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

[jackal67]

The scope for the prosecution to put this kind of explanation to her is why it might be beneficial for the defence if she reconsiders her decision not to undergo cross-examination.

For background to "going on the run", see this episode of BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour from 2019:

Woman's Hour - Repeat removals of children, Joanne Harris on The Strawberry Thief - BBC Sounds

Repeat removals of children, Joanne Harris on The Strawberry Thief

www.bbc.co.uk

with a write-up here:

Mums on the run

On the 4th of April, BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour dedicated much of their podcast to the issue of repeat removals of children into the care system. As a mum who h

transparencyproject.org.uk

and the 2023 BBC documentary that was online here:

BBC News - The Issue, Mums On The Run: Failed By The Family Court

The story of women fleeing the UK with their kids. They say the system has failed them.

www.bbc.co.uk

and is discussed here:

Mums on the Run & Hague Mothers’ response - Hague Mothers

Ed Thomas' powerful BBC documentary: Mums On The Run: Failed By The Family Court has shone a light on one aspect of the Hague Abduction Convention. We are grateful to him and to the courageous mothers who spoke out - albeit anonymously. Their stories need to be heard. Please note, if you are...

www.hague-mothers.org.uk

The difference here though is that CM was not a teenager or young care leaver, She was in a relationship she was middle class well educated had a family and had access to funds , She chose to live in a tent back when she was first pregnant and also not to have even prepared for the birth properly , She has no sympathy from me JMO

 

[Lucy6226]

Judge Lucraft told jurors he had ruled on Thursday that the prosecution can now put forward new evidence in the case, and adjourned the trial for that evidence to be prepared.

Gordon, who is representing himself, went into the witness box to be cross-examined by prosecutor Tom Little KC.
But before any questions were asked, he declared: “All right, that’s it.”
Gordon then suggested he would answer some questions, but added: “If you are asking questions not about the case, I’m not answering.”

Judge Lucraft then clarified if Gordon’s evidence would continue - the defendant replied “no

Judge Lucraft warned him that jurors could draw inferences from his decision to cut short his evidence and said he would direct the jury to give * minimal weight* to the evidence Gordon has already put forward.

Judge Lucraft then told Gordon that he could return to the back of the court, where Marten sat in the dock with her head down.





More at the links .............

Constance Marten's partner Mark Gordon ends manslaughter trial evidence early

Mark Gordon told the court ‘I’m finished with my testimony’ as he returned to the Old Bailey witness box

www.standard.co.uk

Constance Marten’s partner refuses to answer prosecution questions

Constance Marten and Mark Gordon are charged with the manslaughter of their baby daughter Victoria, who died in a tent on the South Downs in 2023.

www.standard.co.uk

Wow, still the entitlement shines through

 

[jackal67]

Judge Lucraft told jurors he had ruled on Thursday that the prosecution can now put forward new evidence in the case, and adjourned the trial for that evidence to be prepared.

Gordon, who is representing himself, went into the witness box to be cross-examined by prosecutor Tom Little KC.
But before any questions were asked, he declared: “All right, that’s it.”
Gordon then suggested he would answer some questions, but added: “If you are asking questions not about the case, I’m not answering.”

Judge Lucraft then clarified if Gordon’s evidence would continue - the defendant replied “no

Judge Lucraft warned him that jurors could draw inferences from his decision to cut short his evidence and said he would direct the jury to give * minimal weight* to the evidence Gordon has already put forward.

Judge Lucraft then told Gordon that he could return to the back of the court, where Marten sat in the dock with her head down.





More at the links .............

Constance Marten's partner Mark Gordon ends manslaughter trial evidence early

Mark Gordon told the court ‘I’m finished with my testimony’ as he returned to the Old Bailey witness box

www.standard.co.uk

Constance Marten’s partner refuses to answer prosecution questions

Constance Marten and Mark Gordon are charged with the manslaughter of their baby daughter Victoria, who died in a tent on the South Downs in 2023.

www.standard.co.uk

So what will happen with the new evidence?

 

[Lucy6226]

The difference here though is that CM was not a teenager or young care leaver, She was in a relationship she was middle class well educated had a family and had access to funds , She chose to live in a tent back when she was first pregnant and also not to have even prepared for the birth properly , She has no sympathy from me JMO

A lot of local authorities are using the PAUSE project or similar which work with parents who've had multiple children removed.

There is support out there and no social worker wants to see children removed, despite what the media states. It takes a huge amount of evidence from social services, police, schools, health ect for the courts to approve removal and all other options must be considered.

