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

[Alyce]

SBM

If he was literally starving he would have eaten the sandwich without mayo.
Asking for mayo seemed to me like an attempt to rebel against authority. Not unlike taking a baby they were incapable of looking after.
And as for hearing his side he had that opportunity and kept quiet.

JMO

This totally.

In fact he would have eaten the food the moment he stepped outside of the shop, instead of waiting until he returned to the shed.

 

[Carriep]

This totally.

In fact he would have eaten the food the moment he stepped outside of the shop, instead of waiting until he returned to the shed.

That is not how starvation works. "Literal" starving is not the same as having a voracious appetite after not having eaten for a while, which is how the word is used in common language. In any case we don't know the plan was for him to wait until he got back to the shed.

If we assume that after several weeks avoiding using a bank card they decided to use one that evening (I realise this isn't definite but it seems likely), ISTM that not being able to cope with hunger any longer has got to be a leading possible explanation for that decision.

 

[JennieM]

That is not how starvation works. "Literal" starving is not the same as having a voracious appetite after not having eaten for a while, which is how the word is used in common language. In any case we don't know the plan was for him to wait until he got back to the shed.

If we assume that after several weeks avoiding using a bank card they decided to use one that evening (I realise this isn't definite but it seems likely), ISTM that not being able to cope with hunger any longer has got to be a leading possible explanation for that decision.

Was he starving for 3 days after his arrest when he wasn’t telling the police where his dead daughter was?

 

[Carriep]

Was he starving for 3 days after his arrest when he wasn’t telling the police where his dead daughter was?

No.

Did he spend those three days demanding the police serve him mayonnaise?

Mayonnaise may not be of huge assistance in getting to grip with the issues in this case, any more than the defendants' sartorial choices of wearing a claw clip and a durag are. By issues I mean issues as to whether or not the defendants are guilty or not guilty of the very serious crimes of manslaughter or causing and allowing the death of their child, for which it is very important that they are tried fairly and (dare I say it) with the presumption of innocence.

 

[Alyce]

www.thelawpages.com


today's schedule

 

[guiser]

(Snipped for focus)

The notion the police spread in the media that after the arrest they needed to act quickly because the baby might still be alive struck me as somewhat questionable to say the least. (JMO)

It might strike you as somewhat questionable but I can assure you that until the moment they found that bag in the shed, they were working on the assumption that there was a possibility the baby might still be alive, however unilkely that outcome might be.

In fact, during the original trial last year, I posted this -

I was at a family funeral on 28th February last year.
My nephew, a Sussex Police Officer, had been up all night on the search and was hugely affected by it.
At that point nobody knew for certain that the baby had died and he felt he should still be out there looking for her.

 

[JennieM]

(Snipped for focus)


It might strike you as somewhat questionable but I can assure you that until the moment they found that bag in the shed, they were working on the assumption that there was a possibility the baby might still be alive, however unilkely that outcome might be.

In fact, during the original trial last year, I posted this -

I was at a family funeral on 28th February last year.
My nephew, a Sussex Police Officer, had been up all night on the search and was hugely affected by it.
At that point nobody knew for certain that the baby had died and he felt he should still be out there looking for her.

I remember your post @guiser.

 

[Carriep]

(Snipped for focus)


It might strike you as somewhat questionable but I can assure you that until the moment they found that bag in the shed, they were working on the assumption that there was a possibility the baby might still be alive, however unilkely that outcome might be.

In fact, during the original trial last year, I posted this -

I was at a family funeral on 28th February last year.
My nephew, a Sussex Police Officer, had been up all night on the search and was hugely affected by it.
At that point nobody knew for certain that the baby had died and he felt he should still be out there looking for her.

I don't doubt what you say for a moment, @guiser. Must have been harrowing for the police officers on the search and also for everyone who lived in the area. Like everyone I hope there is justice for that poor girl, even if I've given the impression that that's unimportant by making points about defendants' rights and implying criticism of the way the police spoke to the media.

 

[Carriep]

I was thinking about the charge of child cruelty, which they were tried for last year but aren't being retried for. There are only three possibilities, namely a not guilty verdict, a guilty verdict, and a hung jury followed by a charge drop.

If they were found not guilty and this hasn't been reported, wouldn't this be something she will be bound to mention in the witness box, even if her barrister's not allowed to mention it? And why retry them on a more serious charge (maximum sentence-wise) of manslaughter, if they've been found not guilty of child cruelty?

The second possibility: if they were found guilty, why wasn't it reported?

And the last possibility: why would the CPS choose to drop this charge, given that it might be considered as a kind of milder alternative to manslaughter? (In this case, she would surely also be likely to say from the witness box that the charge of child cruelty was dropped?)

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I was thinking about the charge of child cruelty, which they were tried for last year but aren't being retried for. There are only three possibilities, namely a not guilty verdict, a guilty verdict, and a hung jury followed by a charge drop.

If they were found not guilty and this hasn't been reported, wouldn't this be something she will be bound to mention in the witness box, even if her barrister's not allowed to mention it? And why retry them on a more serious charge (maximum sentence-wise) of manslaughter, if they've been found not guilty of child cruelty?

The second possibility: if they were found guilty, why wasn't it reported?

And the last possibility: why would the CPS choose to drop this charge, given that it might be considered as a kind of milder alternative to manslaughter? (In this case, she would surely also be likely to say from the witness box that the charge of child cruelty was dropped?)

JMO but the trial was not concluded, a verdict wasn't reached and sentences weren't passed.

I think this was because information was gathered along the way or the situation changed which meant they are still fully held on remand whilst awaiting the outcome of more serious charges that will result in far higher sentence than the possible child cruelty. Also, maybe logically if causing and allowing death or manslaughter is the charge, then child cruelty is implicit.

