VERDICT WATCH UK - Constance Marten & Mark Gordon charged, Newborn (found deceased), Bolton Greater Manchester, 5 Jan 2023 #8

New Posts

ShadowPuppet said:
I agree, though I think one of them could easily have alcohol issues (not necessarily dependent). Weren’t beer cans found in the bag with Victoria’s body and wine stains in the holiday house? I appreciate wine stains could be blood, but most people would be able to tell the difference.
Click to expand...
Didnt one of their barristers bring up drugs and alcohol? Anyone remember this? I thought it odd as we hadnt previously heard anything about drugs and alcohol?
 
ShadowPuppet said:
[Snipped by me for brevity]
Click to expand...

ShadowPuppet said:
What’s almost always true about all cases that go forward to permanent removal from a family is it will be very complex with both parents (and often both sides of the family) having multiple different issues and failing to meet the evolving needs of their growing children in the right amount of time. The part lots of families can’t grasp is that the needs do evolve and how quickly.

I 100% agree that there will be lots of complicated factors that - all together - resulted in the removal and adoption of CM and MG’s children.
Click to expand...
An amazing post. All of it, bang on the nail.

Before children are removed at all, let alone being put up for adoption, their parent/s will have been given opportunity after opportunity to learn how to meet their child's/children's needs and multiple chances. Removal is absolutely the last resort, when all else has failed. IMO.
 
If they were dependent on drugs or (especially) alcohol they would have looked a whole lot rougher coming out. Can't see them staying hidden that long unless they were hauling around their entire supply. They're also not exactly great at tidying up after themselves. I think if they did have a significant problem, it would have leaked somewhere so I don't exactly think that's what it is.

It just feels like there is a busload of missing reasons/context to the last decade of their life. The pieces we have just don't fit together to me. Sure, mental health could explain a lot, but they functioned well enough to dodge 3 police forces going balls out for like 2 months.

I'm not buying that they were so unwell that they were unable to manage basic stability on their middle-class maintenance money. So all those weird episodes living in tents, broken campers, general squalor was a choice, and I really want to hear the logic, even if it's crazy/culty logic.
 
Should have said - was a choice, or the result of factors we aren't aware of, perhaps at some point a the trust fund wasn't paying out, or they had debt, or one/both had periodic mental health dips, more DV than disclosed, new religions or cults etc etc.

Don't think much of it is relevant to the case save for any undisclosed DV, I'm just nosy.
 
IMO, most of the charges are easy to decide on. I think they might just be discussing the one charge about "allowing or causing the death of a child". I'm not sure this is cut and dried. JMO etc...
 
Telltale said:
If they were dependent on drugs or (especially) alcohol they would have looked a whole lot rougher coming out. Can't see them staying hidden that long unless they were hauling around their entire supply. They're also not exactly great at tidying up after themselves. I think if they did have a significant problem, it would have leaked somewhere so I don't exactly think that's what it is.

It just feels like there is a busload of missing reasons/context to the last decade of their life. The pieces we have just don't fit together to me. Sure, mental health could explain a lot, but they functioned well enough to dodge 3 police forces going balls out for like 2 months.

I'm not buying that they were so unwell that they were unable to manage basic stability on their middle-class maintenance money. So all those weird episodes living in tents, broken campers, general squalor was a choice, and I really want to hear the logic, even if it's crazy/culty logic.
Click to expand...

I agree with above and think what we've learned and seen over the last few months leans into the essence of what the prosecution originally set out - that the baby sadly did not survive what was a 'lifestyle choice' of the couple.

They did not say 'criminal lifestyle' or 'severe health problems' or 'vulnerabilities / disabilities' or 'lacks capacity' and neither has their defence jumped in to point out that and form of addiction or substance use or mental health issues could explain. I think those words were carefully crafted by prosecution and IMO they lean into the idea that fairly healthy and functional people can make decisions and then act on them that the rest of us would find unacceptable - either antisocial or criminal or just very high risk of coming to harm.

JMO, let's see what the jury who have been privy to far more info return.
 
Looks like they came into court at 9.49 hrs and were then sent out to deliberate at 10.24 hrs.

But as the Court has no idea what time they might return to deliver their verdicts, they just show it as them being out until 00.00 hrs.
 
Here are some selected points from the judge's directions on the route to a verdict.
For a G verdict, at least 10 of the 11 jurors must be sure as follows. Note that these are necessary conditions, not always sufficient. In other words, if any of these does NOT apply there must be a NG verdict on that charge.

* Manslaughter: that the defendant caused an obvious risk of death;
* Causing or allowing death: that Victoria died of an unlawful act by the defendant;
* Cruelty: that the defendant neglected or exposed Victoria in a way that was likely to cause her unnecessary suffering or injury;
* Concealing birth: that the defendant disposed of the dead body;
* Perversion of course of justice: that this was the defendant's intention.
 
Last edited:
Alyce said:
Unless I'm reading this wrong, it looks as though they are finished for the day :(

which is not great news

IMO of course


​
5​
T20237104​
constance marten
mark alton gordon​
Details:Trial (Part Heard) - Case Started - 09:49
Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 00:00 - 10:24
Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 10:00 - 15:17



www.thelawpages.com
Click to expand...
So...into the 5th day of deliberations on Tuesday because Monday is a bank holiday.
 
Maryanna said:
Here are some selected points from the judge's directions on the route to a verdict.
For a G verdict, at least 10 of the 11 jurors must be sure as follows. Note that these are necessary conditions, not always sufficient. In other words, if any of these does NOT apply there must be a NG verdict on that charge.

* Manslaughter: that the defendant caused an obvious risk of death;
* Causing or allowing death: that Victoria died of an unlawful act by the defendant;
* Cruelty: that the defendant neglected or exposed Victoria in a way that was likely to cause her unnecessary suffering or injury;
* Concealing birth: that the defendant disposed of the dead body;
* Perversion of course of justice: that this was the defendant's intention.
Click to expand...

I know someone posted earlier the maximum sentences for these convictions but are there minimum sentences? Or are there “usual” sentences (the range on some of them seemed huge).

I’m particularly interested in the minimum sentence for cruelty, concealing birth and perverting the course of justice (if minimum sentences exist for these).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 162 more.
Total: 2,554 (members: 163, guests: 2,391)

Online statistics

Members online
163
Guests online
2,391
Total visitors
2,554
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
594,064
Messages
17,998,404
Members
229,304
Latest member
catheonlineghost
Back
Top