. So being unable to ascertain a cause of death was down to their actions and seems to have gone in their favour

The pathologist couldn’t tell how the baby died because the parents hid the body for so long, it’s not like the baby died and then the parents informed the police and then the pathologist couldn’t tell how the baby died. The very idea that you can hide the dead body of your child so it decomposes so much that no cause of death can be ascertained and be let of because the pathologist cannot tell how the baby died is ridiculous.

Exactly. For her whole life she was only in the ‘care’ of these two and given that authorities removed their other children’s very clear the risk was huge. They’ll get away with it ? How can that happen 😔

I probably don’t understand the legal priceless, wasn’t it said that the circumstances led to what happened? Is that not cause?

On balance of probability, yes

Beyond all reasonable doubt? Harder to say

Those 2 thresholds are very different.

There will be a serious case review on this, it will be interesting the conclusion that comes out of that. It wont be completed until any future retrial (if there is one) is finalised

Of course her link to royalty played no part in her and her convicted sex offender partner getting off did it. One rule for one.

I'm not surprised the jury were at a stalemate - how can they do their job properly when their deliberations were stop-start for weeks? I'd be curious to know if the sticking point to agreeing a verdict was one juror or more as that might play into the CPS decision on a retrial.

I agree the couple will move abroad at the first opportunity if there is no retrial but I wonder if the family trusts that fund their lifestyle would continue to give CM the money? The trial has dragged the parents/her family into the whole sordid story.

They haven't "got off". The jury could not agree a verdict. There is still the option of a retrial.

Baffled? Me too. Given Veganism from
birth is practically child abuse (it might be legally) and so is shouting or smacking, jury outcome is remarkable, and not in a good way.

Retrial is important cos otherwise it’s licence to abuse for all the other dope-addled ‘parents’ out there. Family courts are rammed as it is.

I would have thought that gross negligence was obvious, together with the parents not able to put the needs of a new born ahead of their own. Looks they could walk I guess. Without new evidence, it would be difficult for a retrial.

The pressure’s on for that. Or the not-killers could confess.

Not followed the trial sorry - why did it take so long?

It’s all in this thread

Just watched the videos of them holding Victoria. Just look so awkward and unnatural. How they hold her in the cafe then keep shoving her in that big coat.
Poor Victoria

@ThunderQween : there were various delays because

• MG decided not to give evidence
• CM changed her barrister a couple of times
• Other delays because I think barristers booked to do other cases
• There was a fire at the old Bailey

all in lots of stop/start and gaps of 1-2 weeks mean it will have been hard for jury to keep facts straight. The jury asked the judge several questions, indicating complex evidence..

Whether this was a deliberate ploy by defendants is debatable but it has been likely for some time that this trial wasn’t going to be concluded OR if it did defendants may have been able to argue it wasn’t a fair trial due to the stop/start

Poor baby Victoria who lost her life in appalling circumstances this much is clear

And poor jury as due to delay in reporting death etc the evidence may be hard to untangle

Why did they decide to prosecute if the cause of death couldn't be determined?

Surely there were other charges that could more easily be proven - failure to report a death, preventing the lawful burial of a body, accessory after the fact, etc?

It seems patently obvious to me that they caused the death, but the jury has to arrive at a decision beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence, not based on what they know in their heart of hearts to be probably true. Yet the evidence that lay in the little body was not possible to present to them.