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

[Maltesepuppy]

Then why not bury the body rather than leaving it in a shopping bag under a pile of rubbish?

 SBM

Quite. What happened to didn't want to bury or cremate the body because she had hoped for an autopsy?
Only then she didn't want the autopsy.
She ought to write her lies down.
IMO MOO

 

[Nikynoo]

Interesting take by CM.

My memory of that time, seeing the case in the media and the appeals to find CM and MG and their baby is that I felt that the police were primarily concerned gif their welfare, and possibly because there were complications concerning their welfare that was not being stated because it was confidential.

Certainly no sense that they were dangerous individuals. Not at all,

I remember that time too. My immediate thought was that they had had other children removed and that perhaps was why they had gone on the run.

 

[CaptainNancy]

And after a bit… and googling came up with some background, concern for her, wondering about coercion, her safety, but the implication was never that they were a danger to the public.
The warnings from the police are clear when that is the case.
Plus, many of their interactions with the public seemed to be offers of help or kindness, whether they were recognised or not.
No mobs chasing them down the street.

 

[Lucy6226]

And after a bit… and googling came up with some background, concern for her, wondering about coercion, her safety, but the implication was never that they were a danger to the public.
The warnings from the police are clear when that is the case.
Plus, many of their interactions with the public seemed to be offers of help or kindness, whether they were recognised or not.
No mobs chasing them down the street.

I've always thought that, they were only ever a danger to themselves and their children.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Interesting take by CM.

My memory of that time, seeing the case in the media and the appeals to find CM and MG and their baby is that I felt that the police were primarily concerned gif their welfare, and possibly because there were complications concerning their welfare that was not being stated because it was confidential.

Certainly no sense that they were dangerous individuals. Not at all,

I suppose that people who have severely failed several small children to the point they had all been removed from their care and who furthermore are on the run with a newborn that subsequently died are by default the most dangerous people in society.

Maybe the thinking is that people who wilfully endanger their own babies are probably not going to hesitate when it comes to total strangers.

If CM felt it was being implied she was dangerous, perhaps she's right.

JMO MOO

 

[Legally Bland]

...

 

[tricia]

Death Investigator and host of the podcast Body Bags, Joseph Scott Morgan, joins Websleuths.com for Ask Me Anything on Wednesday, May 7th at 8 PM Eastern.
Websleuths members, post your questions at the link below, and then join us live on Wednesday as Joseph Scott Morgan answers your questions on Websleuths.
Post questions at this link Joseph Scott Morgan, Death Investigator, Ask Me Anything May 7th @8:00 PM Eastern
Josepth Scott Morgan host of Body Bags

 

[tricia]

The Rebel Justice podcast is being allowed because it has an interview with the actual person involved. Rebel Justice is approved for this podcast only.
Thanks,
Tricia

 

[Carriep]

Then why not bury the body rather than leaving it in a shopping bag under a pile of rubbish?

Anyway, how is this part of the evidence relevant to the charge she faces? She's already been found guilty of PTCOJ over not reporting the death.

I'm not sure what they were charged with doing that the prosecution held was a perversion of the course of justice (and of which they were convicted). It must surely have been something other than not reporting the death, because that was covered under concealing the birth (which confusingly is about the "secret disposition" of a child's dead body - see s60 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 - link below).

Nor presumably was it going on the run, given that the police said publicly that they weren't wanted on suspicion of any crime.

Perhaps it was to do with them not answering questions for a while, or possibly lying about something (?), in the police station.

Whatever it was, it would have been mentioned in the arraignment (in actual court), because a defendant has to be told at that point what they are accused of doing that the crown says constituted the specified crime.

Offences Against the Person Act 1861

www.legislation.gov.uk

If they are acquitted of the two charges they are being retried for, mitigation arguments regarding the PTCOJ offence, of which they were found guilty at the first trial, could be interesting. Although a lot might depend on what happened on the fifth charge - cruelty.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I'm not sure what they were charged with doing that the prosecution held was a perversion of the course of justice (and of which they were convicted). It must surely have been something other than not reporting the death, because that was covered under concealing the birth (which confusingly is about the "secret disposition" of a child's dead body - see s60 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 - link below).

Nor presumably was it going on the run, given that the police said publicly that they weren't wanted on suspicion of any crime.

Perhaps it was to do with them not answering questions for a while, or possibly lying about something (?), in the police station.

Whatever it was, it would have been mentioned in the arraignment (in actual court), because a defendant has to be told at that point what they are accused of doing that the crown says constituted the specified crime.

Offences Against the Person Act 1861

www.legislation.gov.uk

If they are acquitted of the two charges they are being retried for, mitigation arguments regarding the PTCOJ offence, of which they were found guilty at the first trial, could be interesting. Although a lot might depend on what happened on the fifth charge - cruelty.

