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]

Court News UK – Court News UK

 

[Carriep]

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.

Assault was alleged by CM. I don't know whether this was during her examination in chief or under cross-ex. If the former then presumably she said it when preparing her case with her solicitor, either as part of own testimony or in commentary on prosecution evidence, and you are right that in either case the defence should have raised it in cross-ex of the arresting officer. But perhaps they did. And even if they didn't, that doesn't bar CM from saying it. AIUI it wasn't that she said "They assaulted Mark" but rather in response to the prosecution's video she said "They edited out the bit where they assaulted Mark". My guess is that there's no dispute that there's a gap in the video. Unfortunately I'm just going by what was reported. Personally I think either there should be a reporting ban or else the transcript of questions and evidence should be published after a short delay, because we're just relying on what the press chooses to report. The court could have heard evidence about this and rebuttal and counter-rebuttal for three hours for all I know.

 

[Carriep]

Court News UK – Court News UK

View attachment 573855

Can someone explain me to when a defendant has the right to leave the dock? My understanding was that if they've got bail to appear in court on such-and-such a date, and they come to court, they still need to get bail again, from the judge, even to leave the dock at lunchtime, and while the court is in session they are basically in custody. As far as we know, CM hasn't had bail at any time since she was arrested in Feb 2023. Is that accurate? So she has been in custody all that time including while the court has been sitting? Where did she go when she left the dock? Didn't the officer whose custody she was in in the dock mind? There may be stuff we're not being told here.

That said, she is presumed innocent and surely she also has a right not to be forced to listen to a description of the decomposition of her daughter's dead body.

 

[Cherwell]

Defendants are still not obliged to attend the trial at all.
I agree that no blame should be attached to her for wanting to avoid that part.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Can someone explain me to when a defendant has the right to leave the dock? My understanding was that if they've got bail to appear in court on such-and-such a date, and they come to court, they still need to get bail again, from the judge, even to leave the dock at lunchtime, and while the court is in session they are basically in custody. As far as we know, CM hasn't had bail at any time since she was arrested in Feb 2023. Is that accurate? So she has been in custody all that time including while the court has been sitting? Where did she go when she left the dock? Didn't the officer whose custody she was in in the dock mind? There may be stuff we're not being told here.

That said, she is presumed innocent and surely she also has a right not to be forced to listen to a description of the decomposition of her daughter's dead body.

This issue was debated before and I researched it at that time. As far as I recall, the defendant (held on remand) is not obliged to attend court but they do have a legal right to be present.

They can refuse to travel to court from their holding cell or they can refuse to come into the court from the holding room of the court. They can also elect to leave the court room and retreat to the holding room.

IIRC there's some requirement that they must understand the charges put to them and be aware they have a right to speak to the judge / jury and be given an opportunity to answer to any questions or state their case, aside from that if they want to waive their right to do so, the proceedings and even sentencing can be conducted in their absence. I hope that's all correct info.

 

[Lucy6226]

I personally don't think she should be able to leave the court. They placed baby Victoria in the bag and left her in the shed. They have admitted that already. She should absolutely stay and listen to the decomposition evidence. They could have rung an ambulance when she woke up and found her deceased, they could have rung the police, left her someone to be found easily so a postmortem (which CM said she wanted) could be carried out soon after death. Instead they left her in a bag in a soiled nappy hidden in an allotment shed. Sorry but I have zero sympathy for these two. Regardless of their past or circumstances that made that choice and have to stick by the consequences of that choice. All moo.

 

[CaptainNancy]

She had MG sitting alongside her in the dock last time. Unless things have changed he seems to have chosen not to be in court most days, leaving her to listen to difficult evidence alone.

However bad (to say the least) I personally think their decision making was (JMO) I don’t think that means they were without feeling.

 

[Nikynoo]

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.

IMO, MGs behaviour on arrest is not relevant to the case and by including it just muddies the water.

 

[Cardgame]

IMO, MGs behaviour on arrest is not relevant to the case and by including it just muddies the water.

This is so interesting, and it's reminding me of stuff we all discussed last time, but I can't remember what the upshot of the discussions were.

I would say it is relevant, insofar as when the police arrested them they were at pains to continue to conceal the whereabouts of the baby. Which is relevant to whether or not they cared more about the baby or themselves.

Which is relevant to the case, since the case is about whether they were misguidedly trying to look after the baby to the best of their ability, or simply trying to 'win' the baby, as a sort of possession, without really caring what happened to her.

Ie there's something about demanding food upon arrest that illustrates how comfortable he is with prioritising his own needs, even in a situation where other people are desperate, distressed, and the stakes are high. It is indicative, maybe, of lack of empathy, or a narcissism, which I would say are relevant to the case because it would indicate behavioural patterns in which children could easily end up as collateral.

