Jury discharged in trial of Constance Martin and Mark Gordon

[DontThinkJustDo]

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

For less than 42 days to have passed by 27th February she’d have to have been born on or after 14th January. The prosecution and the defence both agree Victoria was born by the 5th January when the burnt out car was found, they don’t agree when, but they agree it was at some point before then.

Oh that's interesting thank you!

surely they can prove that it was her placenta ? So they’d know when she was born almost down to the day ?

If they aren't convicted of anything, they are not in touch with their older children and they don't need adult social care themselves, what legal reason does (underfunded) social services have to put them under surveillance?

There is also nothing stopping them going abroad and repeating what they have done here.

Though as CM trust fund is tightly controlled she will have difficulty getting the money out of her trustees if she does that.

But surely there would be something on their medical records in case either has another child ? SS would have to have proven a risk to the children they removed ? Then there’s the fact a baby died in their care if there was no reason for them not to have more then why was the whole country looking for them when they went missing with Victoria ?

This plus all the pissing around by the Lucy Letby jury. ..
We would be better off with the Scottish system where a straight majority rules. None of this having to try and be unanimous rubbish. Which only results in jury members bullying one another.

nah, as if that narcissist will be able to keep a baby safe. Women have agency too and she is utterly incapable of putting a child’s needs above her own.

God no. We have not proven which is ridiculous.

Post mortem couldn’t establish cause of death due to the decomposed state of the body.

They just had to have intended to not register her birth which CM and MG were very clear that they had no intention of registering her birth.

That has been the premise for many years, but the reality is that it only needs one juror to derail a trial. Jurors inevitably bring their life experiences with them and are often completely blind to their prejudices.

The TV programme was a social experiment and was watched (covertly) by top lawyers and others involved in the criminal justice system and they all concluded that it was time for a change. I agree.

I think the there has to be an element of jury selection and I am really going to set the car amongst the pigeons by saying that may be you have to have filters on the population that are for for complex deliberation.

You could stipulate one of more of the jury members had a connection with the legal profession to give a specific insight and to alert the judge of deliberations that were going wildly astray or any coercion. Additionally you could state that a minimum number of jurors had a certain qualification level .

There seems to be an assumption on this thread that the jury is at fault, and that wiser legal minds would do a better job. Having followed the trial however I don't think the jury is at fault - I think they have rightly refused to accept the flawed case put forward by the prosecution. I am slightly surprised that they put aside their natural horror at the actions of the parents, but it doesn't undermine my faith in jury trials, and I don't think the wiser legal minds come out of this well.

Sounds like the evidence was not sufficient robust/strong for all the jurors to be confortable to convict. 72 hours of jury time is a lot.

I was recently on a jury that was a retrial involving offences against 2 girls. Defendant had spent 6 months in prison before the first trial, jury struggled to come to a decision and was dismissed, guy out on a tag for 6 months before the retrial, after 2 week trial and 3 hours of deliberation the evidence was just not strong enough to convict and we found him not guilty on all charges. The judge made it clear that "we had to be sure of the guilt" as "beyond reasonable doubt" is no longer allowed.

I’m amazed , surely the basic facts that you’ve had a baby that has subsequently died and that you at no point attempted to get it medical attention means you are guilty of neglect if nothing else . Madness

Floralnomad you are right the basic facts surely are enough otherwise anyone could bury their baby somewhere and say it was SIDS and as long as the body was sufficiently decomposed , get away with it.

It's worth listening to the BBC podcast. They kept mentioning how engaged the jury were and how many detailed questions they were asking. And the expert witnesses about how they raise babies in other cultures were fascinating. I wonder if the CPS went too far with the manslaughter charge and would have been better off with a less serious one.

It's such a shame, but social services will still seek to remove any future children they may have, irregardless of the outcome in this trial, as there's a high probability of future harm.

Explanation of jury verdicts and retrial options

https://www.cps.gov.uk/victims-guide/victims-guide-verdict-and-sentencing

They’d removed the others and it didn’t prevent this . I would imagine that if they are let out they will leave the country .

There is no doubt that they are awful people but I think the actual case against them is tricky. The body was so decomposed that no cause of death could be established and so how do you prove SIDS/suffocation/hypothermia was the cause, without firm evidence of why she died there can always be doubt as to the cause. Living in a tent in winter with a baby is ill advised but can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt the baby was neglected?

I believe they should rot in prison but I would struggle to decide as a member of a jury where you need to take out your personal views and just look at the facts provided.

Did they definitely know the baby died before the couple were found and arrested? Or is there still some suspicion that the baby was alive at that point and died after they refused to tell anyone where it was? Ie starved/froze to death?

They are equal in my opinion.

Yes, I think the yurt thing was silly but babies can be outside in very cold weather as long as they are appropriately covered/dressed or have body heat. Thinking of colder countries like those in Scandinavia for example.

I don’t know what the answer is but forced sterilisation just doesn’t sit right with me but what they did to that poor baby. Their grandiose personality’s.
i have watched a few Tik Toks from a mum who had two previous children removed and she went on the run when pregnant and has not been back to the uk since the child is 2 years old now . Rotted teeth put in very harmful situations lacking medical care riding around on a moped no helmet. They could easily go on the run abroad with her financial backing