Jury discharged in trial of Constance Martin and Mark Gordon

[DontThinkJustDo]

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

That’s irrelevant though , this is about the birth and the fact it wasn’t registered so was concealed

Yet only relevant and only guilty if Victoria was alive at the deadline for registering her birth and that couldn't be proven either.

I can see why the jury was hung.

I listened to the podcast and discussed in depth with a friend who works within criminal justice. We both agreed the evidence presented left reasonable doubt which is what's intended for a not guilty verdict.

Same with neglect. There's lots of evidence to prove she could have neglected Victoria. But the prosecution didn't out enough evidence forward to prove she did.

Whole case has been heartbreaking and I hope the jurors get good counselling after.

@Movinghouseatlast no bloody way?! Please tell me they got their arses handed on a plate to them by the others?!

Precisely. That just isn’t ok but seems to be what is happening in this case ?

Given the flight risk surely they’ll have to be monitored as otherwise the same could happen again

In all their rubbish found with and nearby the baby was there even any evidence of baby formula or did she say she breastfed ? Has CM or MG even offered any information as to how their baby was fed ?

Yet only relevant and only guilty if Victoria was alive at the deadline for registering her birth and that couldn't be proven either.

No, @itsgettingweird that’s not right as I’ve previously explained. A birth must be registered even if the baby subsequently dies. Do you seriously think it’s legal to give birth, baby dies of natural causes and you just never tell anyone and that’s fine?!

The judge even referred to this in his summing up saying the defendants had offered no defence to this and had therefore admitted concealing the birth. If what you’re saying was true (it’s not) the judge would have directed the jury to consider whether they were sure Victoria was alive for the period required - he didn’t for reasons stated above.

Anyone who saw the video in the cafe of a newborn, inadequately dressed for a cold January day (understatement) being unceremoniously dumped into a flimsy buggy with no care for her wellbeing, should have been in no doubt that, at best the parents were totally clueless or, more likely, the baby was not at all a priority. Very much an inconvenience in fact.

I also doubt she was given a name. Her mother seems skilled at trying to play mind games. Poor baby never stood a chance.
I certainly hope there is a re-trial as they're evidently a toxic mixture who need to be kept apart.

Although not the same, this case is similar to that of Hans Rausing, heir to the Tetra-Pak fortune who lived with his dead wife's body for a week in theri Cadogan Place mansion in 2012 before she was found after a police check for someting completely different. Again immensely wealthy. Again he had a easy passage through court and he attended a very expensive rehab like a 5* hotel, cleaned himself up , remarried as he left and now lives a comfortable life. Family old money makes a difference . I beleive CM has learning difficulties, perhaps a lower IQ, or global development delay. Her parents don't want the boyfriend around but the upper classes will close ranks to ensure CM finds her way back to her family.

Have you heard the callous disregard and neglect for their four other children?
Domestic Violence, neglect..

Doubtless they will feed more children into the ''Care'' system... or worse, Cemeteries . It's like something out of the 19th or 19th Centuries- except this isn't a financially poor woman.

She was trying to act like an Irish Traveller, even putting on a mock Irish accent.

She's playing at being 'poor'

No wonder they think he's a ''Bad Lot''....20 years for rape isn't something any parents would want for their daughter.

She calls her parents ''Bigots''...but it's not bigoted to not want a convicted rapist joining the family.

They were arrested. They were on the run.

They are guilty of not registering her death. Which in many ways means they should have registered her birth.

I'm not saying they are entirely innocent of anything!

Just they couldn't be absolutely 100% sure or rather couldn't prove they didn't resister her birth within 42 days or her death within the 5. (Which I know to register death you need to have registered birth and also have a coroner accept they are happy and do t want a PM).

I think it's pretty much a given they concealed the birth. But our justice system doentt work like that.

I agree with those saying the problem comes with our system of burden of proof.

Did anyone else find it interesting that the children were removed due to domestic abuse and how only 1 of them spoke up during the trial. I'm assuming there's some CC within this case?

My comment wasn’t about this couple. I have no idea of Constance’s vulnerability.

