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 have never seen a newborn baby wearing nothing but a babygrow in winter, even my own childrens birth mother wouldn’t have done that. If you were desperate to keep a child you would surely feed them, prevent them from freezing to death and not expose them to a rapist.

No it was described as an "income" from a trust fund. It wasn't just ad hoc hand outs.

OK thank you @WestwardHo1

Even just the write up of this family court case, the risk factor was clearly his violence, and his likely control over the lack of medical care was highlighted by him attempting to refuse paramedics when she was shouting for help.
Why was it dealt with by removing the children, rather than putting a legal ban on him having any contact with her or the children, and then supporting her.
If he breaks the ban, put him in prison.

You're talking about mentally well people, who aren't hiding in fear, whether imaginary or not. I'm not excusing her, and definitely think her partner is dangerous, it's just clear to me that she was very desperate and very scared.

As soon as she found out he was a time served rapist she should have ended it there and then .

Yes they were. She withdrew £50k while on the run.
I don't think that the Police started out heavy enough. If it had have been made public that this baby was at risk of death, the public may have got involved more.
The ability to give birth doesn't mean that you can care, in any way, for a child. I used to think of families in the CP as being the same as me and how we'd all feel. Then I went to work in CP. In some cases the children have been going to school asking if they can get a new Mum/Dad, be fostered etc. Parents who don't consider basic needs, who won't engage with services, eho don't turn up for contact. Parents who have multiple children and tell us that they'll have two back, but will get back to us on which ones. Children end their lives, go on the run, turn to prostitution etc to get out of going 'home'. Why is she being seen as anymore vulnerable than Rose West? Martin had an education, wealth, homes, opportunity to relocate anywhere in the world and chose to abuse her children. It's telling that her family couldn't just pack them off to boarding school. If left with her, we'd have five dead children.

I obviously don't know if she was desperate to keep her or not. But surely if she was then working with SS to prove herself would've been a good start.

Or at least on the run if she'd been doing her level best to look after her. Buy wandering about in freezing conditions with her tiny baby dressed in just a cotton babygro is a long way short of that mark.

Of course any parent would do anything to keep their baby with them.

Except actually care for their children safely.

I read the her children were often left devastated when the parents kept cancelling supervised contact appointments.

I wonder if she thought the baby was warmer by being in thin layers against her body heat than bundled up but relying on their own body heat. Newborns don't produce much body heat themselves, I can easily see a situation where its seeming easier to keep the baby warm against her chest and within her coat than with layers stopping her body heat warming the baby.
It doesn't make it right, but I don't think it was necessarily just a case of "I don't care ill let her freeze".

I disagree. I think the police got it just right. They were clearly unhinged and the police did all they could to help find them especially given the weather at the time. The baby was, rightfully, their first priority.

Absolute nonsense. They were perfectly able to source and wear their own winter clothing. It was a choice not to at least try and dress that baby appropriately. They chose to let her die rather than let her go somewhere safe.

Maybe if everyone didn't routinely blame the police for everything, more (any!) members of the public would have reported seeing them when they were shopping and going onto kebab shops and taking taxis in the Whitechapel area.

There were people at the time bleating about 'it isn't a crime to have a baby unattended' etc - and a lot of anti-police sentiment (and of course, there is plenty in the Met to criticise).

BUT had they been reported in Whitechapel, the police could have caught up with them while Baby Victoria was still alive. Before she was carted across the country in yet another car-seat-free taxi to be smothered in a flimsy tent in January by a mother who was so exhausted by it all that she fell asleep on top of her, with no chair to lean against.

It just seems complacent and short sighted to blame others for the behaviour of the perpetrators.

The legal aid board would have had a good look at her means. And criminal trials look at the interests of justice test , which all Court Trials satisfy. As well as her means .

Crown court trials are incredibly expensive

That’s actually a fair point. DS was born in December and spent a lot of time in a sling under my coat. I don’t think he had on much more than a babygro.

It does rather go to show how things can be taken out of context to sound awful when in fact they are not.

Why can’t psychopaths like this be sterilised, rather than bring child after child into an abusive and very fucking dangerous situation??

Boo hoo…their human rights…boo hoo.
What about the potential children’s human rights?
Those 2 aren’t suddenly going to have an epiphany and start behaving like decent human beings, and put their children first.

no they done the right thing-and ifyou read all the reports itsboth of them to blame

very arrogant and tried to get a mistrial disrupting it and giving out information to the jury-also no remorse they were more interested in seeing each other than accepting reposnsibility

thats not the personality of a sitraught mother

Yes they were. She withdrew £50k while on the run.

Her family weren't funding her directly. She had access to a trust fund. It's highly likely that as an adult there was nothing that could be done by her family to prevent her accessing the fund.

It's not that her parents were handing her cash while she was on the run

Tenet, not tenant. Yes the right to legal representation is a crucial civil right and for those who are unable to afford counsel, the state pays. This woman had the means to pay but refused to accept it from her family. She went through 14 barristers at tax payers' expense because she is a bloody minded and entitled woman who showed utter contempt for the courts and delayed proceedings on purpose. A system that allows such abuse can be criticised.

I listened to a podcast of the first trial and the arrogance e of Constance Marten was off the scale

And I could see the logic in that. But it isn't what they did.

We you also making him sleep in a tent and putting him in a pushchair in a babygrow?

It really isn't, I work in this field. The threshold for removal is incredibly high, members of the pubic would probably think too high if they'd seen what I have

That's how I read it to be honest. They obviously feel that the laws don't apply to them, and are seemingly obsessed with each other and paranoid about the outside world. No mention of drug use but who knows.
I have no time for people who have their kids removed then don't attend contact sessions (more common than you might think). It just shows that they cannot prioritise their children.