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

[Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc]

I cannot believe there is no verdict yet..

I have read the posts of people remarking how long it has taken, and I was thinking to myself, it hasn't been that long, has it? It has just occurred to me that my only real knowledge of waiting for a verdict is the Lucy Letby trial, the reason I joined WS. So I guess I got the extreme version of waiting on verdict 101. All other trials' wait times have been easy!
ETA:
How long was the jury out for in the LL trial? I know it went over my guess. Was it 100 hours plus?

 

[kittythehare]

I have read the posts of people remarking how long it has taken, and I was thinking to myself, it hasn't been that long, has it? It has just occurred to me that my only real knowledge of waiting for a verdict is the Lucy Letby trial, the reason I joined WS. So I guess I got the extreme version of waiting on verdict 101. All other trials' wait times have been easy!

American trials are far easier on the head.. this is torture, by the time it comes I will have forgotten most of the case anyway..

It suggests the evidence is problematic.. I thought it was very weak... I think this is what the jury are saying with the delay..
not sure burden of proof has been met for a swift and clear decision.

I probably won't even hear the verdict when it comes.. and it's a case I won't remember even though I put such a lot of time into it at the beginning..

 

[Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc]

American trials are far easier on the head.. this is torture, by the time it comes I will have forgotten most of the case anyway..

It suggests the evidence is problematic.. I thought it was very weak... I think this is what the jury are saying with the delay..
not sure burden of proof has been met for a swift and clear decision.

I probably won't even hear the verdict when it comes.. and it's a case I won't remember even though I put such a lot of time into it at the beginning..

I was curious.

"The length of the jury deliberations took four and a half months"
( Me: Say what?!)
Longest jury deliberation - Guinness World Records

 

[BreadnLumpit]

I was curious.

"The length of the jury deliberations took four and a half months"
( Me: Say what?!)
Longest jury deliberation - Guinness World Record

This got me curious in turn, so I searched the names.
It was a civil suit and the litigants won but, this being in the US (where jury members can speak publicly once a case is over), it was revealed that the jury spent vast amounts of time sleeping, chatting, reading non case related material and joking around, rather than deliberating

 

[OrangeCash]

It suggests the evidence is problematic.. I thought it was very weak... I think this is what the jury are saying with the delay..
not sure burden of proof has been met for a swift and clear decision.

I probably won't even hear the verdict when it comes.. and it's a case I won't remember even though I put such a lot of time into it at the beginning..

It must differ from person to person because I view it differently, I don't find the evidence very weak. The choices made, by their very nature are evidence to me. I think whatever the outcomes it will be a significant case for a long time. I think there's a lot more that can be learned from it for a lot of people, professionals, parents, families, everyday Joe public, police, future cases, all sorts of people. I haven't found it trivial or forgetful and that shows just how different two people can view the same information. It's definitely given me pause for thought about whether I'd ever like to serve on a jury in future! not sure I could handle the stress and 'office politics' type of feeling

 

[Alyce]

It must differ from person to person because I view it differently, I don't find the evidence very weak. The choices made, by their very nature are evidence to me. I think whatever the outcomes it will be a significant case for a long time. I think there's a lot more that can be learned from it for a lot of people, professionals, parents, families, everyday Joe public, police, future cases, all sorts of people. I haven't found it trivial or forgetful and that shows just how different two people can view the same information. It's definitely given me pause for thought about whether I'd ever like to serve on a jury in future! not sure I could handle the stress and 'office politics' type of feeling

Absolutely this. I find the evidence strong.
They had choices, more than many other people would have had - and they chose to make the worst ones for a vulnerable new born baby. Who should have been their priority. At all times.

 

[Maryanna]

Absolutely this. I find the evidence strong.
They had choices, more than many other people would have had - and they chose to make the worst ones for a vulnerable new born baby. Who should have been their priority. At all times.

Looking at the manslaughter charge: to vote guilty in respect of either defendant, a juror needs to be sure (meaning they have no doubt) that the defendant caused an obvious risk of Victoria's death. That is from the judge's instructions on the law. "Cause" means the defendant chose to act in a certain way rather than some other way. Personally I can't see how it is anything close to "obvious" that staying in a tent with a newborn causes a risk of their death. A fortiori, deciding not to report pregnancy and birth to NHS or SS, or making any other choice that we can be sure that either of the defendants made. JMO.

What were the choices they had for their baby that were many more than other people had? Seems to me they had to choose between going on the run and giving up their baby to the SS. JMO.

