UK - Constance Marten & Mark Gordon charged, Newborn (found deceased), Bolton Greater Manchester, 5 Jan 2023 #7

Status
Not open for further replies.
Does someone here know roughly how many questions were asked on behalf of jurors during this trial? A poster in another place mentioned a figure in excess of 100, but I find that very hard to believe. If it's anywhere near the truth, that will be something the trial is long remembered for among our learned friends. That's surely a record if true.
 
I don't think they coveredher with rubbish immediately.
It doesn't matter if they carried her in a balloon, actually.
She would not have survived exposure for a single hour in those conditions, let alone a few weeks..
The bag is meaningless.. has zero evidentiary value.
There is no proof it had anything at all to do with her death no more than a Harrods bag would. <modsnip: disparages the prosecution/sub judice>
I think it does and should matter how we “dispose” of dead bodies, especially of our loved ones. The bag is not meaningless.
 
Does someone here know roughly how many questions were asked on behalf of jurors during this trial? A poster in another place mentioned a figure in excess of 100, but I find that very hard to believe. If it's anywhere near the truth, that will definitely be something the trial is remembered for among our learned friends. That's surely a record if true.
I read it was around 147, which I agree must be a record! I can’t remember where I read it though so I will say it is JMO.

I also found a transcript of the latest podcast here, for anyone that prefers to read:


It does provide more detail/context compared to the news reports. The buggy/foot muff conversation for example, reads very differently than it did from the Independent reporting, and makes much more sense.
 
Last edited:
[…]

In his closing speech to the jury today prosecutor Tom Little, KC, said the evidence reveals 'the lies, inconsistencies and fabrications that lie at the heart of the shadow and sham defences the defendants have orchestrated before you in this case.'

He told the jury that Marten had told them 'big fat lies' while Gordon 'did not dare' to give evidence, with his 'silence deafening'. Mr Little later added: 'They are demonstrable lies that go to the core issues in this case.'

'Lies fell from her mouth like confetti in the wind when she gave evidence,' he said.

Mr Little told jurors not to be distracted by comparisons between the conditions in the defendants' tent and people surviving in other parts of the world.

Referring to Marten's evidence, he said: 'Jesus was born in a barn, yes, but Bethlehem is hardly a skiing destination.

'Tents in Calais are going to have fires next to them. All those attempts by Constance Marten to draw analogies all fail at the first hurdle.'

The reality was that Victoria was 'neglected and exposed to dangerous conditions', jurors were told.

Mr Little said: 'A freezing cold baby girl with just a single babygrow and one vest. No hat.'

'It was no coincidence the only clothes found by police with Victoria's body were those she was seen wearing on CCTV
', he said.

Turning to the defendants, the prosecutor said: 'This was a self-absorbed relationship between two selfish and arrogant individuals and caught in the middle of that toxic relationship was a baby that was manifestly not being cared for properly, manifestly not being looked after properly.'

He added that the 'freezing cold' baby was heard crying on two nights in January when it was 'bitterly cold' and at least a week after Marten claimed she had died.

Mr Little went on: 'In her very short life baby Victoria did not stand a chance. That is the cold, hard, brutal reality of this case. There is no point in soft-soaping it.

'Baby Victoria would still be alive if it was not for the actions and inactions of these two defendants. Nobody else is to blame are they?'

The couple's four older children were 'lawfully and properly' taken into care, he said: 'Everyone can and should be able to see that - apart from Constance Marten.'

'In the real world they caused the death of baby Victoria. How they did it and when they did it are critical questions but be in no doubt about the question of causation,' he told jurors.

[…]

 
Does someone here know roughly how many questions were asked on behalf of jurors during this trial? A poster in another place mentioned a figure in excess of 100, but I find that very hard to believe. If it's anywhere near the truth, that will be something the trial is long remembered for among our learned friends. That's surely a record if true.
I seem to recall that it was closer to 200 questions.
 
I read it was around 147, which I agree must be a record! I can’t remember where I read it though so I will say it is JMO.

I also found a transcript of the latest podcast here, for anyone that prefers to read:


It does provide more detail/context compared to the news reports. The buggy/foot muff conversation for example, reads very differently than it did from the Independent reporting, and makes much more sense.

Thanks for the latest link Diana. That is an excellent podcast ( I do prefer the transcript, so much quicker ) and the Judge's guidance, so far, to the Jury concerning the 5 charges, is extremely clear and helpful.

Also interesting to see that Tom Little reiterated the information that two witnesses - namely
1. the breakdown worker who collected the Suzuki ( Dec 28 ) and
2. Mr Hudson who assisted at the scene of the second car breakdown/fire ( January 5 )

both stated that MG got out of the driver's side of the car.
 
