Constance Marten and Mark Gordon Case #3

[InTheDollsHouse]

I wouldn’t be surprised if both of them are still fully convinced they had no option other than to do what they did and that’s all they’ll get out of them for the whole trial.

I’m not really sure prison is the right place for them tbh, unless it comes out the entire thing has been an act I think they’re just both incredibly mentally ill (to an extreme extent the vast majority of people are not - obviously the majority of people with MH issues would never do anything like they did) and would be far better off in a psychiatric facility.

That’s exactly how I felt from the beginning.

There’s trauma, paranoia, grief, and family history of severe mental illness on CM side, and at the very least paranoia and distrust of authorities from MG.

CM won’t say much because she thinks that she ‘had to’ run to keep her baby, and she wasn’t able to do that because the authorities interfered to find them.

MG will want as short a time in prison as possible and doesn’t seem so far to have been very keen to cooperate.

 

[Kittycat86]

The trial is set to start on January 24th.
The jury has been sworn in and told to take the week to prepare themselves before the start but not to google anything etc.
I’ve just seen this on google

 

[smellsofbiscuits]

There won’t be any reporting on the other children.

I don’t think they actually did anything illegal until the baby was born, apart from MG not reporting his location, so I do wonder if we’ll only really find out basics of what happened while they were moving around the UK and when they were found.

No one knows anything other than what those two are willing to share. And I don’t think that will be very much, or very accurate.
---
I won’t be surprised if MG tries to weight it heavily on CM and say he was worried about her and he knows now that it was wrong, he should have got help, blah blah

Definitely not an expert but I believe you can be charged with concealment of a pregnancy. I'm not sure of the ins and outs of it all but do recall a friend discussing it with me when I was pregnant with my eldest.

 

[InTheDollsHouse]

Jury chosen for Constance Marten baby death trial set to begin next week

Jurors just selected in the case of an aristocrat and her partner accused over the death of their baby have been told not to research the case…

www.theargus.co.uk

I think The Argus will cover it.

Says trial expected to last until March 8th, so 6 1/2 weeks.

@Dogmuck (sorry, are you sick of me yet) is that about normal or does it suggest lots of evidence / experts?

 

[CabalofBolorneaise]

Definitely not an expert but I believe you can be charged with concealment of a pregnancy. I'm not sure of the ins and outs of it all but do recall a friend discussing it with me when I was pregnant with my eldest.

There’s only concealment of birth as far as I know. You don’t legally have to tell anyone that you are pregnant, there’s no obligation to seek medical care etc or you’d hear of all those “I didn’t know I was pregnant until the baby came out!” people being investigated for it.

 

[okdo2022]

The trial is set to start on January 24th.
The jury has been sworn in and told to take the week to prepare themselves before the start but not to google anything etc.
I’ve just seen this on google

So the first thing they do is go home and Google

 

[heretoreaditall2019]

Jury chosen for Constance Marten baby death trial set to begin next week

Jurors just selected in the case of an aristocrat and her partner accused over the death of their baby have been told not to research the case…

www.theargus.co.uk

I think The Argus will cover it.

Says trial expected to last until March 8th, so 6 1/2 weeks.

@Dogmuck (sorry, are you sick of me yet) is that about normal or does it suggest lots of evidence / experts?

The Argus did a really good job of covering the case of Star Hobson (RIP) with very detailed in-day updates, so glad to see they’re covering this too.

 

[InTheDollsHouse]

So the first thing they do is go home and Google

Imagine if one of them’s a tattler! I’d have to log out and not come back until if it was over if I was on the jury for anything.

 

[Dogmuck]

The trial is set to start on January 24th.
The jury has been sworn in and told to take the week to prepare themselves before the start but not to google anything etc.
I’ve just seen this on google

That has just blown my mind. I have never been on a case where the jury have been sworn in 7 days before commencement. Madness! Why have they done that?? It makes no sense whatsoever. Maybe things have changed and this is a new practice will check with my mates. It’s just that when I was a lass all this was fields the idea was to get the jury sworn in just as you’re about to get going so there’s no chance of them seeing any reporting or have the chance to Google. A weeks a long time not to Google it’s just leaving thing open for jurors. Plus the other worry is that now they are known to all the people in the courtroom, they can be followed and offered £/ threatened etc.

Jury chosen for Constance Marten baby death trial set to begin next week

Jurors just selected in the case of an aristocrat and her partner accused over the death of their baby have been told not to research the case…

www.theargus.co.uk

I think The Argus will cover it.

Says trial expected to last until March 8th, so 6 1/2 weeks.

@Dogmuck (sorry, are you sick of me yet) is that about normal or does it suggest lots of evidence / experts?

