UK - Constance Marten & Mark Gordon charged, Newborn (found deceased), Bolton Greater Manchester, 5 Jan 2023 #7

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Telltale said:
It's not a lack of transparency. You can go sit in the public gallery. It's just reporting restrictions while the trial is ongoing. Once the verdict is reached and the reporting cannot have any influence on the trial, then all the salacious details will come out.
Click to expand...
It's also crazy to me that they take all the steps you've mentioned to not influence the trial. But at the same time the defendant(s) sit in front of the jury in a glass panelled dock surrounded by prison guards like some sort of dangerous caged animal and are only able to communicate with their legal counsel by passing scribbled notes to them via a court usher while proceedings are taking place.

This is the only trial I have actually been able to go and sit in the public gallery in person. In order to watch this trial you have to queue up outside the court building and then in the corridoor for hours and hope there's room because the public gallery only has 3 rows of seats and you're not allowed to sit in the front row, and you can barely see the witness stand from any of the seats. And there's a long list of everyday items that you're not allowed to take into the court building, such as mobile phones, and disposable vapes. And barely any court documents or filings are publicly available to view by ordinary proles like us.

That's not a justice system that is transparent, that's a justice system that is terrified of a citizenry that might be remotely well-informed if they ever find themselves accused of a crime by the Crown!
 
bobbymkii said:
[...]the defendant(s) sit in front of the jury in a glass panelled dock surrounded by prison guards like some sort of dangerous caged animal and are only able to communicate with their legal counsel by passing scribbled notes to them via a court usher while proceedings are taking place.

This is the only trial I have actually been able to go and sit in the public gallery in person. In order to watch this trial you have to queue up outside the court building and then in the corridoor for hours and hope there's room because the public gallery only has 3 rows of seats and you're not allowed to sit in the front row [...]there's a long list of everyday items that you're not allowed to take into the court building, such as mobile phones, and disposable vapes.
Click to expand...
The glass dock is permanently in situ, so I doubt anyone is going to draw any inferences from it. It could also be interpreted as providing protection for the defendants from anyone in the gallery who might wish to launch a bare hands attack. Personally, I would also far rather have a glassed in dock than armed guards in the court room, as happens in the US.

IMO communicating via written notes makes sense, as it prevents proceedings being perpetually audibly interrupted.

Searching people entering the court room is perfectly normal. It happens in the US too, and not allowing mobiles into the court both protects sub judice rules and entirely removes the chance of phones ringing, buzzing or otherwise distracting the court.

Vapes not being allowed makes perfect sense to me too. I actually prefer the smell of cigarette smoke to being enveloped in clouds of weirdly scented vapour - and I'm not a smoker lol.
 
Maryanna said:
I don't think they should have been prosecuted at all, or hunted, or arrested, or that the trial should have been allowed to proceed.

But here we are. If there really have been over 100 or nearly 200 questions from jurors, this is an extremely unusual jury, although not necessarily regarding more than one of its members.

This case will IMO have repercussions whether the jury returns verdicts of all NG, all G, or if the result is a mixture of two or more out of NG, G, and hung.
Click to expand...
So jtt so they should have been left to it with no questions asked? Even after leaving a dead body of a baby in a shed?, they should just be left to live their life producing children one after the other that they have no caability of looking after? I really dont get where youre coming from with this comment.
 
Last edited:
i think they would have trouble moving abroad and stopping for any long period of time. Sex offenders have an endorsement stamped in their passports but how this is checked i wouldnt know however if it was a spot check by officials or police in that country i imagine you can bribe them with a bit of cash..anyhow im going off on a tangent…
The countries listed below do not curreltly allow sex offenders in at all -interestingly Peru is on the list..this is from a US law site however am sure it applies to sex offenders from any country.

Go to RegistrantTag’s Travel Matrix, which compiles accounts of which countries are currently turning away sex offenders. Currently, the following countries do not allow in sex offenders:
  • Argentina
  • Australia
  • Bahamas
  • Brazil
  • Cayman Islands
  • Cambodia
  • Canada
  • Chile
  • China
  • Colombia
  • Costa Rica
  • Dominican Republic
  • Dubai
  • Ecuador
  • Fiji
  • Greece
  • Haiti
  • Honduras
  • India
  • Indonesia
  • Israel
  • Kenya
  • Korea
  • Jamaica
  • Japan
  • Laos
  • Malaysia
  • Mexico
  • New Zealand
  • Nicaragua
  • Panama
  • Peru
  • Philippines
  • Senegal
  • Singapore
  • St. Lucia
  • Taiwan
  • Thailand
  • Ukraine
  • United Kingdom
  • Vietnam
 
Last edited:
bobbymkii said:
It's also crazy to me that they take all the steps you've mentioned to not influence the trial. But at the same time the defendant(s) sit in front of the jury in a glass panelled dock surrounded by prison guards like some sort of dangerous caged animal and are only able to communicate with their legal counsel by passing scribbled notes to them via a court usher while proceedings are taking place.

