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

[Lucy6226]

Marten is in the dock at the Old Bailey.
Gordon is absent, and Judge Mark Lucraft KC told jurors: “We hope he will join us, if only on a link, during the course of the day. Carry on as if he were here.”

Mr Little said the couple’s other four children were taken away after “extensive social services interaction”, and he told jurors the criminal trial is “not a re-run of the family proceedings”.
“The lawful decision to take all of the children into care and then for them to be adopted was made by an independent judge who heard and considered all of the evidence and which you will not do because you do not need to”, he said.
“This is not a family court, it is a criminal court. That decision was a lawful and a correct one.
You must, and this is important, therefore proceed in this trial on the basis that those four children were taken into care from these defendants lawfully and properly.
“If any attempt is made by the defendants in this trial to suggest anything to the contrary then that is something that you must and should ignore and it would be, we suggest, a deliberate distraction by them from the reality.”




much more at the link...............

Aristocrat and lover accused of killing baby 'carried newborn in Lidl bag for life'

Constance Marten and Mark Gordon deny manslaughter and causing or allowing the death of a baby

www.standard.co.uk

I'm glad they have set that out right from the beginning. There was no witch hunt to 'steal' their baby. They had already proven to be unfit parents.

 

[Nikynoo]

I thought we knew that.

we did, but someone asked upthread for confirmation.

 

[Nikynoo]

I'm glad they have set that out right from the beginning. There was no witch hunt to 'steal' their baby. They had already proven to be unfit parents.

I'm glad that the prosecution are more cohesive this time around.

 

[Cherwell]

we did, but someone asked upthread for confirmation.

But it said
"It can now be reported for the first time that Marten and Gordon were found guilty of perverting the course of justice and concealing the birth of a child, after a trial which took place over the first half of 2024."

It was reported at the time? I don't remember if they were sentenced though.

 

[Nikynoo]

But it said
"It can now be reported for the first time that Marten and Gordon were found guilty of perverting the course of justice and concealing the birth of a child, after a trial which took place over the first half of 2024."

It was reported at the time? I don't remember if they were sentenced though.

Yes, you're right. I don't remember either. Perhaps they haven't been sentenced yet?

ETA - It was reported in June last year Constance Marten and Mark Gordon found guilty of two charges

ETA again - this sky news article mentions the child cruelty charge - they were obviously not found guilty of this one, or was it dropped?Constance Marten and partner guilty of concealing birth of child and perverting course of justice

 

[Cherwell]

Baffling, isn't it? And things that have been held back are usually disclosed at the end of a trial, not at the beginning.

 

[Nikynoo]

Baffling, isn't it? And things that have been held back are usually disclosed at the end of a trial, not at the beginning.

Yes, odd. This whole saga has been very odd to me. The first trial, I felt that the prosecution didn't really try that hard, their evidence was presented poorly and they should have shut down the sideshow too and didn't.

 

[Baby baby Jane]

Interested to see how defense changes strategy.

 

[Alyce]

Constance Marten and lover 'caused death of newborn baby while on run'

Constance Marten , 37, and Mark Gordon, 50, hid their baby in a shopping bag covered in rubbish when she later died in freezing conditions after weeks on the run, the Old Bailey heard today.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Alyce]

But it said
"It can now be reported for the first time that Marten and Gordon were found guilty of perverting the course of justice and concealing the birth of a child, after a trial which took place over the first half of 2024."

It was reported at the time? I don't remember if they were sentenced though.

Perhaps the report meant it was disclosed to the new Jury for the first time today ?
I agree,it is confusing. As far as we know, they have not been sentenced for the two guilty verdicts yet.




Jurors were told today that the couple have previously been convicted of concealment of the birth of a child and perverting the course of justice

Constance Marten and lover 'caused death of newborn baby while on run'

Constance Marten , 37, and Mark Gordon, 50, hid their baby in a shopping bag covered in rubbish when she later died in freezing conditions after weeks on the run, the Old Bailey heard today.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Carriep]

Yes, you're right. I don't remember either. Perhaps they haven't been sentenced yet?

ETA - It was reported in June last year Constance Marten and Mark Gordon found guilty of two charges

ETA again - this sky news article mentions the child cruelty charge - they were obviously not found guilty of this one, or was it dropped?Constance Marten and partner guilty of concealing birth of child and perverting course of justice

As well as a not guilty verdict on this charge last year, and its being dropped before the retrial, they may have been convicted of it. If there was either kind of verdict, it seems strange to allow two verdicts to be reported but not a third.

 

[Carriep]

Can anyone remember from the first trial? IIRC the prosecution case was that the baby had only recently died whe then parents were apprehended?

It is now the prosecutions case that the baby died in January. (info from link above).