 

[Yellowbelly]

I was thinking about the charge of child cruelty, which they were tried for last year but aren't being retried for. There are only three possibilities, namely a not guilty verdict, a guilty verdict, and a hung jury followed by a charge drop.

If they were found not guilty and this hasn't been reported, wouldn't this be something she will be bound to mention in the witness box, even if her barrister's not allowed to mention it? And why retry them on a more serious charge (maximum sentence-wise) of manslaughter, if they've been found not guilty of child cruelty?

The second possibility: if they were found guilty, why wasn't it reported?

And the last possibility: why would the CPS choose to drop this charge, given that it might be considered as a kind of milder alternative to manslaughter? (In this case, she would surely also be likely to say from the witness box that the charge of child cruelty was dropped?)

Because if they were found guilty (or not guilty for that matter) of child cruelty that could prejudice the re-trial on the manslaughter charge by influencing the jury if it was reported, so in those circumstances the judge could decide to maintain the reporting restrictions with regards to that verdict.

I do agree with your first point, though. If they were found not guilty of child cruelty in the first trial, the re-trial for manslaughter makes no sense.

 

[Cardgame]

I was thinking about the charge of child cruelty, which they were tried for last year but aren't being retried for. There are only three possibilities, namely a not guilty verdict, a guilty verdict, and a hung jury followed by a charge drop.

If they were found not guilty and this hasn't been reported, wouldn't this be something she will be bound to mention in the witness box, even if her barrister's not allowed to mention it? And why retry them on a more serious charge (maximum sentence-wise) of manslaughter, if they've been found not guilty of child cruelty?

The second possibility: if they were found guilty, why wasn't it reported?

And the last possibility: why would the CPS choose to drop this charge, given that it might be considered as a kind of milder alternative to manslaughter? (In this case, she would surely also be likely to say from the witness box that the charge of child cruelty was dropped?)

prejudicial? Perhaps? Not sure I am using that word correctly but it would make sense to me. If they've been found guilty of that, it might influence the jury this time round, and therefore deemed unfair to the defendants?

 

[Carriep]

prejudicial? Perhaps? Not sure I am using that word correctly but it would make sense to me. If they've been found guilty of that, it might influence the jury this time round, and therefore deemed unfair to the defendants?

Yes, that's possible.

But guilty verdicts on two non-harm charges (concealing the birth and perverting the course of justice) have been allowed to be reported. If they were found guilty of cruelty, it's possible a line was drawn between this and the other two verdicts because this is a harm charge, and therefore in a class with the two on which it was reported (and it's clear anyway because they're being retried) that there was no verdict.

As someone with no inside knowledge, I'd say any of the three possibilities for what happened with the cruelty charge could easily have happened. If it was not guilty or a charge drop, CM will probably mention it. If it was guilty, she probably won't.

 

[Nikynoo]

I was thinking about the charge of child cruelty, which they were tried for last year but aren't being retried for. There are only three possibilities, namely a not guilty verdict, a guilty verdict, and a hung jury followed by a charge drop.

If they were found not guilty and this hasn't been reported, wouldn't this be something she will be bound to mention in the witness box, even if her barrister's not allowed to mention it? And why retry them on a more serious charge (maximum sentence-wise) of manslaughter, if they've been found not guilty of child cruelty?

The second possibility: if they were found guilty, why wasn't it reported?

And the last possibility: why would the CPS choose to drop this charge, given that it might be considered as a kind of milder alternative to manslaughter? (In this case, she would surely also be likely to say from the witness box that the charge of child cruelty was dropped?)

I’ve been wondering the same

 

[CaptainNancy]

Going back to the arrest scene (sorry!) it was reported by the police witness in the first trial that it is not usual to allow suspects to eat while an arrest is in process, but they gave him his sandwich 'because it seemed the humane thing to do'.

Where is the allegation or suggestion that MG was assaulted by police? Referred to in a post above? Has he taken advantage of the opportunity to listen to the prosecution case in court and agreed to appear as a witness to his own defence this time? To explain his side of the story?

 

[Scorpiette]

No reports in the media for a while. Is the trial still continuing or has there been a pause?

 

[Alyce]

Today's schedule




www.thelawpages.com

 

[Alyce]

No reports in the media for a while. Is the trial still continuing or has there been a pause?

It is progressing each day. I've just posted up today's schedule above. I think, as has been said, the media are not rushing to write articles which will just be a repeat of the evidence from the first trial.
I suspect however, that if we get the same kind of defence performance as with trial one, then the media might decide to report that part of the trial.



Edited to add, scheduled back at 10am tomorrow.



www.courtserve.net

 

[Nikynoo]

Going back to the arrest scene (sorry!) it was reported by the police witness in the first trial that it is not usual to allow suspects to eat while an arrest is in process, but they gave him his sandwich 'because it seemed the humane thing to do'.

Where is the allegation or suggestion that MG was assaulted by police? Referred to in a post above? Has he taken advantage of the opportunity to listen to the prosecution case in court and agreed to appear as a witness to his own defence this time? To explain his side of the story?

I’m not sure I understand your post. How is the allegation of assault relevant to this case?

 

[CaptainNancy]

I’m not sure I understand your post. How is the allegation of assault relevant to this case?

I don't know! That is what I am wondering.

In CarrieP's post of Mar 19th they say Yes of course. At that time didn't she tell the police "He's got a mental health problem" or something like that? In court last time she also said the police edited out the bit where they assaulted him.

My question is what allegation of assault? As far as I know the defence did not raise this wrt the arrest evidence? But OK, I can see that this was an allegation of CM's. And presumably the defence would have had a forensic look at any alleged editing of police video of the arrest that was shown in court.

But IMO if there was an allegation of assault, with evidence, then that could very likely affect a jury's view of the context and MG's behaviour during arrest. JMO.