This is the only trial I have actually been able to go and sit in the public gallery in person. In order to watch this trial you have to queue up outside the court building and then in the corridoor for hours and hope there's room because the public gallery only has 3 rows of seats and you're not allowed to sit in the front row, and you can barely see the witness stand from any of the seats. And there's a long list of everyday items that you're not allowed to take into the court building, such as mobile phones, and disposable vapes. And barely any court documents or filings are publicly available to view by ordinary proles like us.

That's not a justice system that is transparent, that's a justice system that is terrified of a citizenry that might be remotely well-informed if they ever find themselves accused of a crime by the Crown!
Click to expand...
Imagine then, being party to childcare proceedings...................
 
Amaz0nia said:
i think they would have trouble moving abroad and stopping for any long period of time. Sex offenders have an endorsement stamped in their passports but how this is checked i wouldnt know however if it was a spot check by officials or police in that country i imagine you can bribe them with a bit of cash..anyhow im going off on a tangent…
The countries listed below do not curreltly allow sex offenders in at all -interestingly Peru is on the list..this is from a US law site however am sure it applies to sex offenders from any country.

Go to RegistrantTag’s Travel Matrix, which compiles accounts of which countries are currently turning away sex offenders. Currently, the following countries do not allow in sex offenders:
  • Argentina
  • Australia
  • Bahamas
  • Brazil
  • Cayman Islands
  • Cambodia
  • Canada
  • Chile
  • China
  • Colombia
  • Costa Rica
  • Dominican Republic
  • Dubai
  • Ecuador
  • Fiji
  • Greece
  • Haiti
  • Honduras
  • India
  • Indonesia
  • Israel
  • Kenya
  • Korea
  • Jamaica
  • Japan
  • Laos
  • Malaysia
  • Mexico
  • New Zealand
  • Nicaragua
  • Panama
  • Peru
  • Philippines
  • Senegal
  • Singapore
  • St. Lucia
  • Taiwan
  • Thailand
  • Ukraine
  • United Kingdom
  • Vietnam
Click to expand...
I posted something about travel, a couple of months back. Much depends on whether MG is 'on licence', in which case it is up to his probabtion officer. If MG is on the SRO but not on licence, he just needs to inform the police Advice for people on the Sex Offender Register
 
Last edited:
Amaz0nia said:
i think they would have trouble moving abroad and stopping for any long period of time. Sex offenders have an endorsement stamped in their passports but how this is checked i wouldnt know however if it was a spot check by officials or police in that country i imagine you can bribe them with a bit of cash..anyhow im going off on a tangent…
<snip>
Click to expand...
Do British sex offenders have endorsements put in their passports?

If this is so, the endorsement would go on the observations page, which is the page on the same spread as the ID page and nowadays has a copy of your photo that's a bit duller than the main one.

As for how a passport would be checked, it wouldn't have to be a spot check - it would be either when applying for a visa or when entering the country, the exception being the countries that are in a common travel area with Britain, namely Ireland, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man. True that you might be able to bribe a border official at some remote border post.
 
bobbymkii said:
That's not a justice system that is transparent, that's a justice system that is terrified of a citizenry that might be remotely well-informed if they ever find themselves accused of a crime by the Crown!
Click to expand...
On a personal level I'd love it if everything was reported on, 1 because I'm interested in the case and its complex issues, all of us here on this thread are invested to some degree, and 2 because I'm nosy! But there's reasons it's not 'transparent' and a free for all with all the details until after verdicts are read. There's a jury for a reason, they're the ones who have been selected to hear the evidence and decide. The 12 members of the jury are there to represent us, the UK public. It's not as if they've been accused and a decision is made on guilty or not guilty by some single shadowy figure behind closed doors, who isn't held accountable, without any evidence shown, it's all just decided by some scary, harsh monster and that's that. I think the UK justice system is long overdue a good sorting out and bringing up to date, but it's what we use and isn't so far out of touch that it's 'wrong'

I'm not the most articulately refined but I think I've made sense there :) tried to anyway! MOO
 
Amaz0nia said:
So jtt so they should have been left to it with no questions asked? Even after leaving a dead body of a baby in a shed?, they should just be left to live their life producing children one after the other that they have no caability of looking after? I really dont get where youre coming from with this comment.
Click to expand...
Forcibly stopping people from having children is a crime against humanity. No other country in the world classifies any woman as unfit to have children or to "produce" them "one after the other" to use your terminology.
 