ETA, that means that the 'dubious' witness who saw them in the park, will not be recalled?
ETA - that witness said that the baby being carried was dead. Aristocrat Constance Marten seen with lifeless baby in a sling, trial hears
Wasn't this the witness who changed her statement?

I doubt the CPS will call Pauline Mason this time. Her husband gave evidence as follows:

"I have to mention this, the Babes in the Woods murder. Pauline was convinced she saw them and didn’t report it. If she had reported it, it might have gone differently. This time she was determined to report it."

Also she said she was woken two nights in a row hearing a baby crying.

Recap of trial of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon in sixth day

Live updates as the trial of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon enters its sixth day.

www.theargus.co.uk

 

[Carriep]

Perhaps the report meant it was disclosed to the new Jury for the first time today ?
I agree,it is confusing. As far as we know, they have not been sentenced for the two guilty verdicts yet.




Jurors were told today that the couple have previously been convicted of concealment of the birth of a child and perverting the course of justice

Constance Marten and lover 'caused death of newborn baby while on run'

Constance Marten , 37, and Mark Gordon, 50, hid their baby in a shopping bag covered in rubbish when she later died in freezing conditions after weeks on the run, the Old Bailey heard today.

www.dailymail.co.uk

It's just a reporter or editor wanting to sound important and getting something wrong. The guilty verdicts on two charges were reported before.

 

[Obergine]

Interested to see how defense changes strategy.

I think they prosecution need to change strategy tbh so will be interested to see what that is. The defence was that you couldn't prove it wasn't a tragic accident despite the abhorrent conditions the poor thing was subjected to - and it is hard to think how you can prove either way no matter what we suspect.

 

[jackal67]

I wonder why MG was not in court today?

 

[Obergine]

This article suggests the prosecution is taking an early death angle too: Baby found in Brighton after manhunt died needlessly, jury told

 

[Carriep]

From the prosecution opening speech:

"This is not a family court, it is a criminal court. That decision was a lawful and a correct one.
You must, and this is important, therefore proceed in this trial on the basis that those four children were taken into care from these defendants lawfully and properly. If any attempt is made by the defendants in this trial to suggest anything to the contrary then that is something that you must and should ignore and it would be, we suggest, a deliberate distraction by them from the reality."

I hope the media report the defence opening speech in which surely they will respond to this.

Also just on the strength of this, I reckon in the event of a guilty verdict this would be extremely likely to go to appeal.

A defendant is surely allowed to say that he carried out such and such an action because he believed that an action by a public official or judge was unlawful or improper. Otherwise it could go like this:

Counsel: "You did X?" (With "X" being an action that is not in itself unlawful.)
Witness: "Yes".
Counsel: "Why?"
Witness: "I'd like to tell you, but I'm not allowed to, or at least the Crown has said I should be ignored if I do".

That's not good justice.

 

[Obergine]

From the prosecution opening speech:

"This is not a family court, it is a criminal court. That decision was a lawful and a correct one.
You must, and this is important, therefore proceed in this trial on the basis that those four children were taken into care from these defendants lawfully and properly. If any attempt is made by the defendants in this trial to suggest anything to the contrary then that is something that you must and should ignore and it would be, we suggest, a deliberate distraction by them from the reality."

I hope the media report the defence opening speech in which surely they will respond to this.

Also just on the strength of this, I reckon in the event of a guilty verdict this would be extremely likely to go to appeal.

A defendant is surely allowed to say that he carried out such and such an action because he believed that an action by a public official or judge was unlawful or improper. Otherwise it could go like this:

Counsel: "You did X?" (With "X" being an action that is not in itself unlawful.)
Witness: "Yes".
Counsel: "Why?"
Witness: "I'd like to tell you, but I'm not allowed to, or at least the Crown has said I should be ignored if I do".

That's not good justice.

I read this as the defendants are allowed to say this but that the jury is warned that their beliefs are misplaced and should be disregarded on that basis and / or that the defendents are using these arguments to deliberately mislead the jury and that they should again disregard them.

 

[CaptainNancy]

From the prosecution opening speech:

"This is not a family court, it is a criminal court. That decision was a lawful and a correct one.
You must, and this is important, therefore proceed in this trial on the basis that those four children were taken into care from these defendants lawfully and properly. If any attempt is made by the defendants in this trial to suggest anything to the contrary then that is something that you must and should ignore and it would be, we suggest, a deliberate distraction by them from the reality."

Which link is this in, please?

 

[Carriep]

Which link is this in, please?

It's in here:

Aristocrat and lover accused of killing baby 'carried newborn in Lidl bag for life'

Constance Marten and Mark Gordon deny manslaughter and causing or allowing the death of a baby

www.standard.co.uk