GUILTY UK - Constance Marten & Mark Gordon charged in death of baby Victoria, GUILTY on all counts incl retrial on manslaughter, 5 Jan 2023 #9

[MrsWatson]

@Lucy6226, thank you so much for sharing your knowledge. Much appreciated. xo

 

[Lucy6226]

@Lucy6226, thank you so much for sharing your knowledge. Much appreciated. xo

No worries

I think it helps understand the decisions made in regards to CM & MG and the system in general.

 

[Deleted member 367833]

This is in today's Sun.

The newspaper states that a "prison source" (who lapses into the royal "we" at one point) says that whereas usually prisoners are allowed to write letters to each other, CM and MG aren't. No reason is stated.

Surely since they were tried together and may wish to coordinate appeals if they haven't already done so, and given further that they will be sentenced together and therefore should be able to coordinate arguments to be made in mitigation, they should be able to communicate with each other. Moreover if even prisoners who haven't got any ongoing legal issues are allowed to correspond with each other, why shouldn't they be?

Child killer Constance Marten 'barred from calling lover in jail,' source claims

EVIL mum Constance Marten has been banned from contacting her rapist lover in jail, a source claimed. Marten, 38, and Mark Gordon, 51, were convicted of gross negligence manslaughter following a re…

www.thesun.co.uk

 

[Parker Knoll]

Because they are a pair of murdering freaks ?

 

[Lucy6226]

This is in today's Sun.

The newspaper states that a "prison source" (who lapses into the royal "we" at one point) says that whereas usually prisoners are allowed to write letters to each other, CM and MG aren't. No reason is stated.

Surely since they were tried together and may wish to coordinate appeals if they haven't already done so, and given further that they will be sentenced together and therefore should be able to coordinate arguments to be made in mitigation, they should be able to communicate with each other. Moreover if even prisoners who haven't got any ongoing legal issues are allowed to correspond with each other, why shouldn't they be?

Child killer Constance Marten 'barred from calling lover in jail,' source claims

EVIL mum Constance Marten has been banned from contacting her rapist lover in jail, a source claimed. Marten, 38, and Mark Gordon, 51, were convicted of gross negligence manslaughter following a re…

www.thesun.co.uk

Because any communication should be done through their solicitors. They have both been found guilty in the same criminal case. Why the heck should they be allowed to contact each other?! MOO

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Because any communication should be done through their solicitors. They have both been found guilty in the same criminal case. Why the heck should they be allowed to contact each other?! MOO

Solicitors and barristers are not a postal service for convicted prisoners though.

Prisoners have the right to make phone calls and write letters.

I'm not sure if there's any rules about one convict phoning or writing to another convict... we'd need to check what UK regulations are but I don't see how they could be banned from communication unless it was court ordered not to make any contact with one another for some reason and that order was enforced.

JMO MOO

 

[pokerowan]

I imagine it's a combination of things - they're not formally married, they're part of the same conviction, they haven't yet been sentenced, and it's likely that communication would hamper each other's rehabilitation outcomes. AFAIK you have to have approval to send letters to specific recipients, and I can't imagine the prison service would grant this for CM&MG.

 

[Zuleika]

Because they are a pair of murdering freaks ?

Yet "prison source" (who lapses into the royal "we" at one point) says that whereas usually prisoners are allowed to write letters to each other "?
What do you know about the crimes of other prisoners who are allowed to write to each other ?
I think your indignation probably stems from your revulsion of their one ,not asking why they allegedly are being treated differently..
JMOO

 

[Deleted member 367833]

Because any communication should be done through their solicitors. They have both been found guilty in the same criminal case. Why the heck should they be allowed to contact each other?! MOO

There's no rule saying prisoners (in this case a husband and wife) found guilty together shouldn't correspond. Moreover one of the functions of prison is to help rehabilitate prisoners and prepare them for stable lives after release. Not MOO but fact.

Also a person doesn't have to be represented by a solicitor.

 

[Deleted member 367833]

I imagine it's a combination of things - they're not formally married, they're part of the same conviction, they haven't yet been sentenced, and it's likely that communication would hamper each other's rehabilitation outcomes. AFAIK you have to have approval to send letters to specific recipients, and I can't imagine the prison service would grant this for CM&MG.

They are formally married. Just their marriage isn't registered with the authorities in this country. (I've sometimes wondered why. Something to do with the trust fund?)

Not having been sentenced yet would add to the case for their being allowed to confer.

(Just as a note: you have to have prison approval to write to another prisoner, but not to write to someone outside prison - except insofar as all non-legal letters are read and vetted. A prisoner can normally write to anyone they like on the outside, with obv exceptions such as harassment and non-contact orders.)

"it's likely that communication would hamper each other's rehabilitation outcomes". IYO. Keeping in touch with friends and family - in this case, with a spouse with whom one has no reason to think she isn't happily married - is considered good for rehabilitation outcomes, ceteris paribus.