But parents need to work with social services and other agencies not against. They need to address the risks and concerns, not carry on regardless like these two. You can't support parents who run around the country!

Pause – Creating Space for Change

A charity working to improve the lives of women who have had – or are at risk of having – more than one child removed from their care.

www.pause.org.uk

 

[Carriep]

Judge Lucraft told jurors he had ruled on Thursday that the prosecution can now put forward new evidence in the case, and adjourned the trial for that evidence to be prepared.

On MG's character possibly. Whatever it is, the defence will be allowed to challenge it and respond to it.

Judge Lucraft warned him that jurors could draw inferences from his decision to cut short his evidence and said he would direct the jury to give * minimal weight* to the evidence Gordon has already put forward.

The reporter hasn't necessarily got this right, and of course there's no comeback if he hasn't. But "minimal weight" to eye-witness evidence from one of the two people who know what happened, and who has made a voluntary statement under oath, laying himself open to prosecution for perjury if he's found to be lying? Let's see if such a direction is made. "Minimal" of course means zero, because that's the minimum weight you can give to something you've heard, i.e. ignore it. I doubt the reporter got this right. JMO.

I have no idea what the defence moves are about here - MG's four decisions: 1 sack counsel, 2 cross-examine wife, 3 give evidence, 4 refuse cross-examination.

One possibility open to him was to say something like "I won't take questions from the CPS but I will take them from judge or jury". He may well have been given an earful and got his fingers rapped if he did, but the words would have been heard.

For the record, I still won't be surprised if CM comes back to the box and allows cross-examination.

 

[Alyce]

Emily Pennink
26 minutes ago


On Friday afternoon, Judge Lucraft sent the jury home until Tuesday, telling them he would be dealing with “some issues of law”.

Constance Marten’s partner refuses to answer prosecution questions

Marten and Mark Gordon are charged with the manslaughter of their baby daughter Victoria, who died in a tent on the South Downs in 2023.

www.standard.co.uk

 

[bobbymkii]

Gordon, who is representing himself, went into the witness box to be cross-examined by prosecutor Tom Little KC.
But before any questions were asked, he declared: “All right, that’s it.”
Gordon then suggested he would answer some questions, but added: “If you are asking questions not about the case, I’m not answering.”

RSBM

Does he think representing himself means that he can pick and choose which questions he answers?

 

[jackal67]

RSBM

Does he think representing himself means that he can pick and choose which questions he answers?

He obviously does!!

 

[jackal67]

On MG's character possibly. Whatever it is, the defence will be allowed to challenge it and respond to it.



The reporter hasn't necessarily got this right, and of course there's no comeback if he hasn't. But "minimal weight" to eye-witness evidence from one of the two people who know what happened, and who has made a voluntary statement under oath, laying himself open to prosecution for perjury if he's found to be lying? Let's see if such a direction is made. "Minimal" of course means zero, because that's the minimum weight you can give to something you've heard, i.e. ignore it. I doubt the reporter got this right. JMO.

I have no idea what the defence moves are about here - MG's four decisions: 1 sack counsel, 2 cross-examine wife, 3 give evidence, 4 refuse cross-examination.

One possibility open to him was to say something like "I won't take questions from the CPS but I will take them from judge or jury". He may well have been given an earful and got his fingers rapped if he did, but the words would have been heard.

For the record, I still won't be surprised if CM comes back to the box and allows cross-examination.

So that,s both of them now that have refused cross examination. Whatever the judge says the jurors will probably draw their own conclusion IMO
The problem for me is a lot of what MG said cannot be verified as the truth, JMO

 

[Skigh]

So that,s both of them now that have refused cross examination. Whatever the judge says the jurors will probably draw their own conclusion IMO
The problem for me is a lot of what MG said cannot be verified as the truth, JMO

Maybe the judge will call other witnesses who might be able to provide an alternative view point as did the landlord when they said how much they cared for and improved the rented properties they lived in.

They both have shown how little respect they have for people in authority.

 

[Carriep]

Here's the Emily Pennink write-up for the PA, possibly more reliable than the piece in the Evening Standard (JMO).

She makes no mention of any "I'm going to direct the jury to give minimal weight to everything you've said" business from the judge:

Constance Marten’s partner refuses to answer prosecution questions

Marten and Mark Gordon are charged with the manslaughter of their baby daughter Victoria, who died in a tent on the South Downs in 2023.

uk.news.yahoo.com

 

[bbsaz]

Here's the Emily Pennink write-up for the PA, possibly more reliable than the piece in the Evening Standard (JMO).

