Jury discharged in trial of Constance Martin and Mark Gordon

[DontThinkJustDo]

They couldn't agree the verdict. I'm really shocked.

They and the defence denied that ever happened in court and the prosecution couldn’t prove it (beyond reasonable doubt).

Movinghouseatlast, what things re the two jurors? Do you mean things like e.g. 'oh he's got a nice face' or ' well she's got young children' that kind of thing?😐

What's more unethical:

Forced sterilisation, or allowing them to produce another baby and let it die outside in freezing temperatures?

Yes, I think this is what a lot of people are missing here. The question isn't whether the pair of them were stupid irresponsible twats whose baby would presumably have lived if they'd used an ounce of sense. The question is whether they meet the guilty beyond reasonable doubt test for the offences they were being accused of. The CPS made a decision to go for manslaughter and it's not paid off.

They don't seem to have been able to agree on any of the charges though and some of them are more straightforward than manslaughter: causing or allowing the death of a child, concealing the birth of a child, child cruelty and perverting the course of justice.

Yes, just to be clear, I think the prosecution got it wrong here. They didn't prove their case, and I think their proposed sequence of events was quite possibly incorrect, and the jury were not wrong to have doubts.

Fancied the barrister, who was too good looking to defend a guilty man apparently. I kid you not.

Yes, that SIDS is unexplained and can happen to anyone.

Well, here's the barrister in question.

https://www.trinitychambers.co.uk/barristers/francis-fitzgibbon-k-c/

He can be 'bought' both privately and via legal aid, and she told the court that it was the latter in her case. He's a KC, but with such a high profile case that's not surprising.

Marten told the court, presumably while he was there, that he was being paid for via legal aid rather than her own trust fund. Do you think he just sat there while she told that incredibly easy to disprove lie? The court would only have had to ask for a copy of the legal aid certificate and he, a KC, would've been fucked. It's not plausible that he'd take that level of risk simply to look like he was being paid for through legal aid.

I watched the TV show The Jury. Having served on a jury it was very true to life. It only takes one - misguided, stupid, arrogant (take your pick) juror to sway the verdict.

I am also of the opinion that serving on a jury should be left to those who have a semblance of legal knowledge and critical thinking.

I hope mental health isn’t an excuse for severe neglect and callous burial of an infant baby
So sick of mental health given as an excuse for wantonly negligent behaviour .

They were feckless before Victoria was born-
This wasn’t like the poor young woman in Bristol who walked in slippers to her death with her newborn after stopping her meds so she could breast feed .

Do you mean like professional jurors? I've always thought that was an interesting idea. Speaking as a member of one of the legal professions, I think it would have to be that way if you wanted legal knowledge, otherwise we'd all have to be on jury service most of the time!

OMFG

I am also of the opinion that serving on a jury should be left to those who have a semblance of legal knowledge and critical thinking
This seems like a good idea . . . but how would it work?
Hard enough as it is to get anyone to give up their time for free, if most of those who were willing then had be be rejected because they're as dumb as rocks, well how would it work?

There is one way, which is to make it a properly paid role. But that would be complicated.

Do you think it will ever become a properly paid role?@SocoBateVira

The Scottish government plan to bring in juryless rape trials but there has been huge opposition to it by the law society

Bad cases make bad law.

Though I wish there was a legal way to keep them away from each other so they couldn't produce even more children to die/be taken into the care system.

I'm not aware of any serious proposals to change it. Quite apart from anything else, there's the money issue.

At the moment, the whole court system is creaking because of long term underfunding. Paid instead of just expensed jurors would be another expense if you wanted them to be at all trained and qualified. Whereas the current jury system transfers a lot of the costs onto the jurors themselves and their employers.

Disclaimer, am not in criminal law.

The point is that you are judged by your peers.

18 year olds would not have legal knowledge. My first friend who served on a jury was 18. He served just as we finished our A levels and had turned 18. He said he ended up being foreman.

And there are people of any age who lack critical thinking skills completely or on certain topics.

Unfortunately she will if released, probably move abroad and have more dc. Funded by her family.

The fact SS thought she was a risk to her children and they removed them and they were clearly correct as the next child died whilst in the care of them both. Video footage is horrendous of their handling of a newborn and the inappropriate clothing for that time of year

They will go underground/abroad as they'll know any subsequent children will be taken off them. Poor kids.

This odious couple are a regular baby making factory - They can’t look after their existing children- Don’t visit them in contact centres, to the great despair of the children-
That man at least needs a vasectomy

This woman has years of fecundity left - how many more children will be born only to die or end up in the care system?
It’s just so cruel to the children.

😵‍💫wow. Yep, I'm in agreement with those who've suggested professional jurors, or at least some sort of test to ensure they can understand the process and the seriousness of the process!