Never get sick of you ITDH, just got back from salsa so catching up. It’s a long trial that, but when there’s 2 or more defendants you have 2 lots of blathering and cross (we do like to blather). With that said I guess they’ve not agreed on anything. So they are going to be going through every single bit of evidence and looking to dispute it. Usually before trial there’s lots of stuff you agree, like the fingerprints are your clients so you don’t need a fingerprints expert to come in to explain the patterns and you don’t need an expert for defence to dispute that expert. I guess they may be disputing CCTV footage & there will be lots because these 2 were running around the country. Loads of police statements too because forces from north and south were involved. Plus if they start with the details of previous babies and why they were on the run then there’s gonna be lots of folk from social services.

Actually there’s gonna be a lot of cctv & verbal testimony and then cross so yeah seems about right now I think about it!
Up there for thinking down there for dancing obvs for my dancing shoes on still!

 

[InTheDollsHouse]

That has just blown my mind. I have never been on a case where the jury have been sworn in 7 days before commencement. Madness! Why have they done that?? It makes no sense whatsoever. Maybe things have changed and this is a new practice will check with my mates. It’s just that when I was a lass all this was fields the idea was to get the jury sworn in just as you’re about to get going so there’s no chance of them seeing any reporting or have the chance to Google. A weeks a long time not to Google it’s just leaving thing open for jurors. Plus the other worry is that now they are known to all the people in the courtroom, they can be followed and offered £/ threatened etc.

Never get sick of you ITDH, just got back from salsa so catching up. It’s a long trial that, but when there’s 2 or more defendants you have 2 lots of blathering and cross (we do like to blather). With that said I guess they’ve not agreed on anything. So they are going to be going through every single bit of evidence and looking to dispute it. Usually before trial there’s lots of stuff you agree, like the fingerprints are your clients so you don’t need a fingerprints expert to come in to explain the patterns and you don’t need an expert for defence to dispute that expert. I guess they may be disputing CCTV footage & there will be lots because these 2 were running around the country. Loads of police statements too because forces from north and south were involved. Plus if they start with the details of previous babies and why they were on the run then there’s gonna be lots of folk from social services.

Actually there’s gonna be a lot of cctv & verbal testimony and then cross so yeah seems about right now I think about it!
Up there for thinking down there for dancing obvs for my dancing shoes on still!

Ooh salsa
The most energetic thing I’ve done today was the school run slow walk.

 

[Dogmuck]

Ooh salsa
The most energetic thing I’ve done today was the school run slow walk.

I guarantee your school slow walk was more energetic than my salsa - trust me! I can dance but my husband is terrible and it’s painfully slow as he counts out 8 for a simple step…slow clapping

So do we think this pair are gonna get off?

I’m with ya @heretoreaditall2019 the Argus reporting is 10/10 usually x

 

[InTheDollsHouse]

So do we think this pair are gonna get off?

I’m concerned that there’s not enough evidence of cause of death to prove that it could have been avoided. Yes, logically and rationally we all know it probably could have, but that’s not enough in court is it.

I do think that there will be a focus on mental health, especially for her, and I still maintain what I’ve said from the start - if there is a significant mental illness or trauma which has been a factor in this, that really does have to be considered and taken into account in sentencing - no point chucking her in prison for 5 years with zero MH support and then being surprised when it happens again. (I’ve pulled 5 years from nowhere, I have no idea of sentencing for manslaughter )

I’ve been shot down for saying that earlier in these threads, but I’m absolutely not saying it excuses anything or makes it okay. Just that unless you’re that person, in that circumstance, with those difficulties, you don’t know what you would do.

Obviously there may not be any MH factors whatsoever in which case happy days, they’re just selfish idiots and they deserve to be locked up for as long as possible, hopefully until she is no longer able to bear children.

Also there will hopefully be enough evidence that they deliberately planned to conceal birth all along, because that will also cover concealment of death, and that might be the only provable charge.

(Oops sorry that ended up longer than I intended!)
---

Plus the other worry is that now they are known to all the people in the courtroom, they can be followed and offered £/ threatened etc

With her family’s money, and his violent past… 🫣

 

[neroli]

I'm sure there is potential for the chosen psychiatrists to provide complex diagnoses for the pair of them. To explain and excuse why they disposed of baby Victoria as they did.

 

[Tangent Tiger]

I'm sure there is potential for the chosen psychiatrists to provide complex diagnoses for the pair of them. To explain and excuse why they disposed of baby Victoria as they did.

Gives you the shudders

 

[Kittycat86]

That has just blown my mind. I have never been on a case where the jury have been sworn in 7 days before commencement. Madness! Why have they done that?? It makes no sense whatsoever. Maybe things have changed and this is a new practice will check with my mates. It’s just that when I was a lass all this was fields the idea was to get the jury sworn in just as you’re about to get going so there’s no chance of them seeing any reporting or have the chance to Google. A weeks a long time not to Google it’s just leaving thing open for jurors. Plus the other worry is that now they are known to all the people in the courtroom, they can be followed and offered £/ threatened etc.

I didn’t understand it when I read it either, usually it’s straight away or next day.
I saw it in an article I believe it could’ve been ‘The Argus’ paper stating that’s the start date and then it’s gonna run for around 6/7weeks so well into March
I would hope theirs a method to the madness and they’re delaying it for a good reason.

