Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Aristocrat's daughter on the run with sex offender and newborn

Seventy-seven said:
The police have said they know that the baby whose body they found was the child of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon, but they don't know the baby's sex. Seriously how fncking likely is that combination?

(Some early reports, presumably penned by craven journalists doing their utmost to write Newspeak, said "gender", but this word hasn't been used for a while now.)

You are being fed such garbage. Similarly stories about them not having their baby with them when they went to a shop are being used to imply that the baby was dead by that time. You would have thought not wanting to be identified as the sought after couple with the newborn baby would also be a possible explanation for not taking their newborn baby with them into a shop. (Of course there is also the question of why one of them didn't wait somewhere with the baby while the other one went into the shop.)

I wonder why no video has been released of them inside the shop. Something's pongy about the story that they were using an ATM too. Whose card were they using, if that's true? And why no footage from the ATM? All ATMs have cameras.

Recall that there is no known reason why these people should have been considered, or were, anything other than great parents. There is no known reason why the baby should have died before the parents were arrested. These are not people with any record of neglecting, abusing, manslaughtering, or murdering children. Nor is there any known reason to believe the child needed medical attention - none whatsoever.

It would obviously suit the police down to the ground if they could come out and say that the baby had been dead for ages by the time of the arrest and that the fact that the police prevented the parents from leaving custody for almost two whole days before the body was found - while feeling they had insufficient evidence to charge them with any offence (which is still the position as I type these words at 3.28pm on Thursday) - had nothing to do with why the baby died. Better still if they can say this and have the couple sectioned under the Mental Health Act.
Click to expand...
2bbb.jpg
 
If the police a lying, why would they come out with odd lies? They are lying, so make a convincing lie and to what point make the lie?

If the baby had just died, the police would know the sex so I assume the baby's body has been dead for a while so will need a DNA sample to determine the sex. But was wearing clothing or object that identified as the couple's child
Relating to most conspiracies, 'they' seem to have a super-human ability to construct the conspiracy but are really, really stupid in the fact they leave clues for those in the know to spot.
 
There's no reason to suspect these people would have made anything other than model parents... Apart from failing to register the birth, Disappearing and on route abandoning a car which caught fire, buying camping gear to presumably camp out with, in January. All perfectly normal. Oh and don't look at their history, just normal, OK.
 
Rebelda said:
Although maybe carry on if people are playing bingo, we haven't had 'sheeple' yet but we're nearly there.
Click to expand...
Tbh I don't think the poster in question is going to use that word, given that they are quoting The Canary. They are all over the place.
 
bluescreen said:
Tbh I don't think the poster in question is going to use that word, given that they are quoting The Canary. They are all over the place.
Click to expand...
Oh I know, I'm being dismissive :) caught red handed sneering guv.

Edit: it was 'you are being fed such garbage' that had me thinking oooooh nearly.
 
Last edited:
bluescreen said:
Tbh I don't think the poster in question is going to use that word, given that they are quoting The Canary. They are all over the place.
Click to expand...
The Canary story has absolutely nothing to do with Marten, tho. It is making a reasonable point that is completely and utterly separate.
 
The police have announced that forensics have now confirmed the remains are indeed the baby of these two, which is hardly surprising, they are still waiting on the results of the PM.

But, the forensics should be enough for the CPS to agree they should be charged now, which I guess should be confirmed later this evening, before the latest deadline is up on detaining them under arrest.
 
cupid_stunt said:
The police have announced that forensics have now confirmed the remains are indeed the baby of these two, which is hardly surprising, they are still waiting on the results of the PM.

But, the forensics should be enough for the CPS to agree they should be charged now, which I guess should be confirmed later this evening, before the latest deadline is up on detaining them under arrest.
Click to expand...

As expected, they have been charged now.
 

Constance Marten and Mark Gordon remanded in custody after baby's body found​


The discovery of the baby, named in court documents as Victoria, was made on Wednesday after a major search. The infant's remains were found in a plastic bag under some nappies in a shed, Crawley Magistrates' Court heard. Ms Marten, 35, and Gordon, 48, were charged with manslaughter, concealing the birth of a child and perverting the course of justice. They are due to appear at the Old Bailey on 31 March. During the short hearing on Friday the couple spoke only to confirm their names, dates of birth and that they were of no fixed abode.
Click to expand...
 
Seventy-seven said:
The police have said they know that the baby whose body they found was the child of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon, but they don't know the baby's sex. Seriously how fncking likely is that combination?

(Some early reports, presumably penned by craven journalists doing their utmost to write Newspeak, said "gender", but this word hasn't been used for a while now.)

You are being fed such garbage. Similarly stories about them not having their baby with them when they went to a shop are being used to imply that the baby was dead by that time. You would have thought not wanting to be identified as the sought after couple with the newborn baby would also be a possible explanation for not taking their newborn baby with them into a shop. (Of course there is also the question of why one of them didn't wait somewhere with the baby while the other one went into the shop.)

I wonder why no video has been released of them inside the shop. Something's pongy about the story that they were using an ATM too. Whose card were they using, if that's true? And why no footage from the ATM? All ATMs have cameras.

Recall that there is no known reason why these people should have been considered, or were, anything other than great parents. There is no known reason why the baby should have died before the parents were arrested. These are not people with any record of neglecting, abusing, manslaughtering, or murdering children. Nor is there any known reason to believe the child needed medical attention - none whatsoever.

It would obviously suit the police down to the ground if they could come out and say that the baby had been dead for ages by the time of the arrest and that the fact that the police prevented the parents from leaving custody for almost two whole days before the body was found - while feeling they had insufficient evidence to charge them with any offence (which is still the position as I type these words at 3.28pm on Thursday) - had nothing to do with why the baby died. Better still if they can say this and have the couple sectioned under the Mental Health Act.
Click to expand...

There is, if you were paying attention.
 
I can't get over just how grim this story is, to end in the death of the infant makes the whole story awful beyond measure.

I suppose it is in order to wonder if one or other of them was "in charge", we know he is an offender already but what about her, was she totally under his thrall, or is she just equally guilty.
 
weltweit said:
I can't get over just how grim this story is, to end in the death of the infant makes the whole story awful beyond measure.

I suppose it is in order to wonder if one or other of them was "in charge", we know he is an offender already but what about her, was she totally under his thrall, or is she just equally guilty.
Click to expand...
It's not over yet
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Aristocrat's daughter on the run with sex offender and newborn (new thread)
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
editor
editor
danny la rouge
Time is Up for The Times, which is going down the pan, and doesn’t rhyme with pie.
Replies
1
Views
183
SpookyFrank
SpookyFrank
Maggot
What is wrong with government borrowing?
2 3
Replies
61
Views
2K
LakieLady
LakieLady
hash tag
What's wrong with Labour
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
206
Views
9K
Karl Masks
K
StoneRoad
  • Poll
Are YOU happy with the overall result & your [new] constituency MP ?
2 3 4
Replies
114
Views
3K
Boo Radley75
Boo Radley75
Back
Top Bottom