She makes no mention of any "I'm going to direct the jury to give minimal weight to everything you've said" business from the judge:

Constance Marten’s partner refuses to answer prosecution questions

Marten and Mark Gordon are charged with the manslaughter of their baby daughter Victoria, who died in a tent on the South Downs in 2023.

uk.news.yahoo.com

What makes you think the judge didn't say that?
Seems entirely reasonable.

He shouldn't get to say whatever he wants and it stand, but then not be put under scrutiny by the prosecution

 

[MessyLee]

Oh I just knew it that cross examination would be beneath him... oh these two...! Perhaps they planned it together even. There is always ways To keep in touch.
Wonder how the judge will deal with this mess.
And I'd forgotten that they left their cat behind. On a highway, in a Carrier, inside a burning car where the Police found a placenta. And now they should be trusted with a baby in a tent in winter. Smh. "We are not irresponsible people". Oh dear self-reflection.
It's hard to keep count with all the signs of so many different personality disorders these two display. Not diagnosing, just making a perception. None will have anything to do with knowing right from wrong. They know. And it's annoying how they play the court.
JMO

 

[Alyce]

What makes you think the judge didn't say that?
Seems entirely reasonable.

He shouldn't get to say whatever he wants and it stand, but then not be put under scrutiny by the prosecution

Tristan Kirk, Courts Correspondent @kirkkorner
2 hours ago

Judge Mark Lucraft KC, the Recorder of London, said he would direct the jury to give “minimal weight” to the evidence Gordon has already put forward.

Constance Marten's partner Mark Gordon ends manslaughter trial evidence early

Mark Gordon told the court ‘I’m finished with my testimony’ as he returned to the Old Bailey witness box

www.standard.co.uk

Tristan Kirk is a very well respected crime reporter of many years standing. He is not going to misquote the Recorder of London, one of our top Judges.

As the Mods often advise us, scroll and roll... I find that works very well for me.

 

[Skigh]

Emily Pennink
26 minutes ago


On Friday afternoon, Judge Lucraft sent the jury home until Tuesday, telling them he would be dealing with “some issues of law”.

Constance Marten’s partner refuses to answer prosecution questions

Marten and Mark Gordon are charged with the manslaughter of their baby daughter Victoria, who died in a tent on the South Downs in 2023.

www.standard.co.uk

I very much hope the judge said to Gordon: " See you next Tuesday. "

 

[Yellowbelly]

On MG's character possibly. Whatever it is, the defence will be allowed to challenge it and respond to it.



The reporter hasn't necessarily got this right, and of course there's no comeback if he hasn't. But "minimal weight" to eye-witness evidence from one of the two people who know what happened, and who has made a voluntary statement under oath, laying himself open to prosecution for perjury if he's found to be lying? Let's see if such a direction is made. "Minimal" of course means zero, because that's the minimum weight you can give to something you've heard, i.e. ignore it. I doubt the reporter got this right. JMO.

I have no idea what the defence moves are about here - MG's four decisions: 1 sack counsel, 2 cross-examine wife, 3 give evidence, 4 refuse cross-examination.

One possibility open to him was to say something like "I won't take questions from the CPS but I will take them from judge or jury". He may well have been given an earful and got his fingers rapped if he did, but the words would have been heard.

For the record, I still won't be surprised if CM comes back to the box and allows cross-examination.

There has to be some sort of negative consequence for pulling this sort of stunt, otherwise every defendant in every trial would put their case to the jury and then sit down again without cross examination. What the judge is effectively saying is that because the defendants have refused to allow the prosecution to scrutinise their evidence in front of the jury, the jury should ignore it, which to me sounds entirely reasonable.

 

[Maltesepuppy]

Judge Lucraft told jurors he had ruled on Thursday that the prosecution can now put forward new evidence in the case, and adjourned the trial for that evidence to be prepared.

Gordon, who is representing himself, went into the witness box to be cross-examined by prosecutor Tom Little KC.
But before any questions were asked, he declared: “All right, that’s it.”
Gordon then suggested he would answer some questions, but added: “If you are asking questions not about the case, I’m not answering.”

Judge Lucraft then clarified if Gordon’s evidence would continue - the defendant replied “no

Judge Lucraft warned him that jurors could draw inferences from his decision to cut short his evidence and said he would direct the jury to give * minimal weight* to the evidence Gordon has already put forward.

Judge Lucraft then told Gordon that he could return to the back of the court, where Marten sat in the dock with her head down.





More at the links .............