 

[InTheDollsHouse]

I'm sure there is potential for the chosen psychiatrists to provide complex diagnoses for the pair of them. To explain and excuse why they disposed of baby Victoria as they did.

If anyone exaggerates an illness or diagnosis for the benefit of these two, they should never be allowed to practise medicine again.

There’s absolutely no excusing what they did, but there may be complexities that led to it.

 

[uberoblique]

Does anyone know if the Daily Mail will do a podcast about the case? I really enjoyed their Lucy Letby episodes, hoping they’ll do the same again.

 

[Dogmuck]

I’ve been shot down for saying that earlier in these threads, but I’m absolutely not saying it excuses anything or makes it okay. Just that unless you’re that person, in that circumstance, with those difficulties, you don’t know what you would do.

Warning
long and possibly very boring post - soz

Tbf it was probs me that shot you down there can’t really be any focus on her mental health, that’s just not how the law works. Her mental health is a footnote in this. They are being charged with gross negligence manslaughter. Thats what has to be dealt with in court. You can’t have a spenny lawyer just saying, she didn’t do it she’s got bad mental health, it’s not a defence. They just can’t. Her mental health is mitigation. The defence will have to be focused on at least one element of the crime, so for example “gross” negligence. They may concede they were negligent but not grossly so. If they can convince the jury that it wasn’t grossly negligent then they go free. The onus is on the prosecution to prove the case.
There are several defences to GNM but some examples of ones used are
- Mistake - D made a genuine mistake but didn’t act in a way that was reckless or careless
- Sudden Emergency - D didn’t have time to consider consequences of their actions
- Necessity - D was acting in a way that was necessary to prevent greater harm

As you can see, none of them lend themselves to mental health conditions but I guess you could argue that their mental capacity meant that they didn’t believe they were being reckless or careless. I think I’ve previously written out the elements of the crime and what the prosecution needs to probe to bring a case. So 1. Duty of care to Victoria ( this can be made out, they are her parents) 2. Breach of that duty - this will be an area for defence arguments 3. The breach resulted in death - this will also be argued 4. The breach was so gross it was a crime - this will defo be the focus of their defence.

I think they will make out that they genuinely didn’t believe what they were doing was wrong and therefore was a mistake, but wasn’t grossly negligent

They only need reasonable doubt…

I think a really good case to compare this with is the Kaylea Titford, you know the 16 year old who had, I think, spina bifida, she was 20+ stone and her parents basically didn’t care at all for her, won’t go into detail, but she died from neglect basically. The mum pleaded guilty and the dad went to trial…his defence was he wasn’t the main carer and wasn’t aware of the squalor, despite the fact he lived there . So the mother got something like 6 years for early guilty plea and the dad got something like 8 years - it was referred for undue lenient sentences and they were upped to about 8 yrs for her and 10 for him. Now bear in mind that this neglect was going on for years, she was morbidly obese and hadn’t been able to get out of bed (because of her weight not her SB), she was just 16 - they could have got her help they could have saved her they left her to rot with maggots in her body . So 10 years max for that, he will serve 5 at the most. Prosecution had cause of death, they had clear evidence of the squalor and conditions, they had text messages of Kaylea asking for help with her wounds, the case was pretty clear cut and tbf the parents looked like scummers which the jury will have hated. The women and many of the men in that jury would have hated the fact the man denied any responsibility for his daughter and basically wanted the mum to carry the can!!

There’s another good example case of a 90 year old dad and 60 year old son who were charged with GNM for the death of their daughter/sister (she was in her 50’s) who they were supposed to be caring for…that’s another neglect, squalor type case, really low sentences and age mental health was considered in sentencing.

My point here kids is, don’t expect this to be a throw away the key result, the sentences, if they are found guilty, will be between 1 and 6 years imho. Remember, by the time this trial is over they’ll have done a year in custody, they could be walking after this trial just on days served already. Just brace yourselves is what I’m saying it’s likely not the outcome you desire.

 

[GalaxyGirl70]

I sadly also think they'll play the MH card and will be convicted but won't serve any more time for it.

Look at that poor little 2 year old left with an elderly unwell father and no one found him for weeks . And everyone is blaming SS and the Police, not the parents who shouldn't have had a child that they were unable to care for. The house/garden looks squalid. The authorities are too stretched to even begin to watch the thousands of parents who should never have been allowed to breed in the first place. The sad reality is that it must have been obvious that these two were a flight risk.... and the baby paid the ultimate price. Fingers will be pointed at authorities and social workers, but not these two.

I honestly despair of society at times.

 

[InTheDollsHouse]

@Dogmuck it wasn’t you
And I think I was trying (badly, clumsily) to say MH could be used as mitigation.

Your post wasn’t boring!

So if they get guilty on GNM do you think 6 years sentence max? Would other guilty charges likely run concurrently?