GUILTY UK - Constance Marten & Mark Gordon charged in death of baby Victoria, Guilty on counts 1 & 5, 2025 retrial on manslaughter, 5 Jan 2023 #8

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Nikynoo said:
Because to believe that is to believe that CM was teling the truth about everything/most things.
Click to expand...
Good point actually. She even changed her own name on arrest to Arabella.
Wouldn't surprise me if Victoria's real name was kept secret between her and Mark as two fingers up to society/social services/police and media (IMO)
 
bbsaz said:
Good point actually. She even changed her own name on arrest to Arabella.
Wouldn't surprise me if Victoria's real name was kept secret between her and Mark as two fingers up to society/social services/police and media (IMO)
Click to expand...
I hadn't thought about this but I can imagine it now. We love our baby too much to let these monsters know her name.
If only they had shown that respect to Victoria in life and in death.
 
bbsaz said:
Good point actually. She even changed her own name on arrest to Arabella.
Wouldn't surprise me if Victoria's real name was kept secret between her and Mark as two fingers up to society/social services/police and media (IMO)
Click to expand...
Or maybe they never named her at all, and came up with Victoria on the spot when asked, because they knew it looked bad to never have called her anything.
 
Nikynoo said:
Because to believe that is to believe that CM was telling the truth about everything/most things.
Click to expand...
If she lies about everything she can get away with, the baby was a boy.

PS Thelawpages.com were mentioning the jury going out every morning, but the court has sat on two days since last Thursday (when they said "Verdict to be taken" at 15:30), namely yesterday (unexpectedly, for reasons unknown) and today, and they haven't mentioned the jury on either of them.
 
Last edited:

Jury have been sent home for the day​

The jury in the Old Bailey trial of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon, who are accused over the death of their baby, has been sent home.
Judge Mark Lucraft KC told them to return to resume deliberations on Monday.



www.independent.co.uk

Constance Marten trial: Jury retires to consider verdict in baby manslaughter case

Aristocrat and partner Mark Gordon denied killing their newborn Victoria while on the run from authorities
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
 
Maryanna said:
If she lies about everything she can get away with, the baby was a boy.

PS Thelawpages.com were mentioning the jury going out every morning, but the court has sat on two days since last Thursday (when they said "Verdict to be taken" at 15:30), namely yesterday (unexpectedly, for reasons unknown) and today, and they haven't mentioned the jury on either of them.
Click to expand...
Didn't they take the available verdicts, before they knew they were dropping to 10 jurors? Ie let's have what you've got so far, before Juror 11 leaves. I assume it was the obvious verdicts, such a concealing a birth that were taken. And now they are thrashing out the trickier ones.

Imagine it was legal discussion yesterday, jury not required.
Today they were in and out because Fiona Beale was having her sentencing with the same judge. It did say that it was adjourned until 00.00 which is what it says when they jury goes out. And timings wise, it fitted with when Fiona Beale was getting her sentence.
 
bbsaz said:
Didn't they take the available verdicts, before they knew they were dropping to 10 jurors? Ie let's have what you've got so far, before Juror 11 leaves. I assume it was the obvious verdicts, such a concealing a birth that were taken. And now they are thrashing out the trickier ones.

Imagine it was legal discussion yesterday, jury not required.
Today they were in and out because Fiona Beale was having her sentencing with the same judge. It did say that it was adjourned until 00.00 which is what it says when they jury goes out. And timings wise, it fitted with when Fiona Beale was getting her sentence.
Click to expand...
Before the week's break, it was saying "Trial (Part Heard) - Jury retire to consider verdict" as the first item every day, but this morning as the first item it said "Trial (Part Heard) - Resume".

Did the judge direct that they had no defence to concealing a birth and perverting the course of justice and therefore the jury must convict on those two charges? I've seen that stated in another place where this case is being discussed, but can't recall it being stated in press reports. (I haven't listened to any podcasts though.)
 