Constance Marten's partner Mark Gordon ends manslaughter trial evidence early

Mark Gordon told the court ‘I’m finished with my testimony’ as he returned to the Old Bailey witness box

www.standard.co.uk

Constance Marten’s partner refuses to answer prosecution questions

Constance Marten and Mark Gordon are charged with the manslaughter of their baby daughter Victoria, who died in a tent on the South Downs in 2023.

www.standard.co.uk

I don't think I can put it into words how arrogant, obnoxious and egotistical I find these two. Apparently opposites attract but these two seem like 2 sides of a coin.
I think their codependence is due to the fact that they reinforce each other's beliefs that they are special; know more than anybody; are incredible parents and have been undeservedly mistreated by a cruel society and world.
They probably would not have lasted with other partners who may have challenged them or even play devil's advocate.
Together, those delusions and fantasy have gone unchallenged and have grown to the point where they think they are the main characters and the court (but generally the world) is their stage.
I believe that their relationship is the most important thing for each of them, well above anyone or anything, including their children.
I think if they had been offered to keep their previous children on the condition that they did not live together, they would have refused and feel outraged at the suggestion.

JMO MOO

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Evacuating from a place very quickly, leaving everything behind except what you need for survival, and going off grid, perhaps because there is no longer a grid or for whatever reason. Users of the term include those who are preparing or "prepping" for social breakdown, known as "preppers". (In the military it just means dropping everything and getting out fast.) I am not suggesting CM or MG were "preppers", but the way I recall this report on CM's testimony it was to do with serious and organised preparation for fast evacuation, "disappearance", and living from a suitcase, so the term "bugging out" seems apposite. My memory may be inaccurate, but I'm fairly sure there was something about bags in three different places, and I think this was in a write-up of the evidence she gave under cross-examination by the crown last time.

Thanks for this helpful explanation, much appreciated.

Indeed they do seem like the sort who were preppers or at least Sov Cits doing a runner (was their whole car not a 'bugging out' situation?) and I think there was talk of having mysterious contacts here and there who fell through, hence the driving around the country.

JMO MOO

 

[Carriep]

Tristan Kirk, Courts Correspondent @kirkkorner
2 hours ago

Judge Mark Lucraft KC, the Recorder of London, said he would direct the jury to give “minimal weight” to the evidence Gordon has already put forward.

Constance Marten's partner Mark Gordon ends manslaughter trial evidence early

Mark Gordon told the court ‘I’m finished with my testimony’ as he returned to the Old Bailey witness box

www.standard.co.uk

Tristan Kirk is a very well respected crime reporter of many years standing. He is not going to misquote the Recorder of London, one of our top Judges.

As the Mods often advise us, scroll and roll... I find that works very well for me.

I don't know what scroll and roll means - although I question the rhetorical value of breaking into verse (does it mean "shut up"?) - or how often Kirk's performance is reviewed, or whether he was in court, but it seems IMO that Kirk has indeed misquoted the judge or at least quoted him out of context.

The authority I've found for my opinion is as follows, but I'll read any relevant citations that can be found with interest:

s35 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994:

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

An Act to make further provision in relation to criminal justice (including employment in the prison service); to amend or extend the criminal law and powers for preventing crime and enforcing that law; to amend the Video Recordings Act 1984; and for purposes connected with those purposes.

www.legislation.gov.uk

"the court or jury, in determining whether the accused is guilty of the offence charged, may draw such inferences as appear proper from the failure of the accused to give evidence or his refusal, without good cause, to answer any question"

IMO a direction to ignore absolutely every single thing a defendant has said under oath (as if he had been completely invisible and inaudible) would be so extreme that it would be unlikely to stand up at appeal. JMO, but based on reading the statute and looking for other authorities and not on how many years a newspaper reporter has been newspaper reporting.

Anyway, this all seems very live to me - given that MG has said he will answer questions that are to do with the case. ("Prone" was an odd choice of word IMO by a party who has so far appeared to be highly articulate IMO.) Perhaps the CPS's intended questions are in the process of being vetted, as MG's questions were, and MG will go back into the witness box.

 

[Carriep]

So that,s both of them now that have refused cross examination. Whatever the judge says the jurors will probably draw their own conclusion IMO
The problem for me is a lot of what MG said cannot be verified as the truth, JMO

Sure but he is the defendant and if he can present a version of events in which he hasn't committed either of the two crimes he's charged with, and the jury can't be sure his version is false, they have to acquit him. What he says doesn't have to be verified as true. Also I am not sure what the crown might conceivably prove him to be lying about if they cross-examined him, that they couldn't prove with testimony from other witnesses.