Thanks everyone for all these thoughtful comments. You won’t carry everyone with you if you try to write with compassion about vulnerable people convicted of serious crimes, but I think it is always important to step back and try to understand what happened - and why.
These people valued their own ideology and contrarianism over the material life of the most vulnerable and marginalized type of person: a helpless newborn with zero agency or say over her own well-being. Yes, it is true that the state is violent. Not disputing that. And also, in the end they did no better by this poor baby than the state could have. This is no better than an anti-vaxx parent who lets their child die of a preventable diseases. Or a strict fundamentalist Christian cult that insists on homeschooling their children and controlling every aspect of their lives. Abuse and neglect done without institutional power doesn’t make it less so. The only victim here Victoria.
It’s really ironic that you use that example as Constance was revealed to have been indoctrinated by a Christian cult in Nigeria, along with her mother, shortly before she met her partner. So many layers to her trauma and mistrust of institutions purporting to help.
Thank you for writing this. I read almost everything I could about this tragic case and I realise now that it was because this trauma-informed, compassionate angle was missing from the reporting. I read CM’s testimony from the first trial and found her sharing of Bedouin communities raising babies in tents to be compelling. She seemed strong, like you say, and capable. This was clearly a complex couple who have been through terrible things and I find it so sadly reductive to read about ‘the aristocrat and the rapist’.
Yes their behaviour was at times ridiculous in court, and it felt as though the judge just wanted to get the case over the line in the second trial, tired of playing headmaster. The exasperation of the second trial read like people assumed they were ‘already too far gone’ and their behaviour massively supported the case for their prosecution, in my opinion. Truly a vicious cycle. It seems C+M massively trauma-bonded and that seeing one another in court was the only opportunity they had to see someone who had not made up their minds about them. I hope their time in custody is rehabilitative and not just more trauma.
There’s a whole case study here in how the UK press reports on trials too.
David thanks for this incredible piece which is my first read (I think?! ) of yours but won't be my last. That transcript was unbelievably hard to read but so important. The irony of grilling a parent about not granting their dead child dignity while treating both that person and yes, the dead child with total indignity for motivations it is hard to understand as anything other than sadistic... It will stay with me for a long time.
Thanks Claire I am so glad you found the article worthwhile. There were as you may imagine many other examples of the overbearing questioning that Constance Marten faced.
If stating undisputed facts in open court upset the people who carried out the actions, then it would probably be best if the alleged victims here hadn't. There is no obligation to make anyone feel good about freezing their baby to death in a tent in mid-winter, putting them in a bag and then after having a bit of a tidy-up, putting rubbish in on top. These two wanted to live outside of society. They did. But that wasn't enough. They had to bring another, then another, then another, then another, then another life into the world, one that they had absolutely no way of protecting, caring for or nurturing while they played runaways like a pair of six year-olds in a tent. Unfortunately for them, and rather more so for the baby they killed, this wasn't a jolly jape in the back garden. It was real life, and for the baby, real death. The discarded carcase was the ultimate proof that the only way of protecting her children was to take them away from her. Actions have consequences.
"actions have consequences" is the entire point of this piece - one that you seem to have wholly missed. When you further traumatise people who are already traumatized (be they innocent or guilty of any crimes), you increase the likelihood that they will perpetuate more trauma on themselves and/or others.
Thank you for writing this, it echoes a great deal of what I've thought about this case, and how different interventions could have led to such different outcomes, for everyone concerned.
I've seen highly dysfunctional couples have child after child, each being removed by Social Services, earlier and earlier - but the root causes of their problems (often violence, addiction and learning challenges) were never addressed. I've also seen children who were removed from their parents, whose trauma, never addressed, went on to shape their lives into patterns - again - of abuse and addiction.
By simply calling parents like these "evil", and by failing to address the trauma of their pasts, and the trauma now heaped on their children, all we are doing is perpetuating the cycle.
Thanks for this, it seems obvious doesn’t it that there must be better ways of doing things, to support couples, than the current system allows. Finding different ways of approaching “difficult” parents was the essence of the Child Safeguarding Review Panel’s report.
Some people, unfortunately, cannot help themselves and cannot be helped by others. There were many failings in this case, by the family, by the parents, and by the authorities, but these are adults we are talking about, who made very poor choices, a folie a deux, that resulted in the unnecessary death of their child. It is hard to find much sympathy. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Very complex - it’s known how babies can suffer harm during pregnancy via a traumatised mother but there are limited resources to prevent or protect and react . Trauma informed care is lengthy and hard to measure success whereas action is faster - I’m guessing Constance had her own experiences of trauma which are not detailed as well .
Thanks everyone for all these thoughtful comments. You won’t carry everyone with you if you try to write with compassion about vulnerable people convicted of serious crimes, but I think it is always important to step back and try to understand what happened - and why.
