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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
<modsnip - quoted post was removed>

If Private Investigators were trying to track down CM and MG, they didn't manage to locate them at a time when they would have been desperate to in order to save the baby's life. I can imagine that if the family are wealthy enough to do so, they absolutely would have paid people to try and track the couple down, knowing that the baby was in a high level of risk, why wouldn't they? I would.

CM is implying that the investigators *did* manage to track them down sufficient to place bugs / trackers on their cars and plant explosive devices which were later detonated, a story that IMO is frankly insane and implies they were all being subjected to a hit man trying to kill them not PIs trying to locate them.

JMO MOO
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From The Argus link - thanks Diana



11:23am




Legal arguments​

There will be some delay while legal arguments are dealt with.
We will update you as soon as proceedings resume.



www.theargus.co.uk

Recap: Trial of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon continues

Updates as the trial of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon continues with Marten being cross-examined.
www.theargus.co.uk www.theargus.co.uk
 

GROSS NEGLIGENCE MANSLAUGHTER​

This is where the defendant fails grossly (very seriously) in their duty of care towards the victim, resulting in their death. To be convicted of gross negligence manslaughter, the victim’s death must have been a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s action.

DEFENCE TO GNM
For gross negligence manslaughter, you may be able to mount a defence on the basis that your actions were not bad enough to be considered grossly negligent. The courts have interpreted this to mean an act must be truly, exceptionally bad.
In some circumstances, you may be able to rely upon what is called a ‘general defence’ to manslaughter. General defences relate to the person accused rather than the crime itself.
Mistake: This defence could apply if you were mistaken as to certain factual circumstances and would not have committed the offence is you had known otherwise.
link - A Guide to Manslaughter Defences from Expert Lawyers

There are other defences, self-defence, duress, automatism, insanity and intoxication.
 
Nikynoo said:

GROSS NEGLIGENCE MANSLAUGHTER​

This is where the defendant fails grossly (very seriously) in their duty of care towards the victim, resulting in their death. To be convicted of gross negligence manslaughter, the victim’s death must have been a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s action.

DEFENCE TO GNM
For gross negligence manslaughter, you may be able to mount a defence on the basis that your actions were not bad enough to be considered grossly negligent. The courts have interpreted this to mean an act must be truly, exceptionally bad.
In some circumstances, you may be able to rely upon what is called a ‘general defence’ to manslaughter. General defences relate to the person accused rather than the crime itself.
Mistake: This defence could apply if you were mistaken as to certain factual circumstances and would not have committed the offence is you had known otherwise.
link - A Guide to Manslaughter Defences from Expert Lawyers

There are other defences, self-defence, duress, automatism, insanity and intoxication.
Click to expand...
Does the "reasonably foreseeable consequence" (paragraph 1) have to be:
1. Reasonably foreseeable by the defendant...
or
2. Reasonably foreseeable by an ordinary person who is not the defendant?
(Edited: spelling).
 
Kye Zeeb said:
Does the "reasonably foreseeable consequence" (paragraph 1) have to be:
1. Reasonably foreseeable by the defendant...
or
2. Reasonably foreseeable by an ordinary person who is not the defendant?
(Edited: spelling).
Click to expand...
I believe the standard is the 'ordinary person', e.g. the man in the clapham omnibus.
 
Last edited:
Just a quick question to clarify something procedural. IMO a lot of what CM has said so far in Court sounds like areas of what could be seen as mitigation. Is mitigation something that is purely taken into account by the Judge in sentencing, in the event of a guilty verdict, rather than something that is used by the jury in reaching a verdict?
 
I really do feel sorry for the older children, who will inevitably go back and read these statements when they're older and become interested in what happen to them in their birth family.

All adopted children know they have a complicated family history. Few have it made so public, with such mudslinging for public consumption.

I wonder if one day, one of them will find these threads as they try and make sense of their own history; something we should all be mindful of when posting.

Screenshot_20240314_131646.jpg
 
Family could also give very damaging testimony as they know a lot about her prior behavior.

There are legit reasons they, or the trustees did hire PI, it could have been to locate her to sign documents, attend required meetings related to her trust, deal with items maybe related to her, perhaps many parking tickets, or other violations of the cars were using trustee or family address or MG impersonating family members (like at the hospital).
The payments, might have been “stopped” because she was not reachable.
Trusts and trustees have certain obligations and CM maybe not complying ….
All speculation but there are many reasons they might have been trying to locate her, and get her to attend a meeting or deal with her financial matters. Her not signing documents could have impeded other matters being resolved.

Not sure anything her family did diminishes her responsibility for a newborn.
MG not her husband, not her Civil Partner, has no legal tie to CM. He does have parental rights for baby, was an adult present at time of neglect, could have taken more care of baby than he did for his shoes.
 
rightsaidfred said:
I really do feel sorry for the older children, who will inevitably go back and read these statements when they're older and become interested in what happen to them in their birth family.

All adopted children know they have a complicated family history. Few have it made so public, with such mudslinging for public consumption.

I wonder if one day, one of them will find these threads as they try and make sense of their own history; something we should all be mindful of when posting.

View attachment 490441
Click to expand...
You said it perfectly
 
Kye Zeeb said:
Just a quick question to clarify something procedural. IMO a lot of what CM has said so far in Court sounds like areas of what could be seen as mitigation. Is mitigation something that is purely taken into account by the Judge in sentencing, in the event of a guilty verdict, rather than something that is used by the jury in reaching a verdict?
Click to expand...
I don't believe it can officially be used by the jury, however I do think it is difficult to look at it a discard those things that have been said.
 
Baby baby Jane said:
Torch in her mouth … she watches too many crime shows. Get a torch and try it. Makes you drool, very easy to drop it from teeth onto baby. Imagine poor baby this torch shining into her face.
CM your pants are on fire!
Click to expand...
Could MG not hold a torch for her? I mean that would be the obvious thing to do! JMO but I think there probably wasn't much (any) nappy changing going on after dark!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 56 more.
Total: 2,587 (members: 57, guests: 2,530)

Online statistics

Members online
57
Guests online
2,530
Total visitors
2,587
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,856
Messages
18,130,779
Members
231,162
Latest member
Kaffro
Back
Top