Australia - 3 dead after eating wild mushrooms, Leongatha, Victoria, Aug 2023 #5 *Arrest*

[Ellery84]

Also, while searching for that I came across this other Daily Mail article about Erin meeting with her attorneys. It contained this bit of shade :
It remains unclear how reporters were alerted to the mysterious meeting with her lawyers, who have been previously suspected of leaking their client's police statement to select journalists.

The way that line is written makes me think the Daily Mail wasn't one of the 'select journalists' to whom the statement was leaked.

Spoiler: It was given to the ABC.

Afaik they are the only outlet that have the full statement.

Moo

 

[Ellery84]

The attorney was the one who gave the police the statement in the first place, wasn't he? It would be weird for him to try to disavow it now. What could he say? "Oh, that statement I gave you wasn't really from Erin after all. It was just me and a few mates having a laugh."

The attorney was the one who gave the police the statement in the first place, wasn't he?

AFAIK the statement wasn’t given to the police, just to the ABC, but I might be wrong.

Moo

 

[ch_13]

The attorney was the one who gave the police the statement in the first place, wasn't he?

AFAIK the statement wasn’t given to the police, just to the ABC, but I might be wrong.

Moo

That's not what the ABC article said. Here's the quote:

In a written statement sent to Victoria Police on Friday – and obtained exclusively by the ABC – Gippsland woman Erin Patterson has given her first detailed account of what transpired before and after the fatal lunch.

In any case, it's clear that what was published in the media were only a few snippets from a much longer statement

Additionally, there's some statements from the Deputy Police Commissioner saying the statement was taken by Erin's attorneys.

 

[MsMarple]

That's not what the ABC article said. Here's the quote:

In a written statement sent to Victoria Police on Friday – and obtained exclusively by the ABC – Gippsland woman Erin Patterson has given her first detailed account of what transpired before and after the fatal lunch.

In any case, it's clear that what was published in the media were only a few snippets from a much longer statement

Additionally, there's some statements from the Deputy Police Commissioner saying the statement was taken by Erin's attorneys.

Yes. IMO something is amiss:

'The matter needs to be dealt with by (the police, not the media), Ms Steendam told ABC Radio Melbournepresenter Virginia Trioli.

The deputy commissioner said Erin's lengthy legal statement was widely circulated to the media before the police could examine it.

Ms Steendam said it was not an official police statement, but one taken by Erin's lawyers.

'What I would say is that … working on an investigation through the media is unhelpful to our investigation,' the deputy commissioner said.

Erin Patterson: Cops break silence on mushroom chef leaked statement

Victoria's second highest ranking police officer has said the leaking of a statement from Erin Patterson about a mushroom meal thought to be linked to the deaths of three people is 'unhelpful'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[katydid23]

What the Herald Sun article says is that they have been told that the statement was unsigned. The police declined to comment, and EP's lawyers didn't answer their request for comment.

A top criminal lawyer (unnamed) said that would equate to what they call a 'can say' statement, where it provides information but isn't legally binding for the author.

A police source (unnamed) said that an unsigned statement makes the contents of the statement less consequential.

A leading defence lawyer, George Balot, said that if the statement is unsigned, EP has not sworn to its contents.

If EP is ever charged, he said prosecutors would try to get the document into evidence through an exception to the hearsay rule, but that would be subject to challenge (presumably he means a challenge by EP's defence lawyers).

New twist in case of fatal Leongatha mushroom lunch



In other words (imo) prosecutors would try to get the statement into evidence to show what she said happened, and her lawyers could say that she was under duress and only said what she thought happened, she might not have been accurate, and it can't be used as evidence.

imo

But that copy may have not been signed, but was there one that was?

 

[SouthAussie]

<RSBM>

Ms Steendam said it was not an official police statement, but one taken by Erin's lawyers.

More fully, Wendy Steendam said it was a document taken by and provided by EP's legal team. (according to The Age)

The Age says it has "seen" the statement, despite it being exclusively provided to the ABC (and the police). So someone has let someone else see it.

Deputy police chief slams ‘unhelpful’ circulation of mushroom cook’s statement

Victoria Police say their lengthy investigation into the deaths of three people will include examining the veracity of Erin Patterson’s statement about the fatal lunch.

www.theage.com.au

imo

 

[katydid23]

More fully, Wendy Steendam said it was a document taken by and provided by EP's legal team. (according to The Age)

If the document was taken by and prepared by her attorneys, and given, by them, to the mainstream press, and apparently, the police, then I don't think EP will be able to walk away from those statements that easily.

The facts were all about the source of dangerously lethal poisons, and she gave her account about where they came from.
If these were incorrect statements by her attorneys, why wouldn't she correct them, in order to protect others?

The Age says it has "seen" the statement, despite it being exclusively provided to the ABC (and the police). So someone has let someone else see it.

