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

[Kye Zeeb]

No jury is monolithic. My guess (only a guess) is that the large majority of the questions were asked by a single person, at a rate of one question every 20 or 30 minutes, which AFAIAA has never happened before in England's entire legal history in such a lengthy trial. That suggests a highly unusual personality. Of course the person has a right to do this, but all rights come with responsibilities, and a person's actions will give an impression of that person to other people with whom they are cooped up in a room tasked with engaging in a cooperative endeavour. That impression may differ from the impression the person has of themself.

Perhaps it's something straightforward. If one juror is asking a lot of questions, they could have a day job such as a lawyer or analyst. JMO.

 

[Alyce]

Jury gone home. Back 11.30am tomorrow.

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

 

[QB2022]

Eurgh!

 

[JennieM]

So, who wants to place a bet. Will Rishi call the election before the Jury comes back with a verdict? We might even have a new government before we get a verdict.

He has, 4 July!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-69042935

 

[Anastasia101]

If the judge directs a majority verdict Is this information always public knowledge and reportable or can it be suppressed?

 

[BreadnLumpit]

He has, 4 July!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-69042935

What are the odds on there being a verdict before polling day?

 

[Alyce]

So, who wants to place a bet. Will Rishi call the election before the Jury comes back with a verdict? We might even have a new government before we get a verdict.

Well called @Obergine

 

[Alyce]

If the judge directs a majority verdict Is this information always public knowledge and reportable or can it be suppressed?

In Trials I’ve followed, we have always known when Judge has offered the majority option. However, I don't know if it’s mandatory for it to be announced.

 

[Alyce]

What are the odds on there being a verdict before polling day?

I’m not putting a bet on that… I see 2074 looming closer each day.

 

[Maltesepuppy]

Well called @Obergine

@Obergine lottery numbers please?

 

[Anastasia101]

I’ll put my £ on Boris (version 2.0) leading his beloved country out of austerity before this verdict is read

 

[Maryanna]

Perhaps it's something straightforward. If one juror is asking a lot of questions, they could have a day job such as a lawyer or analyst. JMO.

MOO: It sounds like a person who has exceptionally strong self-belief but few social skills. I doubt it's a lawyer. A high street practitioner specialising in conveyancing, remortgaging, filling in tax forms and representing alleged shoplifters would be likely to show much more deference in such illustrious company, and if they were higher up the scale I think the collegiality would kick in. If the aetiology is law-related and Dunning Kruger-flavoured it might possibly be somebody who dropped out of a law course way back when, or who is long retired. But I'd go for someone who has social work, medical, or state schoolteaching connections, perhaps not as a current occupation but at one remove. We should count ourselves lucky insofar as there haven't been any reports of them shouting "Objection!" at any point. Hopefully they haven't done more than display questionitis and petition for the court's timetabling to be rearranged. I can easily imagine a fellow juror telling them that they've said an awful lot, and that if they can manage to keep quiet for a whole day the other jurors may possibly be able to get their disagreements sorted. I say this from the POV of feeling that a verdict is preferable to no verdict.

PS I opposed lifting the pre-2004 restriction on letting lawyers serve on juries. Most lawyers I knew at the time opposed it too. It was kinda sweet to hear them say that as lawyers they'd never know from personal experience what went on in jury rooms. They thought that was a good thing.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Or maybe it’s just a regular person with a lot of questions ?
We can micro analyse this until the cows come home but it’s pointless.
We just have to wait.

 

[JennieM]

Or maybe it’s just a regular person with a lot of questions ?
We can micro analyse this until the cows come home but it’s pointless.
We just have to wait.

How many questions have we all asked here in this thread ….!

 

[Alyce]

Or maybe it’s just a regular person with a lot of questions ?
We can micro analyse this until the cows come home but it’s pointless.
We just have to wait.

Yes, absolutely this. Interesting that names change but words remain the same

 

[porkypies]

MOO: It sounds like a person who has exceptionally strong self-belief but few social skills. I doubt it's a lawyer. A high street practitioner specialising in conveyancing, remortgaging, filling in tax forms and representing alleged shoplifters would be likely to show much more deference in such illustrious company, and if they were higher up the scale I think the collegiality would kick in. If the aetiology is law-related and Dunning Kruger-flavoured it might possibly be somebody who dropped out of a law course way back when, or who is long retired. But I'd go for someone who has social work, medical, or state schoolteaching connections, perhaps not as a current occupation but at one remove. We should count ourselves lucky insofar as there haven't been any reports of them shouting "Objection!" at any point. Hopefully they haven't done more than display questionitis and petition for the court's timetabling to be rearranged. I can easily imagine a fellow juror telling them that they've said an awful lot, and that if they can manage to keep quiet for a whole day the other jurors may possibly be able to get their disagreements sorted. I say this from the POV of feeling that a verdict is preferable to no verdict.

PS I opposed lifting the pre-2004 restriction on letting lawyers serve on juries. Most lawyers I knew at the time opposed it too. It was kinda sweet to hear them say that as lawyers they'd never know from personal experience what went on in jury rooms. They thought that was a good thing.

In my own experience as a question-asker (when I don't understand or need some more detail) I have learned that it's the loud-mouthed controllers who minimise peoples questions and concerns - often because our understanding and knowledge is a threat to their position and hold on a group.

 

[bbsaz]

Or maybe it’s just a regular person with a lot of questions ?
We can micro analyse this until the cows come home but it’s pointless.
We just have to wait.

Indeed. I am terrible for asking questions in work meetings. Everyone laughs/groans as I pipe up constantly. In a 30minute meeting, I will probably ask 3 questions and between the rest of the 20 people on the meeting, they might ask 3 in total too. I just don't like grey areas or wishy washy answers. I need to understand things properly, or it bugs me.

 

[bbsaz]

Basically, you wouldn't want to be on a jury with me. I would drag the trial out 10x longer than planned because of all my questions. I'm just a regular person, Uni educated and curious.

 

[Luwin]

Better to ask a question and clarify your understanding than to remain quiet and base your decision on something you later found out you misunderstood IMO

 

[JennieM]

1 hour ago

Jury resumes deliberations​

The jury has resumed its deliberations in the Old Bailey trial of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon who deny manslaughter by gross negligence of their baby daughter Victoria

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