VERDICT WATCH UK - Constance Marten & Mark Gordon charged, Newborn (found deceased), Bolton Greater Manchester, 5 Jan 2023 #8

[QB2022]

Regardless of criminal outcome, I do wonder how risk will be managed going forward. She still has years of being able to carry pregnancies and has shown the lengths they are capable of going to. I know our family court system operates on a very different basis to criminal courts but I wonder how they will manage the risk she will get pregnant again

 

[Maltesepuppy]

This is so very true. I would be fascinated by the psychology behind why it's perceived differently when it's a newborn death. As if a newborn isn't a real human, yet...?

I'm so mad about this. It's because they are using the "cot death could have happened to anyone" narrative. Which is CM'S version of events, a woman who has openly admitted she lies as it suits her. CM and MG have even admitted that they concocted what they were going to say before they were arrested.
Even if what she said was true, Victoria died because she was in a jacket, being held by a mother who had not slept/eaten properly because they made the choice to be in the run.
One thing that maddens me the most is that they refused to disclose where the body was and this has played on their favour. Once Victoria had passed away, there was no need to hold on to her. There was no need to "protect" her from the evil SS. They left the body to rot with rubbish to save their own skin.
This has always been about them.
MOO. JMO

 

[rockthecasbah]

And to add to this, the 4 older siblings would have been able to make contact at 18. Instead they will be having to read that their birth parents were dragging her around the country, thinking of handing her over a people smuggler from gumtree.

Potentially sooner as social services encourage contact between birth siblings as being in children's best interests.

 

[rightsaidfred]

Potentially sooner as social services encourage contact between birth siblings as being in children's best interests.

Victoria may have joined them by being adopted into the same family as one or more of the older siblings

 

[Kittypoo]

This is getting absolutely ridiculous. 2 weeks?!

Looking at today’s listings there are very few trials so maybe the judge/court staff are away

 

[BreadnLumpit]

Regardless of criminal outcome, I do wonder how risk will be managed going forward. She still has years of being able to carry pregnancies and has shown the lengths they are capable of going to. I know our family court system operates on a very different basis to criminal courts but I wonder how they will manage the risk she will get pregnant again

There is no way of managing the risk - forced contraception is not allowed (quite rightly IMO, because the bad outcomes from going down that road would far outweigh the good).

So she will get pregnant again, and she will conceal the pregnancy again (which is not illegal), and she will give birth in secret again.

Now they may or may not actually have made a viable long term plan next time around, but I suspect it's more likely that pigs will take to the skies. So, one way or another, that baby too will fall victim to the chaos. It may live - or live a little longer but sure as ova are ova it will either die or (with luck) be removed into care.

I once arranged a funeral for a woman who had had 13 children taken into care. Nothing stops people like CM except menopause.

 

[QB2022]

There is no way of managing the risk - forced contraception is not allowed (quite rightly IMO, because the bad outcomes from going down that road would far outweigh the good).

So she will get pregnant again, and she will conceal the pregnancy again (which is not illegal), and she will give birth in secret again.

Now they may or may not actually have made a viable long term plan next time around, but I suspect it's more likely that pigs will take to the skies. So, one way or another, that baby too will fall victim to the chaos. It may live - or live a little longer but sure as ova are ova it will either die or (with luck) be removed into care.

I once arranged a funeral for a woman who had had 13 children taken into care. Nothing stops people like CM except menopause.

That is just so desperately sad

 

[BreadnLumpit]

That is just so desperately sad

It absolutely is.

It has tragic long term consequences for the children concerned, and for society as a whole - because damaged children do not make for well rounded adults. But it's an unsolvable problem without moving into the realms of dystopia

 

[Maryanna]

If they are found not guilty, will she be breaking the law if she repeats in front of news cameras what she said in the witness box, namely that her older children were stolen from her by the state?

This is a serious question. I mean are such statements considered to be a breach of the secrecy that applies to proceedings in the family court?

(Independent, 11 March 2024: source for the quote about theft by the state.)

 

[Maryanna]

WTF. If this is some obstinate person failing to agree forever, it'll be their fault if the trial collapses.

IMO

Only if the jury goes down to 9. A verdict of 9-1 is allowed, at least after a judge gives a majority direction.

