You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Refusing to give evidence because you have toothache and a headache
Apparently Constance Martens is refusing to give evidence because she doesn't feel very well. Well I guess most people wouldn't feel very well if they had been charged with the manslaughter of their baby.
Her partner isn't going to give evidence at all apparently.
Here's hoping they get what's coming to them, after a fair trial, obviously.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/constance-martens-partner-mark-gordon-opts-not-to-give-evidence-at-baby-manslaughter-oid-bailey-trial/ar-AA1Do2Sw?ocid=BingNewsSerp
Her partner isn't going to give evidence at all apparently.
Here's hoping they get what's coming to them, after a fair trial, obviously.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/constance-martens-partner-mark-gordon-opts-not-to-give-evidence-at-baby-manslaughter-oid-bailey-trial/ar-AA1Do2Sw?ocid=BingNewsSerp
Comments
She asked for a delay of 1 day because she felt unwell. Which the Judge readily agreed to.
They have already had a "fair trial". Last year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Constance_Marten_and_Mark_Gordon
They were found Guilty on 2 charges, namely failing to register the birth of a child and perverting the course of justice. The Jury "failed to reach a verdict" in relation to gross negligence manslaughter. So that is being retried.
This is something I have always struggled with. It is for the Prosecution to prove Guilt beyond reasonable doubt before a Jury. They failed to do so. For there to be "failure to reach a verdict" at least 3 of the 12 Jurors believed them to be Not Guilty. Which, to my mind, is the very definition of Reasonable Doubt.
What do we have now? A 2nd trial. Where the previous Guilty verdicts have already been made public. They have little or no chance this time. What part of Justice allows the Prosecution to have a 2nd go?
The reason he did not give evidence at either trial is simple. He has plenty of previous criminal offences.
They were clearly inadequate human beings. Who were on the run simply because they feared Social Services would take their child away from them. And made some unwise choices.
But I am distinctly uneasy about the way these people are being vilified.
He's already refused to appear, you state in order to prevent the jury from being told about his previous convictions (apparently for armed kidnapping, four separate counts of armed sexual battery and one count of burglary with a deadly weapon), I'm guessing that this may not lead the jury to think he would be an exceptional parent.
They were indeed inadequate human beings, so much so that social services had taken their FOUR previous children into care and they then decided that the best thing they could do for their 5th child was to avoid any form of medical care for a newborn baby that subsequently died. Apart from a conviction and a very long term in prison or a secure unit is there any other way of preventing these people from having more children? Sadly that should be one of the main priorities here.
Let's hope she feels well enough to give evidence tomorrow.