Poor Eva was dead for a lot longer than a week.
But you are right- Her husband had an easy ride compared to if it had been a couple living on a council estate.
It really is one rule for the 'Establishment' and another for the 'Plebs'.

If we're going to do that, we have to be willing to pay for it. The legal profession isn't going to be willing and able to supply a qualified person for every serious criminal trial without serious reform to the current jury system. I doubt that would work even if you widened it to people who got law degrees and didn't then use them. They'd have to be paid roles. Either they'd have to be employed public sector jobs with the usual benefits, or paid higher rates for ad hoc work like members of professional tribunals like the GMC etc are now.

That video is haunting the poor baby must have been cold and the rough handling was really hard to watch. If there had been footage of them caring for her tenderly and wrapping her up appropriately you might think differently towards them but it’s clear that they were wrapped up warm so knew how to dress for the weather yet the baby was in just a babygro ??

sad all round i was sure they woul be found guilty but i wasnt on jury so

hope theeres a retrial

The original verdicts in Scotland were "not proven" and "proven". We should perhaps go back to those as basically they do what they say on the tin. The "not guilty" verdict was invented at a much later date.

This "not proven" means "guilty but there wasn't enough evidence", yes, absolutely, it's unsatisfactory.

But yep, let's hear the evidence, the jury discusses then takes a vote. 8 out of 15 is enough for a guilty. These hung juries in England after WEEKS of deliberation are a farce.

Also England needs to get rid of opening speeches. It's not for the lawyers to say what the evidence will be, that's for the witnesses. So just do like Scotland and dive straight into the evidence by calling your first witness.

CM has a 2:1 BA(Hons) Arabic & Middle Eastern Studies from the University of Leeds... so I think you're really going to struggle to argue that she has a low IQ or GDD.

I also doubt she was given a name.

I think she probably was called Victoria. It wasn't the first time they'd used a variation of that name.

They found the baby two days after CM and MG were arrested, and described the baby as being in an advanced state of decomposition. There's not really any dispute that she died well before they were arrested.

I take that back about CM. I had no idea she had a degree, def no GDD or low IQ

This is all so sad, poor sweet Victoria, she really never had a chance.

I'm interested in what others have said upthread about what happened with their other children being removed and allegations of domestic violence. Does anyone have any links please or can explain?

Four prior children were removed from them.

There were allegations of domestic abuse - never fully explained in this trial IMO - but at one point CM fell from a window
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13101925/Social-services-took-Constance-Martens-children-away-accused-partner-Mark-Gordon-blamed-fugitive-aristocrat-falling-window-court-told.html

This wasn't the first time she'd decided living in a tent with a newborn was a good idea. With her first born, she gave birth under a false identity, claimed to be an Irish traveller who had never been to school, and was found living with a newborn, in Wales, in a flimsy tent surrounded by black bin bags https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68415935

I have bolded "first" because this shows that having Victoria in a tent wasn't solely a matter of going on the run from social services; this was her doing what she'd done before. There can't have been any prior involvement with children's social services before her first child, yet they still chose to live in a tent, despite having the finances for alternatives.

Jury was discharged in the following recent cases.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4nnrj1zjvyo

And https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/families-lucy-letby-manchester-crown-court-child-child-q-b2395505.html

Additionally you could state that a minimum number of jurors had a certain qualification level.

I think the problem with this (at the moment) is you have a lot of clever 50/60/70-somethings with excellent critical thinking skills who are perfectly capable of being on a jury but might only have O-levels because so few people went to university then. They're also possibly more likely to be available if they're retired or work part time.

Most people under the age of 40 will probably have something above that level, whether it's A-level, BTEC, degree, diploma etc but they could make considerably less good jurors. A lot in this age group might also be able to be excused if their work is business-critical.

There's a risk you're shrinking your pool and excluding people who would be perfectly adequate jurors just because of their age.

Maybe a set course you had to do before being eligible to be a juror would be an option, but you'd be in a mess if not many people did it. Perhaps you could select more in advance and if it was somebody's first time they had to take a course?

You know people over 40 had free university education so are more likely to have a degree than current 30 year olds.