 

[ShadowPuppet]

Looking at the manslaughter charge: to vote guilty in respect of either defendant, a juror needs to be sure (meaning they have no doubt) that the defendant caused an obvious risk of Victoria's death. That is from the judge's instructions on the law. "Cause" means the defendant chose to act in a certain way rather than some other way. Personally I can't see how it is anything close to "obvious" that staying in a tent with a newborn causes a risk of their death. A fortiori, deciding not to report pregnancy and birth to NHS or SS, or making any other choice that we can be sure that either of the defendants made. JMO.

What were the choices they had for their baby that were many more than other people had? Seems to me they had to choose between going on the run and giving up their baby to the SS. JMO.

Except they didn’t have to give up the baby as such - they could have worked with SS in order to continue to parent the child. However, we can’t know as we don’t know if clear guidance was given on their situation with previous children, exact changes needing to be made and whether any were made by the time of Victoria’s birth. (Seems unlikely, but we can’t actually know.) Equally, they had decided to ‘give their baby up’ anyway, didn’t they? To some random carer once they were out of reach of SS?

I think deciding re hypothermia v suffocating is complex though. How do you decide that based on what was given? The micro-environment stuff felt unrelated to the situation to me (even down to adult body temp and diet) and Victoria’s body was too decomposed to give any indications.

 

[Maryanna]

Except they didn’t have to give up the baby as such - they could have worked with SS in order to continue to parent the child. However, we can’t know as we don’t know if clear guidance was given on their situation with previous children, exact changes needing to be made and whether any were made by the time of Victoria’s birth. (Seems unlikely, but we can’t actually know.) Equally, they had decided to ‘give their baby up’ anyway, didn’t they? To some random carer once they were out of reach of SS?

I think deciding re hypothermia v suffocating is complex though. How do you decide that based on what was given? The micro-environment stuff felt unrelated to the situation to me (even down to adult body temp and diet) and Victoria’s body was too decomposed to give any indications.

I thought CM testified that they planned to find a private foster carer (not randomly) to look after Victoria abroad when she was 6 months old so that they could stay in Britain and fight for the return of her siblings.

I would like to think the jury heard some evidence about pre-Victoria communications, commands, and ultimatums from the SS, but I fear they didn't and certainly very little has been reported, when in principle surely the prosecution could have produced some of this, given that SS officers are real people and the SS keep records. Certainly when considering a defendant's choices it's necessary to consider the range of possible actions they chose from among, given their circumstances, as in every criminal case.

Agreed about the forensics. I fully accept it is possible they left Victoria to freeze to death in a corner of the tent or did something completely idiotic and criminally selfish and negligent that caused her to suffocate, to the point of committing manslaughter, but there has been zero evidence for either of these scenarios. So how the jury might decide, to the point of being sure of it, that they caused an "obvious risk of death" I really don't know. JMO.

 

[OrangeCash]

I thought CM testified that they planned to find a private foster carer (not randomly) to look after Victoria abroad when she was 6 months old so that they could stay in Britain and fight for the return of her siblings.

And I'll start my diet next week, like I have been for the last 4 years...

 

[ShadowPuppet]

I thought CM testified that they planned to find a private foster carer (not randomly) to look after Victoria abroad when she was 6 months old so that they could stay in Britain and fight for the return of her siblings.

I would like to think the jury heard some evidence about pre-Victoria communications, commands, and ultimatums from the SS, but I fear they didn't and certainly very little has been reported, when in principle surely the prosecution could have produced some of this, given that SS officers are real people and the SS keep records. Certainly when considering a defendant's choices it's necessary to consider the range of possible actions they chose from among, given their circumstances, as in every criminal case.

Agreed about the forensics. I fully accept it is possible they left Victoria to freeze to death in a corner of the tent or did something completely idiotic and criminally selfish and negligent that caused her to suffocate, to the point of committing manslaughter, but there has been zero evidence for either of these scenarios. So how the jury might decide, to the point of being sure of it, that they caused an "obvious risk of death" I really don't know. JMO.

Perhaps I’ve misremembered? I thought she was very vague on who it would be and suggested she’d advertise online and find someone. In my memory, it came across as having no real plan and no real understanding of safety. It was an ‘anyone’s better than’ type scenario. Also, though, imo a private foster carer remains someone else caring for your daughter - all it does it remove the procedure (designed for safety) of SS foster carers and remove the possibility of the - for the parents - risk and - for the child - stability of adoption. It was shocking in terms of the lack of insight into the attachment needs of a young child. JMOO, but it decimated CM’s own argument about a child needing her mother.