The assumption is that having considered the evidence and discussed what needs to be discussed, to vote guilty a juror must decide that they are sure according to their conscience and not just follow the others and say the hell with their conscience.

The majority is not always right.

"They are slaves who dare not be,
In the right with two or three"

Juries in England also have a nullification right FWIW:

Jury nullification - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In this case we have no idea which way the voting is going. Now that they are at an even number again it could even be split down the middle.

 

[QB2022]

If they are found not guilty, will she be breaking the law if she repeats in front of news cameras what she said in the witness box, namely that her older children were stolen from her by the state?

This is a serious question. I mean are such statements considered to be a breach of the secrecy that applies to proceedings in the family court?

(Independent, 11 March 2024: source for the quote about theft by the state.)

They can get court orders to prevent it, it's a very common issue. They can attach a penal notice which then makes it enforceable criminally. The argument is that its harmful to the children

 

[Rolypolyoly]

Regardless of criminal outcome, I do wonder how risk will be managed going forward. She still has years of being able to carry pregnancies and has shown the lengths they are capable of going to. I know our family court system operates on a very different basis to criminal courts but I wonder how they will manage the risk she will get pregnant again

To put it quite simply, they can't.

@BreadnLumpit has put the reasons into words perfectly.

 

[Cherwell]

How on earth are the jury expected to keep enough of the evidence given in the trial in their heads with this stop / start nonsense? Sure, they will have transcripts etc but isn't the whole point that the jury witness the trial. After 6 months who would be able to conjure up feelings and impressions and tone of voice etc

This is why I felt so uneasy about the Letby trial. Months and months of prosecution evidence before the defence were able to put their side. I can't help feeling it would have been fairer, and much easier for the jury, if the defence had been able to address each charge as it arose.

 

[CaptainNancy]

This is why I felt so uneasy about the Letby trial. Months and months of prosecution evidence before the defence were able to put their side. I can't help feeling it would have been fairer, and much easier for the jury, if the defence had been able to address each charge as it arose.

I guess the potential problem with that would be that a jury are not supposed to know the criminal record / conviction history of a defendant...which they would had they been the ones to give the verdict on previous charges.

 

[Alyce]

The Crown Court at Central Criminal Court

Daily Courtroom List for Monday 17 June 2024 ​

FINAL 1 Court 6 - sitting at 10:15 am THE RECORDER OF LONDON​ Trial (Part Heard) T20237104 GORDON Mark A 01MP1072723 SUSWM CPS MARTEN Constance 01MP1072723 DEFENDANTS VIA CVP, Order made under Contempt of Court Act 1981 www.courtserve.net​

 

[OrangeCash]

DEFENDANTS VIA CVP, Order made under Contempt of Court Act 1981

In this Act “the strict liability rule” means the rule of law whereby conduct may be treated as a contempt of court as tending to interfere with the course of justice in particular legal proceedings regardless of intent to do so.

Does that suggest one/both have been behaving inappropriately in court? Maybe shouting out or talking over someone, that kind of thing? Hmm

MOO

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

In this Act “the strict liability rule” means the rule of law whereby conduct may be treated as a contempt of court as tending to interfere with the course of justice in particular legal proceedings regardless of intent to do so.

Does that suggest one/both have been behaving inappropriately in court? Maybe shouting out or talking over someone, that kind of thing? Hmm

MOO

I was wondering similar but also perhaps the reverse scenario - what if one or both are refusing to leave their cell to attend court? Would or could that be 'contempt'?

 

[Parker Knoll]

No - if they refuse to come up then there is nothing anyone can do.

 

[bbsaz]

Maybe they kicked off when it was adjourned for 2 weeks? I can see that happening because in their mind they are entirely innocent and now have to spend another 2 weeks in prison

 

[Kye Zeeb]

In this Act “the strict liability rule” means the rule of law whereby conduct may be treated as a contempt of court as tending to interfere with the course of justice in particular legal proceedings regardless of intent to do so.

Does that suggest one/both have been behaving inappropriately in court? Maybe shouting out or talking over someone, that kind of thing? Hmm

MOO

The listing has the same contempt of court statement when it's DTA (defendants to attend). I suspect they may have switched to video to avoid having to ferry the defendants backwards and forwards between prison and court until it's clearer when there will be a verdict. JMO.