Not just Sun readers.

AFAIAA no other newspaper than the Sun has covered this story yet, and if the Guardian, Independent, or Times does cover it I doubt they will adopt the "oh goody gumdrops, she's not being allowed to write to him" approach. (JMO).

 

[Lucy6226]

I imagine it's a combination of things - they're not formally married, they're part of the same conviction, they haven't yet been sentenced, and it's likely that communication would hamper each other's rehabilitation outcomes. AFAIK you have to have approval to send letters to specific recipients, and I can't imagine the prison service would grant this for CM&MG.

Exactly this ^

1. They do not have a legally recognised marriage in the UK.

2. They have yet to be sentenced and may well appeal and therefore retain legal representation. Solicitors can absolutely be used for ongoing communication outside of a trial or open case afaik.

3. Part of the evidence presented was that they put their relationship above all else, including their own children. I mean they couldn't even behave in court! I think it's very likely they will not be allowed to contact each other, I expect the judge might acknowledge this at sentencing.

4. They are in prison and if you commit a crime then you should expect to lose some 'human rights'. Maintaining a romantic relationship is one of them imo.

MOO.

 

[Lucy6226]

I know who did deserve a good life, with access to love, family and friendships.....baby Victoria.

Let's not forget a baby died because of these two - as they have been found guilty by a jury of their peers.

I hope they are cold, hungry and miserable in their cells, surrounded by rubbish and their own p*ss & sh*t just how Victoria died just weeks into her short life.

 

[Maltesepuppy]

I know who did deserve a good life, with access to love, family and friendships.....baby Victoria.

Let's not forget a baby died because of these two - as they have been found guilty by a jury of their peers.

I hope they are cold, hungry and miserable in their cells, surrounded by rubbish and their own p*ss & just how Victoria died just weeks into her short life.

Exactly this. Every single word.
As a society we are meant to defend the vulnerable, those without the ability to defend themselves or speak for themselves.
If we are not able to save them, the least we can do is get justice for them.
Victoria was completely helpless. She was not able to express her wishes but if she had she would have wanted to have her basic needs met. She would have wanted to be loved and prioritised. She would have wanted to be alive, grow up, maybe meet her siblings one day.
She would never have wanted to end up in an unused shed, with a full nappy on and covered with rubbish.
Yet this is how she ended up because she was unlucky enough to be dependent on 2 adults able to make choices, but not one where Victoria was prioritised.
Defending these two shows an incredible lack of empathy and humanity for Victoria. It is beyond me why someone would but it takes all sorts, I guess.

MOO

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

There's no rule saying prisoners (in this case a husband and wife) found guilty together shouldn't correspond. Moreover one of the functions of prison is to help rehabilitate prisoners and prepare them for stable lives after release. Not MOO but fact.

Also a person doesn't have to be represented by a solicitor.

I was reading up on this on a UK prison rules website last night - it's targeted at serving prisoners so they can know their rights and what's what. Seems that yes indeed, corresponding with others is very much encouraged although can be limited. I doubt there's restrictions on these two writing or phoning one another. There may have been whilst they were co-defendants in the same case? or rather their comms would have been scrutinised for guilty statements and clues more like.

JMO MOO

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Exactly this ^

1. They do not have a legally recognised marriage in the UK.

2. They have yet to be sentenced and may well appeal and therefore retain legal representation. Solicitors can absolutely be used for ongoing communication outside of a trial or open case afaik.

3. Part of the evidence presented was that they put their relationship above all else, including their own children. I mean they couldn't even behave in court! I think it's very likely they will not be allowed to contact each other, I expect the judge might acknowledge this at sentencing.

4. They are in prison and if you commit a crime then you should expect to lose some 'human rights'. Maintaining a romantic relationship is one of them imo.

MOO.

Re your last part, people do not lose their human rights when serving in prison. With the one very controversial exception that they do lose their right to vote in elections.

Deprivation of freedom is considered to be one of the most serious things any society can do to another and it is done under strict control - prisons are supposed to be for rehabilitation and to prevent recidivism as much as 'punishment' - the idea, enshrined into law, is to keep the general public safe from an offender, not to punish or torture the offender. The deprivation of liberty is the punishment in and of itself and of course over in other countries they have different ideas, for example maiming, torturing, public displays of humiliation, or the death penalty.

In the UK we don't include torture or humiliation or DP etc in the system. For some people it's a relief to know their imprisonment is permanent but in the case of these two, or at least CM, it probably isn't, so the idea is how does the system release someone back into the community who is less harmful to society than when they went in.

Torturing an innocent baby to death is something that we can never comprehend or retaliate against the perpetrator or we'd be as sick as them.
Some monsters have a whale of a time in prison with many lovers and friends and even members of the public visiting them and fan clubs. Ref Myra Hindley for one. Sadly. JMO MOO

JMO MOO

 

[Alyce]

I imagine it's a combination of things - they're not formally married, they're part of the same conviction, they haven't yet been sentenced, and it's likely that communication would hamper each other's rehabilitation outcomes. AFAIK you have to have approval to send letters to specific recipients, and I can't imagine the prison service would grant this for CM&MG.