Deputy police chief slams ‘unhelpful’ circulation of mushroom cook’s statement

Victoria Police say their lengthy investigation into the deaths of three people will include examining the veracity of Erin Patterson’s statement about the fatal lunch.

www.theage.com.au

imo

I don't think she is going to be able to easily walk away from those statements if she goes to trial. JMO

 

[Ellery84]

In a written statement sent to Victoria Police on Friday – and obtained exclusively by the ABC

I don’t know if the police received it. Maybe the “sender” sent it to the wrong email address in the Vic police media department.

Sometimes a .gov or a .gov.au makes all the difference at the end of an email address.

IMO

The Age says it has "seen" the statement, despite it being exclusively provided to the ABC (and the police). So someone has let someone else see it.

Yeah maybe The Age just saw the parts of the statement that the ABC published in their article.

IMO

 

[SouthAussie]

If the document was taken by and prepared by her attorneys, and given, by them, to the mainstream press, and apparently, the police, then I don't think EP will be able to walk away from those statements that easily.

The facts were all about the source of dangerously lethal poisons, and she gave her account about where they came from.
If these were incorrect statements by her attorneys, why wouldn't she correct them, in order to protect others?

I don't think she is going to be able to easily walk away from those statements if she goes to trial. JMO

The defence lawyer said the prosecution would try to get the statement entered as evidence through the "exception to the hearsay rule".

IF the statement is unsigned. IF EP ever faced charges.

The exception seems to be covered in Sec 66 of the Evidence Act. Where if EP is present at (a hypothetical) trial, she could be questioned about her "representations" (the potentially unsigned statement).

imo

EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 66 Exception: criminal proceedings if maker available

classic.austlii.edu.au

 

[al66pine]

Hearsay Exception? Which Statute?

The defence lawyer said the prosecution would try to get the statement entered as evidence through the "exception to the hearsay rule".
IF the statement is unsigned. IF EP ever faced charges.
The exception seems to be covered in Sec 66 of the Evidence Act. Where if EP is present at (a hypothetical) trial, she could be questioned about her "representations" (the potentially unsigned statement).
imo

EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 66 Exception: criminal proceedings if maker available

classic.austlii.edu.au

@SouthAussie Thanks for your post.
Link refers to NSW statute, not Vic. statute.
Are they the same?

Excuse my ignorance of OZ geography and law, but I thought Vic. statute would apply to this case.
@SouthAussie ? Anyone? TiA.

 

[SouthAussie]

Hearsay Exception? Which Statute?

@SouthAussie Thanks for your post.
Link refers to NSW statute, not Vic. statute.
Are they the same?

Excuse my ignorance of OZ geography and law, but I thought Vic. statute would apply to this case.
@SouthAussie ? Anyone? TiA.

Sorry, @al66pine. It was an austlii link so I didn't realise it was state specifc - missed the state header.

Here is the link to info about the Vic Act. See their Sec 65 for the same info.

https://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/media/68/file

 

[Ellery84]

That's not what the ABC article said. Here's the quote:

In a written statement sent to Victoria Police on Friday – and obtained exclusively by the ABC – Gippsland woman Erin Patterson has given her first detailed account of what transpired before and after the fatal lunch.

In any case, it's clear that what was published in the media were only a few snippets from a much longer statement

Additionally, there's some statements from the Deputy Police Commissioner saying the statement was taken by Erin's attorneys.

Exclusively means that it was only given to the ABC, and not given to any other news companies or publications.

It’s a scoop, an exclusive.

 

[Ellery84]

If the document was taken by and prepared by her attorneys, and given, by them, to the mainstream press, and apparently, the police, then I don't think EP will be able to walk away from those statements that easily.

Yeah exactly. Moo, she’d have a hard time trying to walk that “statement” back.

If only she had a time machine….


IMO

 

[ch_13]

I don’t know if the police received it. Maybe the “sender” sent it to the wrong email address in the Vic police media department.

Sometimes a .gov or a .gov.au makes all the difference at the end of an email address.

IMO

Exclusively means that it was only given to the ABC, and not given to any other news companies or publications.

It’s a scoop, an exclusive.

I know what exclusively means but nothing in my comment made any reference to which media companies were given the scoop.

My point was simply that Erin's attorneys directly gave the police a written statement from Erin as per the ABC report.

The Deputy Commissioner has basically confirmed that they have the statement and are investigating it, so I find it unlikely that the statement was mis-sent to the wrong email address or that the police have not been granted access to it.

 

[Ellery84]

Deputy Commissioner has basically confirmed that they have the statement and are investigating it,

Have they? Do you have a link to that information?

Thanks so much.

Edit/ of course it wasn’t sent to the wrong police media email address. I was actually using irony in my previous post.