But in this case there is very little discussion of their personality or behavioural disorders, no mention of addiction, no mention of any diagnoses. Is that always the case in legal trials? Is it just about whether or not they are mentally fit to stand trial, and any behavioural traits are not seen as relevant?

 

[Carriep]

This is so interesting, and it's reminding me of stuff we all discussed last time, but I can't remember what the upshot of the discussions were.

I would say it is relevant, insofar as when the police arrested them they were at pains to continue to conceal the whereabouts of the baby. Which is relevant to whether or not they cared more about the baby or themselves.

Which is relevant to the case, since the case is about whether they were misguidedly trying to look after the baby to the best of their ability, or simply trying to 'win' the baby, as a sort of possession, without really caring what happened to her.

Ie there's something about demanding food upon arrest that illustrates how comfortable he is with prioritising his own needs, even in a situation where other people are desperate, distressed, and the stakes are high. It is indicative, maybe, of lack of empathy, or a narcissism, which I would say are relevant to the case because it would indicate behavioural patterns in which children could easily end up as collateral.

But in this case there is very little discussion of their personality or behavioural disorders, no mention of addiction, no mention of any diagnoses. Is that always the case in legal trials? Is it just about whether or not they are mentally fit to stand trial, and any behavioural traits are not seen as relevant?

IMO the CPS are trying to show the defendants are self-centred to a point of not being able to look after a child properly. Whether a man who may not have eaten for a month, almost two months after his daughter's death, who now gets some warm food in his hands and it's taken by the police and he says he wants his mayonnaise...whether this helps the crown's case on that particular character point I don't know, but a clash between the two sides on that kind of issue is common in trials.

I would have thought if there was any drug addiction the CPS would have (indeed should have) brought it up. Perhaps they did and it wasn't reported, but I doubt it. JMO but I don't think they're junkies or other drugheads.

Part of what makes this case unusual is her blood family stuff - not anything to do with them being aristocrats as the press have harped on so much, and which is totally irrelevant, but other things that have been reported, or reported as having been stated or alluded to. (JMO etc.)

PS My current guess is p=0.1 that MG will testify. Possible but unlikely.

 

[Nikynoo]

This is so interesting, and it's reminding me of stuff we all discussed last time, but I can't remember what the upshot of the discussions were.

I would say it is relevant, insofar as when the police arrested them they were at pains to continue to conceal the whereabouts of the baby. Which is relevant to whether or not they cared more about the baby or themselves.

Which is relevant to the case, since the case is about whether they were misguidedly trying to look after the baby to the best of their ability, or simply trying to 'win' the baby, as a sort of possession, without really caring what happened to her.

Ie there's something about demanding food upon arrest that illustrates how comfortable he is with prioritising his own needs, even in a situation where other people are desperate, distressed, and the stakes are high. It is indicative, maybe, of lack of empathy, or a narcissism, which I would say are relevant to the case because it would indicate behavioural patterns in which children could easily end up as collateral.

But in this case there is very little discussion of their personality or behavioural disorders, no mention of addiction, no mention of any diagnoses. Is that always the case in legal trials? Is it just about whether or not they are mentally fit to stand trial, and any behavioural traits are not seen as relevant?

But is it relevant to the charges they face now? The concealment charge and the perversion of justice charge have been decided.

The needing of food upon arrest could be for many reasons, but it could simply be survival mode kicking in if MG had been without food for a substantial period of time.

In respect to personality or behavioural disorders, this will be part of the sentencing reports. It is not relevant to the trial period (unless there is a severe mental disorder, but that usually results in a guilty plea (diminished responsibiity) and time spent in a hospital).
ETA sp - fat fingers today

 

[Alyce]

This is so interesting, and it's reminding me of stuff we all discussed last time, but I can't remember what the upshot of the discussions were.

I would say it is relevant, insofar as when the police arrested them they were at pains to continue to conceal the whereabouts of the baby. Which is relevant to whether or not they cared more about the baby or themselves.

Which is relevant to the case, since the case is about whether they were misguidedly trying to look after the baby to the best of their ability, or simply trying to 'win' the baby, as a sort of possession, without really caring what happened to her.

Ie there's something about demanding food upon arrest that illustrates how comfortable he is with prioritising his own needs, even in a situation where other people are desperate, distressed, and the stakes are high. It is indicative, maybe, of lack of empathy, or a narcissism, which I would say are relevant to the case because it would indicate behavioural patterns in which children could easily end up as collateral.