Correct. They are not legally or formally a married couple.
Just partners - separated now and probably for quite some time to come, by having been found guilty of killing a baby.

Civil Wedding in Peru​

Only civil ceremonies are legal in Peru. So, if you plan to wed in church, have a romantic celebration on the beach, the blessing of a Shaman, an adventure wedding or whatever, you first have to get legally married.

The civil ceremony can be performed either in the registry office of a municipality or, since December 2022, as well at a public notary.

Marrying in Peru

You are planning to marry in Peru? First, “Congratulations”! Tying the knot in Peru is a simple and easy process, at least if you have a general understanding about the process and, in case a foreigner is involved, have all the necessary documents on hand.

www.limaeasy.com

 

[Alyce]

Exactly this ^

1. They do not have a legally recognised marriage in the UK.

2. They have yet to be sentenced and may well appeal and therefore retain legal representation. Solicitors can absolutely be used for ongoing communication outside of a trial or open case afaik.

3. Part of the evidence presented was that they put their relationship above all else, including their own children. I mean they couldn't even behave in court! I think it's very likely they will not be allowed to contact each other, I expect the judge might acknowledge this at sentencing.

4. They are in prison and if you commit a crime then you should expect to lose some 'human rights'. Maintaining a romantic relationship is one of them imo.

MOO.

3. Part of the evidence presented was that they put their relationship above all else, including their own children.


Absolutely this. Anyone who has taken the time to read ( in depth ) those family court documents can see that they were given numerous chances/opportunities to remain as parents to their other 4 children.
It was extremely sad ( thinking of the small children ) to read how they constantly did not turn up to meetings, did not provide even the most basic information and simply refused to co operate in any way with the authorities who were doing their utmost to help keep them together as a family.....and always, above all, every single time, cm and mg put their own selfish needs above those of the children that they had created together.

 

[elliefant]

Absolutely this. Anyone who has taken the time to read ( in depth ) those family court documents can see that they were given numerous chances/opportunities to remain as parents to their other 4 children.
It was extremely sad ( thinking of the small children ) to read how they constantly did not turn up to meetings, did not provide even the most basic information and simply refused to co operate in any way with the authorities who were doing their utmost to help keep them together as a family.....and always, above all, every single time, cm and mg put their own selfish needs above those of the children that they had created together.

And they weren’t even needs, they were wants and don’t wants.

 

[Deleted member 367833]

This morning, the CPS dropped a charge it had previously laid against Mark Gordon (or "aristocrat's partner", as the Standard calls him in its headline.)

The charge was one of a breach of notification requirements relating to his registration as a sex offender, itself relating to a rape of which he was convicted in the 1980s.

MG appeared unrepresented. He said he wishes to be represented at the sentencing hearing next month but has had difficulty finding representation.

Charge dropped against aristocrat’s partner after baby manslaughter conviction

In July, Constance Marten and Mark Gordon were found guilty of killing baby Victoria after they went off grid to avoid her being taken into care.

www.standard.co.uk

 

[Deleted member 367833]

Correct. They are not legally or formally a married couple.
Just partners - separated now and probably for quite some time to come, by having been found guilty of killing a baby.

Civil Wedding in Peru​

Only civil ceremonies are legal in Peru. So, if you plan to wed in church, have a romantic celebration on the beach, the blessing of a Shaman, an adventure wedding or whatever, you first have to get legally married.

The civil ceremony can be performed either in the registry office of a municipality or, since December 2022, as well at a public notary.

Marrying in Peru

You are planning to marry in Peru? First, “Congratulations”! Tying the knot in Peru is a simple and easy process, at least if you have a general understanding about the process and, in case a foreigner is involved, have all the necessary documents on hand.

www.limaeasy.com

You're married if you've been through a marriage ceremony somewhere, you're both still alive, and you consider that the marriage has not ended.

That the Peruvian state only recognises marriages, of those that take place in Peru itself, that its own officials have carried out may well be true. But it's obviously not true that if you plan to have a "romantic celebration on a beach" or an "adventure wedding" you "first have to get legally married".

If the Peruvian state does not recognise MG and CM's marriage, or "common law marriage", what relevance does this have anyway? The British state does appear to have recognised it insofar as they're not up for perjury after repeatedly calling themselves husband and wife on oath in court. This is even if the media have mostly referred to the relationship as being between an "aristocrat" and an aristocrat's "lover" or "partner", as if it has a status somewhat below the morganatic. It is also even if they are not recognised as married or civilly partnered for tax purposes, although I don't know what the position is in that regard.

"They are not legally or formally a married couple."

The difference between "legally" and "formally" in this parallel amplification being? What would be an example of a couple being formally married but not legally, and why do they not count as this?