UK - Constance Marten & Mark Gordon charged, Newborn (found deceased), Bolton Greater Manchester, 5 Jan 2023 #4

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I would have expected that too

Maybe if the judge and jury find them guilty of 'causing or allowing a death' then they'll be looking at further charges in the future?

Or maybe they've got exceptionally effective barristers who have had a whole slew of charges taken off the table already?

JMO MOO pure speculation

 

[rockthecasbah]

It says adjourned, does that mean it's finished for today?

Ed: I see it's back at 2pm

 

[bobbymkii]

*sigh*

 

[Legally Bland]

3:23pm

Case adjourned​

The jury are due to be sent home and the case will now be adjourned until tomorrow due to administrative issues.
We will be here tomorrow bringing you live coverage of case which is now set to open tomorrow.

Recap: Trial of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon adjourned to tomorrow

Constance Marten and Mark Gordon to face trial.

www.theargus.co.uk

 

[JTT]

Hello everyone. I just read today's live blog in the Argus. Questions that arise:

* Was CM in court? (MG was.)
* Have the jurors been sworn in yet? (Seems probably not.)
* Regarding charges, have any been removed from the indictment or added to it, or won't we know until the clerk reads the indictment out to the jurors?

 

[JTT]

Maybe if the judge and jury find them guilty of 'causing or allowing a death' then they'll be looking at further charges in the future?

Or maybe they've got exceptionally effective barristers who have had a whole slew of charges taken off the table already?

JMO MOO pure speculation

Both are unlikely IMO. If there'd been any other charges than the five, it's hard to think why they wouldn't have been reported. It's not unusual for a collection of charges to change at the moment a trial begins. Nor for alternatives to be offered. E.g. a jury can be advised that if they decide the facts are X then they must say guilty of murder and not guilty of manslaughter, and if they decide the facts are Y then they must bring a verdict of not guilty to murder and guilty to manslaughter. Of the five offences that CM and MG are charged with, the one that stands out is child cruelty, although AIUI there need not be evidence that a defendant has deliberately caused a child to suffer for this to be proved, and showing neglect can be sufficient. Perhaps gross negligence manslaughter and child cruelty are intended as alternatives in this case. This is pure speculation. Soon if proper reporting of the prosecution's opening speech is allowed and published we will find out.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Hello everyone. I just read today's live blog in the Argus. Questions that arise:

* Was CM in court? (MG was.)
* Have the jurors been sworn in yet? (Seems probably not.)
* Regarding charges, have any been removed from the indictment or added to it, or won't we know until the clerk reads the indictment out to the jurors?

I assume if that court artist's drawing posted up thread is from today.
If so, it would seem the both of them appeared, however, it may not be.

The Argus update says tomorrow the jury will be sworn in and the prosecution case set out.
So I assume it takes a while to swear in each member of the jury, then the remainder of the day is spent by the court room hearing the prosecution state their case?

 

[Nikynoo]

I assume if that court artist's drawing posted up thread is from today.
If so, it would seem the both of them appeared, however, it may not be.

The Argus update says tomorrow the jury will be sworn in and the prosecution case set out.
So I assume it takes a while to swear in each member of the jury, then the remainder of the day is spent by the court room hearing the prosecution state their case?

I think that’s an old artist sketch because it was reported that MG was wearing a shirt and tie today. There was no new report confirming CMs attendance as far as I can see.

 

[Twittens]

Hello, just catching up with the threads, so apologies if this has been discussed to death already, but I just wanted to draw attention to this investigation by Sky News from last year into allegations of sexual misconduct and abuse at East 15 acting school, where CM was a student. The allegations date back to 2014. CM enrolled in 2014 and left in 2016 after meeting MG, so may have been affected by similar events and it might explain why she dropped out and/or why she was then vulnerable enough to get into a relationship with a registered sex offender.

'I was forced to smell soiled underwear': Inside the culture of abuse at the UK's top drama schools

Just speculation/MOO, but I wonder whether repeated exposure to trauma (first the cult and then - possibly - this) might form part of her defence.

Background:
Who are Constance Marten and Mark Gordon? The story behind the runaway heiress

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Hello, just catching up with the threads, so apologies if this has been discussed to death already, but I just wanted to draw attention to this investigation by Sky News from last year into allegations of sexual misconduct and abuse at East 15 acting school, where CM was a student. The allegations date back to 2014. CM enrolled in 2014 and left in 2016 after meeting MG, so may have been affected by similar events and it might explain why she dropped out and/or why she was then vulnerable enough to get into a relationship with a registered sex offender.

'I was forced to smell soiled underwear': Inside the culture of abuse at the UK's top drama schools

Just speculation/MOO, but I wonder whether repeated exposure to trauma (first the cult and then - possibly - this) might form part of her defence.

Background:
Who are Constance Marten and Mark Gordon? The story behind the runaway heiress

That was a very well written concise but full article by the Cosmopolitan IMO

Hard to say what may have taken CM down the path she took, or drifted into. I guess we'll maybe never know but it seems her relationship with MG was a pivotal event, even if some unfortunate things happened prior and she was somehow vulnerable.

JMO MOO

 

[bobbymkii]

Recap: Constance Marten and Mark Gordon trial at the Old Bailey

Live updates from the trial of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon accused of gross negligence manslaughter

www.theargus.co.uk

 

[rightsaidfred]

The local newspaper has started their live feed, though as of 10.40am there's nothing of note on there

Recap: Constance Marten and Mark Gordon trial at the Old Bailey

Live updates from the trial of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon accused of gross negligence manslaughter

www.theargus.co.uk

 

[Legally Bland]

10:46am

The jury are currently being sworn in.