 

[ch_13]

Have they? Do you have a link to that information?

In posts #765 & #767, @MsMarple and @SouthAussie, respectively, provide links to articles where Wendy Steendam is quoted.

These articles are a couple of months old and have been mentioned quite a few times previously. But I will provide a quote that is taken directly from The Age article:
She stressed it was not an official police statement, but a document taken by and provided by Patterson’s legal team.
...
Steendam said she was uncertain if the statement was handed to the media before it was given to police.

(bolding mine)

The comments by the Deputy Commissioner of the Victoria Police that the statement was "taken by and provided by Patterson's legal team" and "given to police" leads me to conclude that Erin's attorneys gave the police the statement. But that is only my opinion. You may draw a different conclusion.

 

[Ellery84]

In posts #765 & #767, @MsMarple and @SouthAussie, respectively, provide links to articles where Wendy Steendam is quoted.

These articles are a couple of months old and have been mentioned quite a few times previously. But I will provide a quote that is taken directly from The Age article:
She stressed it was not an official police statement, but a document taken by and provided by Patterson’s legal team.
...
Steendam said she was uncertain if the statement was handed to the media before it was given to police.

(bolding mine)

The comments by the Deputy Commissioner of the Victoria Police that the statement was "taken by and provided by Patterson's legal team" and "given to police" leads me to conclude that Erin's attorneys gave the police the statement. But that is only my opinion. You may draw a different conclusion.

I really appreciate the clarification. Thank you.

I hope law enforcement provides an update soon on this case.

 

[MsMarple]

It’s difficult to figure out what kind of endgame EP and her lawyers are trying to set up. What was the point in releasing a statement where the POI admitted she lied? And now it seems that the statement was bogus and not even signed?

It’s possible the copy given to LE was signed and the one given to the media wasn’t. But if so then why haven’t EP’s lawyers come forward to say it was signed?

The strategy seems to be at odds with itself. First they release a statement to supposedly set the record straight then when the validity of the statement is questioned in the media - silence.

Maybe EP wants to be in charge of what gets released to the media, leaving her lawyers no choice. If so then IMO the law firm looks foolish. Are they even still representing her?
All MOO

Leongatha tragedy: Fresh doubts raised over Erin Patterson’s statement

Mushroom cook Erin Patterson’s statement describing her version of the triple-fatal mushroom meal at her home may be of “little value” in a court of law if it has not been signed.

www.skynews.com.au

 

[Baby baby Jane]

It’s difficult to figure out what kind of endgame EP and her lawyers are trying to set up. What was the point in releasing a statement where the POI admitted she lied? And now it seems that the statement was bogus and not even signed?

It’s possible the copy given to LE was signed and the one given to the media wasn’t. But if so then why haven’t EP’s lawyers come forward to say it was signed?

The strategy seems to be at odds with itself. First they release a statement to supposedly set the record straight then when the validity of the statement is questioned in the media - silence.

Maybe EP wants to be in charge of what gets released to the media, leaving her lawyers no choice. If so then IMO the law firm looks foolish. Are they even still representing her?
All MOO

Leongatha tragedy: Fresh doubts raised over Erin Patterson’s statement

Mushroom cook Erin Patterson’s statement describing her version of the triple-fatal mushroom meal at her home may be of “little value” in a court of law if it has not been signed.

www.skynews.com.au

Maybe she reads WebSleuths and is seeing the flaws in her statement and wants a do-over?

 

[katydid23]

It’s difficult to figure out what kind of endgame EP and her lawyers are trying to set up. What was the point in releasing a statement where the POI admitted she lied? And now it seems that the statement was bogus and not even signed?

It’s possible the copy given to LE was signed and the one given to the media wasn’t. But if so then why haven’t EP’s lawyers come forward to say it was signed?

The strategy seems to be at odds with itself. First they release a statement to supposedly set the record straight then when the validity of the statement is questioned in the media - silence.

Maybe EP wants to be in charge of what gets released to the media, leaving her lawyers no choice. If so then IMO the law firm looks foolish. Are they even still representing her?
All MOO

Leongatha tragedy: Fresh doubts raised over Erin Patterson’s statement

Mushroom cook Erin Patterson’s statement describing her version of the triple-fatal mushroom meal at her home may be of “little value” in a court of law if it has not been signed.

www.skynews.com.au

I've been reading about the veracity of written statements from an attorney. Apparently, an attorney is hired 'to speak for', advocate for, and represent their client. One can send their attorney 'to speak for them' in court.

So if one's attorney sends out a statement that is said to be from their client, others should accept that as being true. The attorney is hired to do just that---to speak for one's client.

If this attorney had sent a made up an incorrect statement about the source of the toxic mushrooms, and sent it to a news source, wouldn't the client have spoken up and corrected the info?