I don't have access to the article but from the synopsis it seems that to be found guilty of murder, the prosecution has to show that Erin had specific knowledge of the mushroom's adverse effects.
It was claimed in one of the
Daily Mail's stories that Erin was an expert forager:
A friend of the Patterson family said Erin was 'very good at foraging' and identifying different mushroom varieties.
'The Patterson family (including Erin and Simon) would pick mushrooms each year when they were in season,' the friend said.
Of course there have been quite a few 'friends' popping up saying various things about Erin, so take it with a grain of salt. But in any case, it seems that Simon should be able to testify to his ex-wife's previous experiences with wild fungi.
That’s really interesting!!
“to be found guilty of murder, the prosecution has to show that Erin had specific knowledge of the mushroom's adverse effects.”
So, presumably that would be in connection with the alleged beef Wellington lunch incident. Jmo
But what about the previous times that the Crown alleges that Erin attempted to murder her husband (or ex husband) Simon Patterson?
Thinking about those historical charges of attempted murder of Simon Patterson: What was the alleged mechanism of those attempted murders? (And Erin is entitled to the presumption of innocence, as she hasn’t been convicted of any of these charges.)
Has the Crown alleged that Simon was poisoned? Or was he
allegedly harmed in another way that would lead them to bring a brief together with charges of attempted murder?
If he
was allegedly poisoned, then what does the Crown alledge he was poisoned with? Nightshade? Arsenic? Mushrooms?
So
I would suggest that there might be more to it than just establishing the accused’s potential knowledge of the mushroom’s adverse effects.
IMO
I would suggest that, in a general sense, the fact that it is called a Death Cap Mushroom might inform the chef (or in this case an alleged murderer) that it might be deadly and therefore not suitable for consumption.
I like to think about this in simple terms, and bear with me: For example, it might be like me preparing a Death Banana. It’s called a Death Banana. I’m hardly going to chop it up and put it on my cornflakes in the morning. Let alone serve it to anyone else…. I’m going to leave it on it’s tree and never touch it.
So if Ms. Patterson’s hearing goes ahead in May 2024, let’s say the defence in the Erin Patterson case rises in the court and says, “well my client didn’t know that Death Cap Mushrooms were sufficiently poisonous that they would cause death,” the Prosecutor might say “well, they are called Death Cap mushrooms” and that might be a really strong argument as to what might happen if one ingested them. Jmo
For what it’s worth, I think there may be some discussion about “quantity” of mushrooms, if and when the case goes to trial in May.
All imo
IBM
BBM
www.corrections.vic.gov.au
) , but I did not realize she is in a facility holding (mainly?) persons already convicted.
en.wikipedia.org