Maryanna said:
Before the week's break, it was saying "Trial (Part Heard) - Jury retire to consider verdict" as the first item every day, but this morning as the first item it said "Trial (Part Heard) - Resume".

Did the judge direct that they had no defence to concealing a birth and perverting the course of justice and therefore the jury must convict on those two charges? I've seen that stated in another place where this case is being discussed, but can't recall it being stated in press reports. (I haven't listened to any podcasts though.)
Click to expand...
This was discussed in the podcast that talked about the judges directions. He didn’t say they had to be found guilty on both charges but when following the steps to get to a verdict for concealing the birth of a child and for child cruelty, there was no dispute on the first two steps for both of those charges. Or at least that’s how I understood it. There is a transcript available here:

 
DianaWW said:
This was discussed in the podcast that talked about the judges directions. He didn’t say they had to be found guilty on both charges but when following the steps to get to a verdict for concealing the birth of a child and for child cruelty, there was no dispute on the first two steps for both of those charges. Or at least that’s how I understood it. There is a transcript available here:

Click to expand...
Thanks for this.

So on concealing the birth it seems that the charge turns - according to the judge's directions - on whether they secretly disposed of the body, to which CM's testimony that she was keeping it so it could be examined later is a defence. Whether the jury accept that defence is of course quite another matter. But if they're not sure it's untrue they should return a verdict of not guilty.
 
Maryanna said:
If she lies about everything she can get away with, the baby was a boy.

PS Thelawpages.com were mentioning the jury going out every morning, but the court has sat on two days since last Thursday (when they said "Verdict to be taken" at 15:30), namely yesterday (unexpectedly, for reasons unknown) and today, and they haven't mentioned the jury on either of them.
Click to expand...
Genetic testing at autopsy would have determined biological sex. But there's no test to prove whether she was lying about a name, so Victoria is what we have, which is better than just calling her 'baby'.

MOO
 
"to which CM's testimony that she was keeping it so it could be examined later is a defence. Whether the jury accept that defence is of course quite another matter. But if they're not sure it's untrue they should return a verdict of not guilty"

Interesting that they didn't tell police where Victoria was, through many minutes of heart rending questioning "where is your baby?" by police on arrest, OR in the days that followed when they were in custody.
 
CaptainNancy said:
"to which CM's testimony that she was keeping it so it could be examined later is a defence. Whether the jury accept that defence is of course quite another matter. But if they're not sure it's untrue they should return a verdict of not guilty"

Interesting that they didn't tell police where Victoria was, through many minutes of heart rending questioning "where is your baby?" by police on arrest, OR in the days that followed when they were in custody.
Click to expand...
Yes - if the jurors take the view that hiding a body in a carrier bag in an allotment shed constitutes disposing of it, they should vote guilty.
 
Maryanna said:
Yes - if the jurors take the view that hiding a body in a carrier bag in an allotment shed constitutes disposing of it, they should vote guilty.
Click to expand...
It would have been a stronger defence if they'd told detectives where they'd stashed the bag.

Instead of stonewalling for 3 days while hundreds of police desperately searched every inch of that land. Haunted by the idea there was a newborn hidden away, dying by inches.

She had be found. A little rotten doll in a bag full of rubbish. They never said a dam n word.
 
The Crown Court at Central Criminal Court


Daily Courtroom List for Monday 03 June 2024​
FINAL 1
Court 5

THE RECORDER OF LONDON​


SITTING AT 09:30 am

Trial (Part Heard)

T20237104GORDON Mark A01MP1072723SUSWMCPS
MARTEN Constance01MP1072723

DTA, Reporting Restriction order imposed by the High Court - see section Trial Documents on DCS**, Order made under Contempt of Court Act 1981


www.courtserve.net
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 155 more.
Total: 1,819 (members: 156, guests: 1,663)

Online statistics

Members online
156
Guests online
1,663
Total visitors
1,819
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,622
Messages
18,127,154
Members
231,105
Latest member
LouTanner
Back
Top