Constance Marten & Mark Gordon - Baby A case

[SportMum1982]

What have I just read? What the actual fuck is wrong with the world. That poor baby. These utter idiots. Sorry I’m so so angry.

Constance Marten and partner ‘killed baby to keep her out of care’

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/24e56090-f175-4bf8-ac07-380621d9954f?shareToken=186074e86c05c4df704ef1889186acdc

Thank you. It sounds like the trial was a messy one

Mathanxiety, police have been able to prosecute for murder when there hasn’t even been a body!The idea that they shouldn’t prosecute for manslaughter because the body is too decomposed is surely ridiculous. We know from the basic facts that they poor baby was denied medical care and was forced to live in a tiny tent in freezing conditions. It seems more likely a few of the jury members were swayed by her sympathetic testimony and forgot the real victim was the baby.

I may be incorrect here, but suspect the CPS gave the go ahead for prosecution because the charges that had clear evidence to support them carry low sentencing options, but it was always clear that whatever did or didn't happen to end that babies life, the pair of them then worked to ensure the cause of death would be difficult or impossible to be determined.

Most people already know that some causes of death will be difficult to ascertain with sufficient delay and exposure.
There are some very telling details against the claim she/they might have wanted a postmortem, in that they then apparently accidentally did almost everything possible that would ensure maximized decomposition the longer they evaded discovery.

If the jury could see that, then it lends weight to the likelihood that CM/MG knew that they were either responsible for or contributed to her death, rather than she was a victim of SIDS in coincidentally appalling circumstances.

If no prosecution had been brought over her actual death it would have sent a message that this was indeed how to get away with it.
They would have faced very low repercussions for the more provable charges and outrage that no more serious accusations had to be answered, given what was already in the public domain.

It's not ridiculous.

For gross negligence manslaughter, you need to be able to show a causal nexus between the negligence and the person dying. Without evidence of how the baby died, and with no other evidence such as a confession or another witness saying what happened, of course it's going to be difficult. The CPS are supposed to take into account the likelihood of a conviction with the law as it is, not how they want it to be.

I agree. When they prosecute without a body it is because there is sufficient other evidence that put together, gives a realistic potential of a conviction.

I suspect the CPS were hoping the jury would pick up on the (exact) treatment of the body afterwards as indicative evidence and draw conclusions from it.

Yes, could well have done.

So do they remain in custody or do they get to go home for now?

Honestly I can’t imagine what greater proof of negligence is needed, the poor baby had no adequate shelter, no bed , no healthcare, no access to professionals that could have saved her. Then her remains were treated with the most terrible indignity. She would be a toddler now, learning to talk instead she is no more than a bag of bones because of these two twats.

They were charged with gross negligence manslaughter, which requires a lot more than obvious negligence and a death. The negligence needs to have caused the death. And the evidence for that is sketchy, no getting round it. That matters when the criminal standard of proof has to be met.

I don’t think the evidence was sketchy. Unless you really believe a baby can survive midwinter in a festival tent wearing a baby gro.

It's a fact that was no conclusive proof of the cause of death. That matters a great deal. And Professor Peter Fleming gave expert evidence to the court that there was no proof Victoria died of hypothermia.

Remember, the jury weren't being asked what was more likely than not. They were being asked according to the criminal standard of proof.

It seems obvious to me from the evidence, that gross negligence was clearly apparent, together with leaving a dead new born left so long that decomposition was such that cause of death could not be established.

Yep.

So it isn't difficult to see why they weren't found guilty of GNM, and I didn't think the concealment would stick either. Less easy to see why they haven't been found guilty of cruelty. That was a stronger case, and they could still have been guilty of it even if Victoria had died of SIDS.

There was no evidence because they deliberately hid the body for so long though. However we knew how they were living at the time and we knew that they had already been warned this was dangerous for a baby.

Yes, nobody's saying the lack of evidence isn't their fault. It obviously is. But that doesn't change the fact that it isn't there.

We don’t know the exact cause of death because they deliberately concealed the body, but we do know the conditions they were keeping Victoria in were likely to cause her death.

Which is not the same thing. Have a read of the CPS guidance on the issue.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/gross-negligence-manslaughter

I'm surprised they weren't found guilty of cruelty, but it was just not a great GNM case because the evidence of causation isn't there.

Seems like they’ll be treated as if they were good parents and it was just SIDS during a camping trip …..

I’ve read that and still don’t understand why they weren’t convicted. On all accounts they owe a duty of care to Victoria and their actions caused her death. We don’t have the exact cause of death again because of their actions but the baby was not going to survive their lifestyle choices. And they made it impossible for anyone to intervene and protect her.

Ok, I think the issue here is you think on all accounts their negligence caused her death. That's not correct. The prosecution weren't able to get any expert evidence saying that. The expert evidence was that they didn't know.

I did wonder if the CPS were hoping one of them might admit it during the trial, but evidently that didn't happen.

SocoBareVira, I’m sure I read the prosecution having expert evidence that the living conditions were dangerous for a newborn baby. It appears that if a coroner cannot determine the exact cause of death due to decomposition, they can’t be proven guilty. I really can’t believe this to be correct There was a massive manhunt for this baby because it was known she was in great danger living with this pair in such dangerous conditions. I doubt anyone believed the baby could survive such an ordeal. It will be a gross in justified if they are not prosecuted.

Totally, but likely, or even highly likely, or extremely likely, doesn't make them legally guilty of causing her death.

We may feel we know, but the truth is we don't 100% know anything, and there treatment of her body afterwards, made sure of that, but even that isn't proof, just reasonable for a juror (who has seen all the evidence that we haven't) to conclude it's a hell of a co-incidence.

The fact she was unlikely to survive their lifestyle conditions long term, is not the same as their lifestyle conditions definitely killed her, the night she died.

Again, behaviour that's dangerous and behaviour that's the cause of death are not the same thing. It is VITAL to understand that. There's no proof of the cause of death.

You sound here like your reasoning is based on what you want to happen. I understand a layperson on the internet doing that, but CPS can't make decisions based on what they'd like the law to be. Or they're not meant to, anyway.

It happens all the time that CPS choose only to prosecute for a lesser offence, where it's more likely there'll be a conviction. For whatever reason, they didn't do that here. And child cruelty could've been up to 14 years. Long enough for Marten not to have any more kids, if nothing else.

I can’t see how she could have survived the short term and she didn’t. However it all comes down to the opinions of the Jurors though. A different bunch may well have got the conviction.

It does indeed, but the CPS still need to consider the strength of the case they're putting forward and whether it would be better to go for only a lesser offence with a greater chance of success. The poster you disagreed with initially was right to ask why they made the decision they did with such weak evidence.