10:54am
Marten to appear via video link
The jury has just been read the charges Gordon and Marten face.

Gordon is in court, but Marten is not. She will appear via video link.

Recap: Constance Marten and Mark Gordon trial at the Old Bailey

Live updates from the trial of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon accused of gross negligence manslaughter

www.theargus.co.uk

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Regarding CM non attending in person, is that a choice she would have? An arrangement with her barrister and the courts? Or because she has refused to attend?

Maybe this is the 'paperwork issue' the judge had to deal with yesterday?

Will CM be together with a member of the team from her barrister's chambers on the live link or alone (with prison officers)?

I suppose as it's the defence setting out the case, there is no expectation of her to say anything except listen. Does she have to say 'yes' when the charges read, such as 'do you understand the charges put to you?'

 

[Skigh]

Taking a short break !! They have only been there a short while . If they keep stopping for breaks this case will still be being heard by Christmas.

 

[JTT]

Hello, just catching up with the threads, so apologies if this has been discussed to death already, but I just wanted to draw attention to this investigation by Sky News from last year into allegations of sexual misconduct and abuse at East 15 acting school, where CM was a student. The allegations date back to 2014. CM enrolled in 2014 and left in 2016 after meeting MG, so may have been affected by similar events and it might explain why she dropped out and/or why she was then vulnerable enough to get into a relationship with a registered sex offender.

'I was forced to smell soiled underwear': Inside the culture of abuse at the UK's top drama schools

Just speculation/MOO, but I wonder whether repeated exposure to trauma (first the cult and then - possibly - this) might form part of her defence.

Background:
Who are Constance Marten and Mark Gordon? The story behind the runaway heiress

In itself that wouldn't be part of a defence, unless it was used as grounds for a claim that she was insane at the time of the events, and there's been no indication of such a submission.

 

[Alyce]

Regarding CM non attending in person, is that a choice she would have? An arrangement with her barrister and the courts? Or because she has refused to attend?

Maybe this is the 'paperwork issue' the judge had to deal with yesterday?

Will CM be together with a member of the team from her barrister's chambers on the live link or alone (with prison officers)?

I suppose as it's the defence setting out the case, there is no expectation of her to say anything except listen. Does she have to say 'yes' when the charges read, such as 'do you understand the charges put to you?'

I think she will have to have provided a very good reason why she can't attend.
I doubt she would have a member of Chambers with her. She won't be required to do anything today ( other than listen as you said ) and her KC and any other staff from Chambers can all link to her if need be.

Re charges - they have both already been charged and entered their pleas at an earlier hearing. Today will be just the Prosecution outlining the case.

 

[JTT]

Regarding CM non attending in person, is that a choice she would have? An arrangement with her barrister and the courts? Or because she has refused to attend?

Maybe this is the 'paperwork issue' the judge had to deal with yesterday?

Will CM be together with a member of the team from her barrister's chambers on the live link or alone (with prison officers)?

I suppose as it's the defence setting out the case, there is no expectation of her to say anything except listen. Does she have to say 'yes' when the charges read, such as 'do you understand the charges put to you?'

No it's not a choice a defendant would have, nor does a defendant have a right to refuse to attend. "Remand" means they have to return to the dock. With MG the position was that he claimed he was in severe pain and asked for a medic, but for some reason a medic did not examine him in good time to verify whether he was or not. If that's so, then they don't use force to bring someone to court. The reason is clear: it's not the defendant's fault that no medic came when they asked for one. If a medic decides a defendant is fit to return to the dock, then they certainly can use force.

The defence don't respond to the prosecution opening speech by setting out their own case. That's not how a criminal trial works. A lengthy defence opening speech is rare.

 

[JTT]

I think she will have to have provided a very good reason why she can't attend.
I doubt she would have a member of Chambers with her. She won't be required to do anything today ( other than listen as you said ) and her KC and any other staff from Chambers can all link to her if need be.

Re charges - they have both already been charged and entered their pleas at an earlier hearing. Today will be just the Prosecution outlining the case.

I have no idea why she's not in court. I wouldn't assume it's on a request from the defence. It could be that the crown requested that she attend only by videolink.

Or there could have been special reasons yesterday and today which will stop pertaining, allowing her to attend from tomorrow onwards.

I don't know why people are assuming she doesn't want to be in court. Have there been any reports that suggest this or that are open to this interpretation?

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

No it's not a choice a defendant would have, nor does a defendant have a right to refuse to attend. "Remand" means they have to return to the dock. With MG the position was that he claimed he was in severe pain and asked for a medic, but for some reason a medic did not examine him in good time to verify whether he was or not. If that's so, then they don't use force to bring someone to court. The reason is clear: it's not the defendant's fault that no medic came when they asked for one.

The defence don't respond to the prosecution opening speech by setting out their own case. That's not how a criminal trial works. A lengthy defence opening speech is rare.

Ah my apologies, I caused a bit of confusion, I can't edit my above post now it's too late.
I meant to say the prosecution setting out their case which as we know is the correct order of events and also what was scheduled for today's hearing.

I always suspected that CM would not be able to tolerate sitting in court listening to the prosecution case and the charges made against her, JMO and pure speculation, so it's most interesting to me that now she isn't. I'd be interested to know on what grounds she's excused from court / refused to attend.

JMO MOO