But in this case there is very little discussion of their personality or behavioural disorders, no mention of addiction, no mention of any diagnoses. Is that always the case in legal trials? Is it just about whether or not they are mentally fit to stand trial, and any behavioural traits are not seen as relevant?

whether or not they cared more about the baby or themselves.

'win' the baby, as a sort of possession, without really caring what happened to her.

how comfortable he is with prioritising his own needs, even in a situation where other people are desperate, distressed, and the stakes are high.



All their actions show that they prioritised themselves at every turn and used the baby as a pawn in their self imposed fight against the authorities.


all MOO of course

 

[DianaWW]

Case adjourned for 2 weeks…

Constance Marten case off for two weeks – Court News UK

 

[Cardgame]

But it is relevant to the charges they face now - the concealment charge and the perversion of justice charge have been decided.

The needing of food upon arrest could be for many reasons, but it could simply be survival mode kicking in if MG had been without food for a substantial period of time.

In respect to personality or behavioural disorders, this will be part of the sentencing reports. It is not relevant to the trial period (unless there is a severe mental disorder, but that usually results in a guilty plea (diminished responsibiity) and time spent in a hospital).
ETA sp - fat fingers today

Hmm it's so complicated though because the concealment charge/conviction is relevant to the charges of manslaughter/causing or allowing the death of a child because the question is really WHY did they hide the body?

And what exactly were they trying to hide?

It's quite hard to separate out all those things, into what seems relevant and what doesn't, because it all speaks to the complex nature of the case. It's a giant puzzle.

Interesting re. sentencing reports and personality disorders, thanks for that info.

 

[Cardgame]

Case adjourned for 2 weeks…

Constance Marten case off for two weeks – Court News UK

Do we know why?

Omg i feel so bad for the jury.

 

[Nikynoo]

Hmm it's so complicated though because the concealment charge/conviction is relevant to the charges of manslaughter/causing or allowing the death of a child because the question is really WHY did they hide the body?

And what exactly were they trying to hide?

It's quite hard to separate out all those things, into what seems relevant and what doesn't, because it all speaks to the complex nature of the case. It's a giant puzzle.

Interesting re. sentencing reports and personality disorders, thanks for that info.

BBM - the why doesn't matter, if the evidence supports that the body was concealed, then that is all is needed. The why, possibly may be relevant for sentencing reports. I don't think they were trying to hide anything - if they were, then they would have buried V and kept quiet about where she was buried. I think they were just totally incapable by that point in time - everything was just too hard to deal with (not being sympathetic, just realistic).

 

[Nikynoo]

Do we know why?

Omg i feel so bad for the jury.

Someone is obviously going to holiday and when they come back, its the Easter break .....

 

[CaptainNancy]

IMO, MGs behaviour on arrest is not relevant to the case and by including it just muddies the water.

The judge allowed it though, so must think it relevant in some way? Or at least allowed the video of the arrest to be shown and arresting officers to be questioned on details of the arrest and their behaviour. (As reported in Trial 1)

 

[Lucy6226]

Someone is obviously going to holiday and when they come back, its the Easter break .....

Ah yes, could be a childcare issue for one or more of the jurors

 

[Cardgame]

BBM - the why doesn't matter, if the evidence supports that the body was concealed, then that is all is needed. The why, possibly may be relevant for sentencing reports. I don't think they were trying to hide anything - if they were, then they would have buried V and kept quiet about where she was buried. I think they were just totally incapable by that point in time - everything was just too hard to deal with (not being sympathetic, just realistic).

BBM, but, they were trying to hide something - they were trying to hide the fact that the baby died. We know that, because when the police asked them where the baby was, they refused to answer. They did keep very quiet about her whereabouts, even under intense pressure/police interview. That speaks again to self-preservation, not distress or incapacity.

We don't bury bodies in order to hide them, we bury them to lay them to rest. We bury them to show respect, and to prevent them from openly decomposing, which to a grieving person would heighten their distress.

Stuffing Victoria's body in a plastic bag, covering her up with rubbish, and putting the bag in a random shed seems IMO like *more* of an attempt to hide something than burying her would have been.

Unless they were psychotically disturbed. When you say 'incapable' do you mean to say that they didn't understand that she was dead, or that they had lost their mental capacity to the point where they wanted to 'keep her' even though she had died? That would make more sense to me, of their actions, but then - are they mentally fit to stand trial?

And it still doesn't quite explain why they tried to conceal the FACT of her death from the authorities. If the police had not found the body, then IMO - pure speculation - I believe they would have pretended that they had given her to people traffickers. Pure imagination on my part, but I wonder if that had been part of their plan, when they were on the run.