I could be wrong but I think they were charged and agreed something to do with not reporting or not registering a birth? I think that would be 'an agreed fact'?

 

[Yellowbelly]

I'm not sure what they were charged with doing that the prosecution held was a perversion of the course of justice (and of which they were convicted). It must surely have been something other than not reporting the death, because that was covered under concealing the birth (which confusingly is about the "secret disposition" of a child's dead body - see s60 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 - link below).

Nor presumably was it going on the run, given that the police said publicly that they weren't wanted on suspicion of any crime.

Perhaps it was to do with them not answering questions for a while, or possibly lying about something (?), in the police station.

Whatever it was, it would have been mentioned in the arraignment (in actual court), because a defendant has to be told at that point what they are accused of doing that the crown says constituted the specified crime.

Offences Against the Person Act 1861

www.legislation.gov.uk

If they are acquitted of the two charges they are being retried for, mitigation arguments regarding the PTCOJ offence, of which they were found guilty at the first trial, could be interesting. Although a lot might depend on what happened on the fifth charge - cruelty.

I should probably try and look it up from the first trial, but my understanding of the PTCOJ charge was that by not reporting the death they prevented the Coroner from holding an inquest.

 

[Carriep]

I should probably try and look it up from the first trial, but my understanding of the PTCOJ charge was that by not reporting the death they prevented the Coroner from holding an inquest.

I think it must have been more than just not reporting the death. Given that the birth hadn't been registered, that would be the same as what constitutes the offence of concealing the birth - and given that the cause of death must necessarily in such cases be officially unknown, the case would have to be passed to a coroner. Then everyone guilty of concealing a birth would be guilty of PTCOJ.

I can't remember exactly but weren't they charged with one bunch of offences and then at a later point charged with another bunch on top?

 

[dotr]

2024 re-posts

Constance Marten and Mark Gordon guilty of two charges

The couple will face a retrial - possibly in March 2025.

www.bbc.com

''The couple had faced charges in this trial of manslaughter by gross negligence, causing or allowing the death of a child, child cruelty, concealing the birth of a child and perverting the course of justice.
They had both pleaded not guilty to all the charges.''

Jury told baby’s death ‘entirely avoidable’ as Marten and Gordon retrial begins

Couple deny manslaughter of newborn by gross negligence and second charge of causing or allowing death of a child

www.theguardian.com

''A wealthy aristocrat and her partner caused the “entirely avoidable” death of their baby daughter through their “reckless” and “grossly negligent” conduct while on the run to evade authorities, a retrial has heard.
Constance Marten, 37, and Mark Gordon, 50, of no fixed abode, deny manslaughter of their newborn by gross negligence and a second charge of causing or allowing the death of a child between 4 January and 27 February 2023.''

 

[Carriep]

They weren't charged with all five offences at the same time.

On 2 March 2023 they were charged with manslaughter, concealing a birth, and PTCOJ.

On 10 July 2023 it "emerged" (see the Independent article) that they faced "new charges" of child cruelty and causing or allowing a death.


FIRST THREE CHARGES:

Constance Marten and Mark Gordon: A timeline of events ahead of Friday court case

The couple were charged with gross negligence manslaughter after the remains of a baby were found by Sussex police early in March

www.standard.co.uk

Gross negligence manslaughter charges authorised against aristocrat and partner

Constance Marten and Mark Gordon are also accused of concealing the birth of a child and perverting the course of justice.

www.standard.co.uk

CPS authorises charges against Constance Marten and Mark Gordon | The Crown Prosecution Service

web.archive.org

NEXT TWO CHARGES:

Aristocrat and partner face new charges after death of their baby daughter

Constance Marten and Mark Gordon were charged with manslaughter by gross negligence on March 2 after the body of baby Victoria was found in Brighton

www.independent.co.uk

 

[CaptainNancy]

Mark Gordon is now representing himself, it seems

Mark Gordon to represent himself in retrial over death of baby with Constance Marten

"Jurors at the Old Bailey were told on Tuesday that Mark Gordon’s previous barrister John Femi-Ola KC and his junior Jodie-Jane Hitchcock had “withdrawn” from the case and that the defendant has chosen to represent himself.

Mr Gordon will submit the questions he wishes to ask during the trial in written form to the judge"

 

[Obergine]

Magna Carta Mark is going to represent himself: Mark Gordon to represent himself in trial over death of baby girl, court told

 

[Obergine]

We cross posted - what a twist.

 

[Obergine]

Wasn't he described somewhere as 'Magna Carta Wibbler'

 

[Skigh]

We cross posted - what a twist.

It really is unbelievable !!

 

[Lucy6226]

Oh that's not going to end well is it?!