Thanks for the latest link Diana. That is an excellent podcast ( I do prefer the transcript, so much quicker ) and the Judge's guidance, so far, to the Jury concerning the 5 charges, is extremely clear and helpful.

Also interesting to see that Tom Little reiterated the information that two witnesses - namely
1. the breakdown worker who collected the Suzuki ( Dec 28 ) and
2. Mr Hudson who assisted at the scene of the second car breakdown/fire ( January 5 )

both stated that MG got out of the driver's side of the car.
It's a great podcast. Tom Little did a good job. Let's hope it's enough.
 

Wealthy aristocrat Constance Marten has an 'Upstairs, Downstairs' attitude and has told a 'constellation of lies' about her baby daughter's death, court hears​

[…]

He said the defendants had 'acted as a team' by allowing Marten to give one account of what happened while Gordon stayed silent.

Mr Little referred to two witnesses who had stopped to help the couple when their car caught fire by the M61.

'The father and son on the M61, the Hudsons, the good samaritans, pulled over when they saw smoke and then fire.

'They were honest witnesses. You may remember that obvious feeling of guilt that still haunts him because he touched baby Victoria on the head head and he knows if he stayed on the side of road it would all have been different.

'Constance Marten was keen to suggest to Mr Smith (prosecutor Joel Smith) his tone was patronising.

'But it's funny how some people aren't very good at looking in the mirror.

'What did she refer to the Hudsons as? 'Random workmen'. That you may think suggests an obvious sense of misunderstanding - almost an Upstairs, Downstairs mentality.

'Is it she who is patronising, or Mr Smith? It's a matter for you.

'He said he put his hand on the baby's head and said words to the effect of 'God bless, keep safe'.

'Constance Marten says that simply did not happen.

'She has lied to you about why that 'random workman' touched the baby's head.

'It's another lie in a constellation of lies.'

He said Marten was also lying when she said they took some baby clothes for Victoria away from the burning vehicle and he said it was all dumped nearby.

'That baby had nothing more than a baby grow and a vest,' he said.

[…]

 
I wish I could be a defence barrister in court today to deconstruct the prosecutions closing statement which seems to me to be bluster, and accusations that have not been proved in court.

Although I don’t believe the case should have ever gone to the Old Bailey courts which has ‘gummed’ up the system <modsnip: sub judice>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
<modsnip: quoted post was removed>
Somebody advised me to listen to a podcast yesterday, so I did,
I was quite shocked that he again referred to a delayed response to a question to Prof Fleming regarding whether he had conducted any post mortems.
It's irrelevant.
He's a paediatrician, not a coroner.
There was no 'Gotcha moment' but he presented it as if there was.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Somebody advised me to listen to a podcast yesterday, so I did,
I was quite shocked that he again referred to a delayed response to a question to Prof Fleming regarding whether he had conducted any post mortems.
It's irrelevant.
He's a paediatrician, not a coroner.
There was no 'Gotcha moment' but he presented it as if there was.
It’s relevant if Fleming was giving opinions that only a pathologist could give.
 
Somebody advised me to listen to a podcast yesterday, so I did,
I was quite shocked that he again referred to a delayed response to a question to Prof Fleming regarding whether he had conducted any post mortems.
It's irrelevant.
He's a paediatrician, not a coroner.
There was no 'Gotcha moment' but he presented it as if there was.
But he was asked that question because he was talking about baby Victoria's cause of death, without having examined her, and having taken CMs word for how she was cared for. As you say, he is a paediatrician, not a pathologist, so there is nothing wrong with pointing out that this was outside of his expertise. JMO.
 
But he was asked that question because he was talking about baby Victoria's cause of death, without having examined her, and having taken CMs word for how she was cared for. As you say, he is a paediatrician, not a pathologist, so there is nothing wrong with pointing out that this was outside of his expertise. JMO.
I'm pretty sure he had full access to all her autopsy reports.
Were they presented to the court at all?
I can't find them but they must have been!
 
I'm pretty sure he had full access to all her autopsy reports.
Were they presented to the court at all?
I can't find them but they must have been!
I can't find much about them either, but he did mention something about the size of her foot when he was discussing her age, so I would assume this came from the report. However we also know that the autopsy wasn't able to determine a cause of death, and couldn't rule out either hypothermia or suffocation. His assertion that it was unlikely that hypothermia was a cause came from information given to him by CM, not the autopsy report. So I would be interested to hear more about the conversation referenced in the closing speech, we are likely to be missing some context. The reporting has been pretty woeful.

I have read the trial transcript of part of his cross exam, but it ends before it's finished and I can't see the conversation referenced (I skim read so may have missed). Link here to the cross-exam:

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
271
Guests online
3,213
Total visitors
3,484

Forum statistics

Threads
592,680
Messages
17,973,294
Members
228,862
Latest member
lisamarie24
Back
Top