Constance Marten case — I feel the police have some responsibility too

[Siff]

I know Constance Marten and her partner made dangerous and illegal choices, and I’m not excusing that — a baby died and that’s heartbreaking. But I can’t stop thinking about the way the case was handled and whether the police have some responsibility in how things unfolded.

As a mum of four who’s struggled mentally after birth, I keep thinking: if I had just given birth, was vulnerable, and felt like the whole world was hunting me down — would I have thought clearly? Probably not. The media coverage was intense, and the police were everywhere. The pressure must have been overwhelming.

I honestly believe the fear created by the police operation pushed them into making more and more desperate and risky decisions to stay hidden. It wasn’t just a search — it felt like a witch hunt. No safeguarding, no attempt to reach her as a vulnerable mother, just a hard push to capture and punish.

I think that approach had consequences. The police must take some responsibility for creating the kind of fear and pressure that led to this tragedy. The way they went about it likely made things worse — not better — for the baby.

It’s easy to say she was selfish or unstable, but mental health in the postnatal period is fragile. People don’t always think rationally when terrified. I just wish there had been more humanity in how it was all handled.
Anyone else feel the same?

I read yesterday it would be in September.

This is exactly how the messaging did start out. I remember much of the chatter on social media was along the lines of "why are they trying to find her, she can make her own decisions" - I don't think you're remembering that this initially was presented as a gentle welfare check and the public were perplexed by why CM was on the run and why the police cared. The fact they'd had 4 kids already removed was not officially shared until much later.

However, Marten and Gordon were historically hostile to all official oversight, hence their refusing prenatal care etc, their default was to regard any message from the police with deep suspicion. There was no softly-softly tone that would have made them cooperative, I think you've missed a lot of info here.

I agree. They knew what they were doing insofar as they weren't insane and certainly didn't meet the legal definition of it. And they had control over the decisions that they made. It's just that those decisions were based upon a very warped premise. Personality disorders wouldn't come into the trial as are not a defense, although could be submitted ahead of sentencing. However, people with paranoid traits rarely co-operative with psychologists, believing that they will try to stitch them up or use that information against them. Similarly Narcissistic people would be the last to recognise that they were narcissistic or seek treatment for it. So i would be highly surprised if they were to put any reports forward for sentencing.

He said their behaviour was far worse even than two teenagers who had received custodial sentences just one week before. For murder. And they pleaded guilty.

He should have received life and served life for the brutal rape he committed when he was 14... if he had never been allowed back into society he should not have destroyed so many lives...

What I keep coming back to is this: the police and media didn’t need to broadcast a full-scale manhunt in the way they did. Publicly, they could’ve taken a softer tone — something like: “We are not pursuing this as a criminal matter. We just want to make sure mum and baby are safe. Constance, you’re not in trouble, please come forward.”

What, a bit like this one?

There is nothing to suggest that any of them have come to any sort of intentional harm - we just need to ensure they are okay, especially the baby, and do not require any medical assistance for any underlying issues. The last confirmed sighting of them was more than a week ago in East Ham - they could now be anywhere in the UK, which is why it is vital that members of the public continue to contact us with any suspected sightings.
The assistance you've provided so far has been invaluable. Please don't forget about Constance, Mark and the baby - if you see them or think you have seen them then please contact us as a matter of urgency.

Seems like quite a ‘soft tone’ to me

@Siff I don't feel the same as you OP and I think YABU. I'm actually quite surprised you even started this thread when you don't/didn't seem to know all the background to this case. The police were trying to find a new-born baby at high risk before it came to harm and pulled out all the stops to do so - and they were right given the way CCTV has shown these excuses for parents were treating the baby before dumping its body in a carrier bag with rubbish on top. The police could have taken your "softly softly" approach with the same outcome and then you'd be criticising them for not taking a more hard-line approach. Honestly, they can't do right for doing wrong with some people.

If you have no morals and no boundaries then there are no internal restraints, you will just do whatever benefits you in the moment.

I believe people like the OP simply refuse to believe that women can be evil or manipulative, just like men. The OP even blames “the system” at one point 🙄 in an attempt to avoid apportioning any blame to her! One of the unfortunate outcomes of “women as victim” narratives we have these days.

I have not read all the post in this thread. My sense is that this child was going to to be removed from their parents and the parents got desperate.