Maryanna said:
Do British sex offenders have endorsements put in their passports?

If this is so, the endorsement would go on the observations page, which is the page on the same spread as the ID page and nowadays has a copy of your photo that's a bit duller than the main one.

As for how a passport would be checked, it wouldn't have to be a spot check - it would be either when applying for a visa or when entering the country, the exception being the countries that are in a common travel area with Britain, namely Ireland, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man. True that you might be able to bribe a border official at some remote border post.
Click to expand...
any endorsement would probably be electronic these days.
 
OrangeCash said:
On a personal level I'd love it if everything was reported on, 1 because I'm interested in the case and its complex issues, all of us here on this thread are invested to some degree, and 2 because I'm nosy! But there's reasons it's not 'transparent' and a free for all with all the details until after verdicts are read. There's a jury for a reason, they're the ones who have been selected to hear the evidence and decide. The 12 members of the jury are there to represent us, the UK public. It's not as if they've been accused and a decision is made on guilty or not guilty by some single shadowy figure behind closed doors, who isn't held accountable, without any evidence shown, it's all just decided by some scary, harsh monster and that's that. I think the UK justice system is long overdue a good sorting out and bringing up to date, but it's what we use and isn't so far out of touch that it's 'wrong'

I'm not the most articulately refined but I think I've made sense there :) tried to anyway! MOO
Click to expand...
I think the UK legal system is far superior than other countries. I get that there is no document dump post trial, but to me, this serves no purpose other than the feed the curiosity of the public. I would, however, like to see at least audio being broadcast for trials where serious offences are being tried.
 
Nikynoo said:
I posted something about travel, a couple of months back. Much depends on whether MG is 'on licence', in which case it is up to his probabtion officer. If MG is on the SRO but not on licence, he just needs to inform the police Advice for people on the Sex Offender Register
Click to expand...
I was thinking more about whether they would be granted entry to another country..i know someone who was refused entry from UK to transit via the USA to mexico
 
Maryanna said:
Forcibly stopping people from having children is a crime against humanity. No other country in the world classifies any woman as unfit to have children or to "produce" them "one after the other" to use your terminology.
Click to expand...
I never and have never said anything about forcibly stopping anyone having children so thats off topic, just that i think they should be held accountable for the remains of their 5th child being found decomposing in a shed & they need to take responsibility for that. Actions and consequences.
 
Maryanna said:
Forcibly stopping people from having children is a crime against humanity. No other country in the world classifies any woman as unfit to have children or to "produce" them "one after the other" to use your terminology.
Click to expand...
She can have em. She just can't keep em.
Her 'right' to be a mother does not trump her child's right to be safe, cared for and alive.

<modsnip>

Pretty comfortable with social services removing any future kids she has directly from the birth canal. If you kill a baby while on the run from very warranted SS intervention, you don't get to have a do over baby.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Amaz0nia said:
I was thinking more about whether they would be granted entry to another country..i know someone who was refused entry from UK to transit via the USA to mexico
Click to expand...
were they entering the US at any point? If so, they would have need an esta, otherwise no one would no, as there would not be any restrictions placed on their passport. Certainly not in the UK or Europe (Human Rights). I know of a teacher who is on the SR and they now live in montenegro. It really does depend on the conditions placed on him when he arrived in the UK and we dont know that (yet). I bet there is an argument that can be had in relation to his age when that offence was committed and whether someone in the same circumstances at that time, would have has their passport removed or travel restricted in some way. We don't know whether that argument has been made (when he came back to the UK) and we don't know whether he has comitted any other crimes since returning either

As I have posted before, he and his crime would have been treated differently in the UK in the 90s when there was a big move to understand juvenile crimes. If that crime had been committed in the UK, I do really wonder whether we would know about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 243 more.
Total: 4,252 (members: 244, guests: 4,008)

Online statistics

Members online
244
Guests online
4,008
Total visitors
4,252
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,778
Messages
17,975,190
Members
228,894
Latest member
dolly1504
Back
Top