Constance Marten and Mark Gordon #11

[calmyourritas]

I am so so sad for poor little Victoria the world has failed her yet again

 

[apple-tea]

I’ve just come across this anonymous post on the FB group. Cryptic but does provide a bit more insight into how the jury couldn’t reach a decision doesn’t it

What an incredibly complex case!

Read the second image first

The anon poster has since posted further comments which I’ve added here. I’m starting to think this was a juror very interesting read.

 

[Emsie]

They did do a shit job. Because she wasn't cosleeping, she was suffocating and no one said this out loud.

 

[ThisIsMyDragName]

I’m so curious about what went on in this case that made it impossible for the jury to reach verdicts? To an outsider like me, it all seems to point to them being guilty. Even if we accept their argument that they were ‘forced to go off grid’, even if we think that’s an acceptable argument, she had plenty of money. It seems like every time she asked for money, she got it. They could have chosen an alternative to stuffing a tiny baby in a massive coat with inappropriate clothing and living in a tent in winter. I’m utterly perplexed, and I’m really sad for Victoria.

 

[InTheDollsHouse]

Would love to know their reactions. She’s probably charting her period for ovulation right now.

 

[blueblue]

The whole way this trial has been run... I sense secret handshakes and whispers in ears. Don't shoot me just got my spidey senses tingling.

This absolutely stinks of someone aristocratic on trial, I agree.

 

[InTheDollsHouse]

I wonder if Victoria has been laid to rest yet.

I keep wondering that. And if anyone was there.
---

Just saw this on websleuths, obviously I’ve no idea if it’s true or not…

this is the sort of shit that the defence will use in their favour. Who on earth has shared what is only known in court and must be subject to reporting restrictions.

(I don’t mean this at you @DianaBanana but whoever posted it on WS!)

 

[Lynn’ssnazzycardigan]

They need to be punished for what they did! Any reasonable person could foresee their actions had a high risk of causing significant harm or death to that baby and that’s exactly what happened. She died because of the way they chose to act, and it was predictable that it would happen. I can only think that some jury members said CAD and others said GNM and no overall agreement could be reached. Something needs to be done to allow a successful prosecution because they are guilty either way! Imho they often use CAD where they don’t think manslaughter (wilful or negligent) conviction is achievable despite it being obvious to the investigating officers so maybe a retrial on that charge alone would be the way to go.

 

[whitershadeofpale]

Unfortunately this has seemed inevitable for a while.
---

If they had reached verdicts on any of the charges would those still stand, or are they all scrapped?

i think they’d stand but we’ll find out soon. They may well be free to go now.

 

[Bleekemolen]

It’s absolutely heart breaking for Victoria. From the few days that I attended, there was no doubt in my mind about their guilt.

I just hope the CPS decide to go again.

Sending much to all that followed this case X

 

[sebanna]

So according to the BBC reporter its just the Manslaughter charge that the jury couldn't decide on.

 

[Asterix]

What a fucking (expensive) joke.

I don't see them being kept in while the prosecution decides. Keeping them in wouldn't actually feel fair to me, much as that pains me.

See you all here next time their choices lead to the death of another child?

 

[SELdnGal]

Seems more and more likely this is going to end in a mistrial. What a farce! I cannot see what's up for debate here, honestly. Perhaps CM was far more convincing in court than she came across in reporting?

 

[FFS_stopit]

Surely they were found guilty of concealing the birth of a child? Neither side fought that.. same with perverting the course of justice?
I still can’t find the judges summing up in full but I’m fairly sure he stated that those were both agreed facts and the jury should find them guilty on both counts?
There’s very little evidence in general but there is very clear evidence that she gave birth to a baby, didn’t inform the relevant authorities, that baby tragically died, they didn’t inform the relevant authorities.
Was arrested, they knew where victorias body was but didn’t tell the authorities, therefore perverting the course of justice.

Surely they can’t have been unable to reach a verdict on those two counts??
I’m really hoping more comes out over the next few days!

 

[neroli]

I think if they cant decide by the end of the week, its time to call it quits. It can't go on much longer.

The onus is on the jury to reach a decision. Victoria deserves that at least and not some half-hearted attempt which leaves everything up in the air. Her death was completely avoidable.

 

[Onthehop]

Comprehending that poor Victoria spent all of her life outside, cold, miserable, hungry. It’s difficult to imagine how these “parents” haven’t been found guilty.

 

[LittleMissOnions]

The concept of a ‘majority’ jury was only introduced in the late 60s allegedly to stop juries from being nobbled by 1 or 2 jurors but research suggests instead it was because more women and minorities were being called for duty and they were thought as being less capable

 

[lilyannrose]

I've struggled to process Victoria being failed again, it's repugnent to me beyond many cases I've followed over the years.

Struggle to feel empathy for the jurors as it sounds like at least some of them were on Marten's side and felt sorry for her? No, just no.

It made me sick to my stomach to see the outpouring of sympathy for Marten on Twitter at this latest news. So many people support her because they don't like social services. How can even one person read about what happened to that poor baby and even how she was robbed of dignity after death and still take Marten's side? Humanity disgusts me so often these days.

 

[Haveyouanywool]

Does it have to be proven that someone has been specifically told not to do a harmful thing for them to be found accountable if harm is caused?
‘Don’t stab someone in the chest’ ‘Don’t throttle someone’ ‘Don’t take a minimally clothed baby out in freezing weather’.
I mean, are these people adults?

 

[CabalofBolorneaise]

I've always said this. If we can keep rape victims anonymous in public criminal courts there's no reason to not have the family courts opened up.

I think the issue is that a lot of family court stuff is so very, very specific it would identify children to a much wider extent than most rape trials do. It’s also how far would you go with the reporting, an awful lot of abusive partners absolutely slate the shit out of their partner/ex via family court, so opening them up opens up more avenues to use that as abuse too.

There are sometimes (in England at least) full reporting restrictions on rape trials, generally where the victim is related to the rapist for the same reason - and if it is reported at all then they’re not allowed to name the rapist. Which is really the closest analogy to family court.