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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm surprised and slightly annoyed that they are allowed to hug each other in court after all they put that baby through. IMO they should be separated and sat nowhere near each other.

I agree and for legal reasons I'd have thought they're not allowed to confer. I'm actually shocked about this. They have separate defence barristers and they shouldn't be allowed to sit and chit chat IMO
 
I agree and for legal reasons I'd have thought they're not allowed to confer. I'm actually shocked about this. They have separate defence barristers and they shouldn't be allowed to sit and chit chat IMO
It's for legal reasons that they are allowed to confer.

"Is this line of questioning in cross-examination OK or should he stop pursuing it?"

"Should he put possibility X to this witness?"

"Shall we ask for an adjournment to discuss whether or not we should call witness Y back and put question Q to him before witness Z appears?"

"Do we need to stop and reconsider the offer of a plea bargain?"

They are the two people at the top of the chain on the defence side, in control of their respective teams, and since they're charged jointly they need to cooperate and confer. It's in the interests of justice for them both to be able to put their cases as best they can.
 
I agree and for legal reasons I'd have thought they're not allowed to confer. I'm actually shocked about this. They have separate defence barristers and they shouldn't be allowed to sit and chit chat IMO
At the very least, CM and MG interacting with each other in court could have a negative impact on the jury's view of them, JMO.
 
It's for legal reasons that they are allowed to confer.

"Is this line of questioning in cross-examination OK or should he stop pursuing it?"

"Should he put possibility X to this witness?"

"Shall we ask for an adjournment to discuss whether or not we should call witness Y back and put question Q to him before witness Z appears?"

"Do we need to stop and reconsider the offer of a plea bargain?"

They are the two people at the top of the chain on the defence side, in control of their respective teams, and since they're charged jointly they need to cooperate and confer. It's in the interests of justice for them both to be able to put their cases as best they can.
I think most of us would assume that there would be a time and a place for co-defendants to chat with each other (not during proceedings). I and I think others would assume or have certainly seen that naturally defendants can and should confer with their defence, though. It just seems brazen they're chatting with each other and not to their counsel or through their counsel.
 
I think most of us would assume that there would be a time and a place for co-defendants to chat with each other (not during proceedings). I and I think others would assume or have certainly seen that naturally defendants can and should confer with their defence, though. It just seems brazen they're chatting with each other and not to their counsel or through their counsel.
I agree. I thought any discussions would be done through their respective lawyers.
 
I think most of us would assume that there would be a time and a place for co-defendants to chat with each other (not during proceedings). I and I think others would assume or have certainly seen that naturally defendants can and should confer with their defence, though. It just seems brazen they're chatting with each other and not to their counsel or through their counsel.
To me this shows their absolute privaledged, self entitled, arrogant, 2 fingers to everyone type of personality they seem to have. They have zero grasp of reality and don't seem to have any respect for their dead child or anyone else around them. I bet cm in particular thinks she will walk away from this scott free! The more I read from this trial the more angry I'm getting. I wonder how they'll cope once the book is thrown at them...which I sincerely hope it will be. I guess they will write to each other in prison and be all lovey dovey. Makes me sick the pair of them.
All moo
 
In my area, we’d always colloquially say ‘bag for life’ for a stronger, reusable supermarket bag with woven handles. We’d call a flimsy bag, a ‘carrier bag’ or a ‘plastic bag’. Even though I think the original campaign was the the replacement bags.

I agree re terrible place for a baby. I also wonder if they might refer back to previous advice given about newborns sleeping on flat, firm surfaces (which a bag is not) and the risks of not abiding by this. They keep mentioning the co-sleeping advice given previously, so perhaps this might be linked together to the bag also breaking safer sleeping advice.

I don't think the bag was used as some misguided attempt to keep the baby sleeping flat, I think it was used for convenience. They ditched the buggy for some unknown reason and carrying a baby under their coats like they had been is awkward and heavy, I believe they put her in the nag because it was just easier for them to carry her around. I 100% doubt either her comfort or safety even entered their heads. JMO
 
I'm surprised and slightly annoyed that they are allowed to hug each other in court after all they put that baby through. IMO they should be separated and sat nowhere near each other.
The court hasn't decided whether or not they put the baby through anything, and the presumption is innocence on all charges. They have a right to confer. The hug was after the court had risen anyway. It would be much better if reporters could concentrate on reporting the witness evidence fully, rather than what they're wearing and whether two people who've had five children together express affection for each other when the court isn't sitting.

I want to hear their side of why and how they put their daughter in a plastic bag.
 
I don't think the bag was used as some misguided attempt to keep the baby sleeping flat, I think it was used for convenience. They ditched the buggy for some unknown reason and carrying a baby under their coats like they had been is awkward and heavy, I believe they put her in the nag because it was just easier for them to carry her around. I 100% doubt either her comfort or safety even entered their heads. JMO
I guess a buggy drew more attention to them whilst they moved around...no regard for poor Victoria's health and safety just all about not getting caught
 
I think most of us would assume that there would be a time and a place for co-defendants to chat with each other (not during proceedings). I and I think others would assume or have certainly seen that naturally defendants can and should confer with their defence, though. It just seems brazen they're chatting with each other and not to their counsel or through their counsel.
In practice that would mean attracting the attention of an instructing solicitor by going "Psst" or similar, then asking him can you pass this message on to my co-defendant please. Then does the IS or more likely a clerk from the solicitor's firm walk up and down in front of the dock as a go-between, or does he feel it's unethical to hear whatever the other defendant says and therefore call in the other defendant's IS? Let them confer. The judge is right to allow this.
 
It's for legal reasons that they are allowed to confer.

"Is this line of questioning in cross-examination OK or should he stop pursuing it?"

"Should he put possibility X to this witness?"

"Shall we ask for an adjournment to discuss whether or not we should call witness Y back and put question Q to him before witness Z appears?"

"Do we need to stop and reconsider the offer of a plea bargain?"

They are the two people at the top of the chain on the defence side, in control of their respective teams, and since they're charged jointly they need to cooperate and confer. It's in the interests of justice for them both to be able to put their cases as best they can.

I meant CM and MG in constant conversation with one another outside of the remit of either of their barristers and what they are saying isn't known to either the court, the judge, the jury, or their own barristers.

I'm absolutely shocked about it. It would be down to some prison security guard to say what they overheard if there was an issue I'm guessing?

JMO MOO
 
I don't think the bag was used as some misguided attempt to keep the baby sleeping flat,

I think it was used for convenience. They ditched the buggy for some unknown reason and carrying a baby under their coats like they had been is awkward and heavy, I believe they put her in the bag because it was just easier for them to carry her around. I 100% doubt either her comfort or safety even entered their heads. JMO


This absolutely - whatever made life easier for them


MOO of course
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
171
Guests online
1,615
Total visitors
1,786

Forum statistics

Threads
600,017
Messages
18,102,679
Members
230,969
Latest member
Mr Eric
Back
Top