The risk factors were multiple. His violence was ONE risk factor. You cannot legally ban a person from meeting with another person if the 'victim' doesn't want you to ban it. Constance would have had to apply for a protective order herself and she had no desire to do so. I know it's an inconvenient truth but she was a perpetrator of abuse to the children as well as a victim of MG's abuse.

"Folie a deux" was exactly the phrase that came to my mind yesterday. It's the only explanation I can find for an aristocratic trustafarian to be so smitten with a violent man with a history of rape that she'll sacrifice everything to be with him and have his children.

Indeed, but he served 22 years in a US jail for that crime, which I think was more than he would have served if he'd committed that crime here in the UK.
Also, Constance Marten chose to procreate with him - five times! - so she shouldn't get a free pass either.

My medical diagnosis for them is: pair of utter cunts-itis.

Haven't read the whole thread but obviously the OP has now admitted there is a lot she didn't know.
Without excusing Marten's behaviour, she clearly experienced some trauma from being taken to stay at a church in Nigeria by her mother where people were tortured and sexually abused.

And this would have been a good arrangement for their child?

The problem isn't where they were living, it is with who they are. And what they are is deeply disturbed, hugely entitled, and totally unsuited to having a child or children in their care.

Agree. She may have meant well towards her children, but essentially she prioritised him over the children and their welfare in a way that was at the very least extremely neglectful.

They were imprisoned after the first trial.

As I understand it, no-one can actually force a defendant to attend court. (How would that work?) The defendant is EXPECTED to attend court, unless there are medical reasons why they can't.

There is a lot in this.

I don't get the impression that either of them wanted to harm their children, it's just that the children were less important to them than their agenda, whatever that was. To the extent that they didn't focus on meeting their children's needs and keeping them safe because they were too wrapped up in their relationship and 'battle' with the state.

If there is money and resources, it is easier for parents to abdicate responsibility and zone out of looking after their kids without the children's basic needs being neglected in such a stark way.

They represented the highest level of threat and the police knew it was a ticking time bomb. That woman was never going to come forward willingly. She had refused to engage on every level for years. The police did their best to find that baby. Imagine how distressing it was for them?

It's just not really black and white. I don't know if I believe in "evil" but there are patterns of human behaviour, very rare, where people have such skewed priorities e.g. relating to trauma, drug addiction, psychosis or personality disorder/psychopathy etc that it leads to actions which come across as so short sighted or so self-motivated or actively sadistic that you could call it evil, I suppose.

I believe that they genuinely believed they were acting in the interests of their child. However, they were objectively wrong and it seems they had a clear pattern of making horrendous decisions in the context of all of their childrens' care and probably aren't capable of being good parents. Which is what the judge decided for the other children.

Whether in another life they might have been good parents separately if they had never met each other - who is to say? I think it's fairly unlikely, because I don't think that a relationship can be the sole cause of such fucked up priorities. I think you need some of the other "ingredients" and it does seem like several of them were present in both people before they ever got together. Just a really destructive partnership and probably forms part of why they are so closely bonded.

Hired help is no substitute for caring, loving parenting. It can work in conjunction with caring, loving parenting. But CM was clearly unable to provide that.

Very telling that her family thought the solution to this was to throw money at it.

Apart from anything else, can you imagine someone as disturbed and arrogant as CM being even a semi-decent employer towards a nanny?

Yes, he was a total bastard. . . and she chose to stay with him, and blew kisses towards him in court,and clearly adores him.

Well you obviously haven't read much at all anywhere about this case or you wouldn't have posted such drivel.

Watching the iPlayer prog about them. Upon arrest they aren’t bothered about questions regarding location of the baby. She’s calling out ‘daddy bear’ and questioning how child neglect and concealment of a birth is an offence, and he’s wanting mayonnaise with the chicken they’ve offered him as he’s refusing to say anything other than he’s hungry. Unbelievable.

This makes me think that he stopped her from continuing the visits so that her pregnancy wouldn't be found out, I imagine he was controlling and violent and she was brainwashed and possibly afraid for her life.
I guess we'll never know, but posters saying just leave him, do you really think it's so easy.
He even controlled the narrative by cross examining her in court.
She is clearly mentally unwell, I hope she gets help and support once she's away from him.