I think there is evidence around how Victoria died, but it’s scant and circumstantial rather than clear and solid. Definitely agree it’s not an easy call. I would be struggling as a Jury member, I think, and would have asked plenty of questions (in DM podcast, they said judge had positively remarked on their involvement iirc). However, I suppose they know more than us and have clearer guidance, but I can see why it’s taking a long time to reach a verdict on each charge and to work it out for both CM and MG. It wasn’t as though all the witness statements and expert advice was clear or smooth running either.

 

[Maltesepuppy]

I thought CM testified that they planned to find a private foster carer (not randomly) to look after Victoria abroad when she was 6 months old so that they could stay in Britain and fight for the return of her siblings.

.... snipped by me for conciseness

Yes she said they were going to find someone from the totally not random platform of Gumtree. They would be selecting this person by the rigorous test of "spending time with them". I'm not sure if they specified how long or they would be giving access to their baby to any person who turned up in order to "assess" if they were the right person. To call this a "private foster care" arrangement is a laughable stretch, IMO.
And as for thinking they could recover the children that were removed due to concerns, and have been adopted, it shows how deluded they are. Unless, of course, they were hoping to utilise an alternative route to recover the kids with the help of more Gumtree "recruits". JMO. MOO.

 

[JennieM]

Yes she said they were going to find someone from the totally not random platform of Gumtree. They would be selecting this person by the rigorous test of "spending time with them". I'm not sure if they specified how long or they would be giving access to their baby to any person who turned up in order to "assess" if they were the right person. To call this a "private foster care" arrangement is a laughable stretch, IMO.
And as for thinking they could recover the children that were removed due to concerns, and have been adopted, it shows how deluded they are. Unless, of course, they were hoping to utilise an alternative route to recover the kids with the help of more Gumtree "recruits". JMO. MOO.

Imagine giving your newborn to a stranger to take abroad away from you to care for them. The SS were 100% right not to trust this couple to parent.

 

[Maltesepuppy]

Imagine giving your newborn to a stranger to take abroad away from you to care for them. The SS were 100% right not to trust this couple to parent.

Totally. This type of thinking alone tells me pretty much all I need to know with regards to their parenting.
Foster carer who have been vetted and trained or random person from the internet who claims to "like" children?
Why, the second option of course!! Foster carers are corrupt!!!
JMO. MOO

 

[QB2022]

American trials are far easier on the head.. this is torture, by the time it comes I will have forgotten most of the case anyway..

It suggests the evidence is problematic.. I thought it was very weak... I think this is what the jury are saying with the delay..
not sure burden of proof has been met for a swift and clear decision.

I probably won't even hear the verdict when it comes.. and it's a case I won't remember even though I put such a lot of time into it at the beginning..

Yes, I'm of a similar view. I think their actions potentially are within various gray areas of illegal vs stupid and because of this it is exceedingly hard to present strong evidence. None of the offences quite fit and they are trying to get it within one of them and the case isn't the strongest, in terms of beyond reasonable doubt

 

[Maryanna]

Is it definitely adjourned until Thursday 30th May?
Was this said in the Daily Mail podcast? (I only read stuff.)

 

[CaptainNancy]

"I thought CM testified that they planned to find a private foster carer (not randomly) to look after Victoria abroad when she was 6 months old so that they could stay in Britain and fight for the return of her siblings".

She said the plan was to get themselves out of the country and find accommodation, leaving Victoria with someone they would find from Gumtree who would then, after a few months, smuggle Victoria out of the country to join them.

So, by definition a person not qualified or checked as anything like a 'foster carer' and a person who was prepared to engage in illegal child smuggling.

 

[CaptainNancy]

We don't know that it is 'office politics' that is causing difficulties with decision making. Posters can speculate about how the jury process is going but we have no idea what is happening.

Personally I suspect it is grappling with conscience within the strict legal definitions.

The jury have been in that (model of) tent. They have handled Victoria's little babygro., they have seen the model of buggy and it's accessories and seen the footage available. The questions such as 'Did the defendants put their baby at risk' and 'can it be proven that that risk was the cause of death' are not the same questions. On CM's testimony about the death of Victoria, can it be forensically proven that she died as a result of being smothered - or could it have been co-incidental SIDS cannot be 100% answered, IMO.

Of course the reason for this lack of forensic evidence is that they did not declare Victoria's death. The body was concealed until relevant forensic evidence was unobtainable.

Most of us have strong moral reactions to this case, one way or another - but it is the law that the jury must work with, and I could imagine that the legal nuances and moral questions are very difficult to navigate.