These people valued their own ideology and contrarianism over the material life of the most vulnerable and marginalized type of person: a helpless newborn with zero agency or say over her own well-being. Yes, it is true that the state is violent. Not disputing that. And also, in the end they did no better by this poor baby than the state could have. This is no better than an anti-vaxx parent who lets their child die of a preventable diseases. Or a strict fundamentalist Christian cult that insists on homeschooling their children and controlling every aspect of their lives. Abuse and neglect done without institutional power doesn’t make it less so. The only victim here Victoria.
It’s really ironic that you use that example as Constance was revealed to have been indoctrinated by a Christian cult in Nigeria, along with her mother, shortly before she met her partner. So many layers to her trauma and mistrust of institutions purporting to help.
Thank you for writing with such compassion about this complicated case.
Thank you for writing this. I read almost everything I could about this tragic case and I realise now that it was because this trauma-informed, compassionate angle was missing from the reporting. I read CM’s testimony from the first trial and found her sharing of Bedouin communities raising babies in tents to be compelling. She seemed strong, like you say, and capable. This was clearly a complex couple who have been through terrible things and I find it so sadly reductive to read about ‘the aristocrat and the rapist’.
Yes their behaviour was at times ridiculous in court, and it felt as though the judge just wanted to get the case over the line in the second trial, tired of playing headmaster. The exasperation of the second trial read like people assumed they were ‘already too far gone’ and their behaviour massively supported the case for their prosecution, in my opinion. Truly a vicious cycle. It seems C+M massively trauma-bonded and that seeing one another in court was the only opportunity they had to see someone who had not made up their minds about them. I hope their time in custody is rehabilitative and not just more trauma.
There’s a whole case study here in how the UK press reports on trials too.
I really appreciated this comment and your observations, thanks so much.
Couldn't care less about this disgusting couple,the only spurious interest is her connection to the parasitical Windsors .
David thanks for this incredible piece which is my first read (I think?! ) of yours but won't be my last. That transcript was unbelievably hard to read but so important. The irony of grilling a parent about not granting their dead child dignity while treating both that person and yes, the dead child with total indignity for motivations it is hard to understand as anything other than sadistic... It will stay with me for a long time.
Thanks Claire I am so glad you found the article worthwhile. There were as you may imagine many other examples of the overbearing questioning that Constance Marten faced.
If stating undisputed facts in open court upset the people who carried out the actions, then it would probably be best if the alleged victims here hadn't. There is no obligation to make anyone feel good about freezing their baby to death in a tent in mid-winter, putting them in a bag and then after having a bit of a tidy-up, putting rubbish in on top. These two wanted to live outside of society. They did. But that wasn't enough. They had to bring another, then another, then another, then another, then another life into the world, one that they had absolutely no way of protecting, caring for or nurturing while they played runaways like a pair of six year-olds in a tent. Unfortunately for them, and rather more so for the baby they killed, this wasn't a jolly jape in the back garden. It was real life, and for the baby, real death. The discarded carcase was the ultimate proof that the only way of protecting her children was to take them away from her. Actions have consequences.
"actions have consequences" is the entire point of this piece - one that you seem to have wholly missed. When you further traumatise people who are already traumatized (be they innocent or guilty of any crimes), you increase the likelihood that they will perpetuate more trauma on themselves and/or others.
Thank you for writing this, it echoes a great deal of what I've thought about this case, and how different interventions could have led to such different outcomes, for everyone concerned.
I've seen highly dysfunctional couples have child after child, each being removed by Social Services, earlier and earlier - but the root causes of their problems (often violence, addiction and learning challenges) were never addressed. I've also seen children who were removed from their parents, whose trauma, never addressed, went on to shape their lives into patterns - again - of abuse and addiction.
By simply calling parents like these "evil", and by failing to address the trauma of their pasts, and the trauma now heaped on their children, all we are doing is perpetuating the cycle.
Thanks for this, it seems obvious doesn’t it that there must be better ways of doing things, to support couples, than the current system allows. Finding different ways of approaching “difficult” parents was the essence of the Child Safeguarding Review Panel’s report.
Some people, unfortunately, cannot help themselves and cannot be helped by others. There were many failings in this case, by the family, by the parents, and by the authorities, but these are adults we are talking about, who made very poor choices, a folie a deux, that resulted in the unnecessary death of their child. It is hard to find much sympathy. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Thank you for writing this. I'm sorry about the judgemental comments
I don't understand where your sympathy is coming from, but thanks for writing.
Very complex - it’s known how babies can suffer harm during pregnancy via a traumatised mother but there are limited resources to prevent or protect and react . Trauma informed care is lengthy and hard to measure success whereas action is faster - I’m guessing Constance had her own experiences of trauma which are not detailed as well .
This was interesting to read and steers the ship between understanding/pathological empathy better than Clare Wills did in the LRB.