Australia - 3 dead after eating wild mushrooms, Leongatha, Victoria, Aug 2023 #10 *Arrest*

[Jess D]

Surely that ‘call’ should never have been allowed on a major piece of evidence in this case? Did she have a landline or couldn’t they make her phone her lawyer from a Police Station phone?

Surely that ‘call’ should never have been allowed on a major piece of evidence in this case? Did she have a landline or couldn’t they make her phone her lawyer from a Police Station phone?

It beggars belief...

 

[Detechtive]

Ridiculous and weak point by the defence IMO. Like I said and most people with some common sense would agree that the feelings were first voiced by EP and the friend then confirmed her feelings to show 'support' and 'agreement'.

It's not even about the vulgar language. Even if she had said "I can't stand them, I can't take them anymore, Simon is not paying his way" (without any vulgar language) etc it would have still been a motive regardless. The fact is that she voiced strong feelings against them to her online friends and then publicly pretended that she loved them.

Agreed! The defence argument here is weak, IMO!

 

[Lisa4]

True, but in your 40's - most women that I know expect a more honest relationship and not just blind support. Maybe it's just me, but I find the friends comments quite toxic. In other words, maybe they are sycophants.

Sorry, I will stop after this!, but yes I do agree.

I suspect she had found her level and only had friends who would say what she wanted to hear, rather than ones who would ask for both sides of the story etc.

 

[Detechtive]

Sorry, I will stop after this!, but yes I do agree.

I suspect she had found her level and only had friends who would say what she wanted to hear, rather than ones who would ask for both sides of the story etc.

Ha! You don't have to stop. Your opinions are interesting!

I agree, to me, it seems as though the friends lacked critical thinking skills. Who knows what else she manipulated them with.

It sounds very high-school. Not what I would expect from 45-65 year olds. IMO

 

[Jess D]

No, but in the majority of poisonings money is the key motive.

Him putting "separated" on his tax return seemed to be a kick off event in this matter, IMO. That is in my opinion, because it has financial consequences for Erin.

Besides, it's my opinion that money is a motive or at least, a mitigating factor based on the trial evidence.

Could someone please explain to me how Simon putting that he was separated on his tax income form affected Erin claiming Family Tax Benefit? Had he already claimed it?

 

[MrJ]

It sounds very high-school. Not what I would expect from 45-65 year olds. IMO

It brings to mind the phrase arrested development. Imo

 

[Yh5r]

True, but in your 40's - most women that I know expect a more honest relationship and not just blind support. Maybe it's just me, but I find the friends comments quite toxic. In other words, maybe they are sycophants.

The friends are not on trial though. Erin is the one that started with the sentiments about Simon and her in laws so what does it matter how the friends responded.

 

[brisbanemum]

Could someone please explain to me how Simon putting that he was separated on his tax income form affected Erin claiming Family Tax Benefit? Had he already claimed it?

If I recall EP said as much in her messages in the family group chat that she wouldn’t be eligible for the payment. I’m not an expert but AFAIK it’s calculated based on family income and percentage of care for the children. It’s also not asset tested. So presumably if they separated EP might not have been eligible if she had to get a job and her income went up, and she wasn’t a full time carer for the children if SP was also caring for them some of the time.

Potentially more concerning for her was the fact that SP putting separated on his tax return would formally notify the government that steps were being taken towards divorce. Here in AUS there’s a minimum 12 month separation period before a divorce can be granted. A divorce would have meant a division of her (substantial) assets. I’m not an expert in Victorian law but generally all assets acquired during marriage are divided in a financial settlement - regardless of who’s name is on what title.

 

[Jess D]

Tha

If I recall EP said as much in her messages in the family group chat that she wouldn’t be eligible for the payment. I’m not an expert but AFAIK it’s calculated based on family income and percentage of care for the children. It’s also not asset tested. So presumably if they separated EP might not have been eligible if she had to get a job and her income went up, and she wasn’t a full time carer for the children if SP was also caring for them some of the time.

Potentially more concerning for her was the fact that SP putting separated on his tax return would formally notify the government that steps were being taken towards divorce. Here in AUS there’s a minimum 12 month separation period before a divorce can be granted. A divorce would have meant a division of her (substantial) assets. I’m not an expert in Victorian law but generally all assets acquired during marriage are divided in a financial settlement - regardless of who’s name is on what title.

Thanks for explaining that to me.

I knew about the 12 months separation before divorcing. I hadn't thought of it before, but that would be a definite motive for her to have tried to eliminate Simon, so that she didn't have to split her substantial assets with him. I'm sure some of her motive for the poisonings was due to resentment but I've always thought that it was mainly about money...

 

[Kemug]

The sister is on a holiday in the middle of nowhere right now. We won't be hearing from her. IMO

I know nothing about it, but I would have thought that in a murder case, the sister could have been subpoenaed?

 

[JBowie]

a lot of people make statements like "it's just circumstantial evidence" without actually knowing what that means.

Circumstantial Evidence and Inferences​

"Evidence comes in many forms. It can be evidence about what someone saw or heard. It can be an exhibit admitted into evidence. It can be someone's opinion.

Some evidence can prove a fact directly. For example, if a witness said that s/he saw or heard it raining outside, that would be direct evidence of the fact that it was raining.

Other evidence can prove a fact indirectly. For example, if a witness said that s/he saw someone enter the courthouse wearing a raincoat and carrying an umbrella, both dripping wet, that would be indirect or ‘circumstantial’ evidence of the fact that it was raining outside. You can conclude from the witness’s evidence that it was raining, even though s/he didn’t actually see or hear the rain.

As far as the law is concerned, it makes no difference whether evidence is direct or indirect. Although people often believe that indirect or circumstantial evidence is weaker than direct evidence, that is not true. It can be just as strong or even stronger. What matters is how strong or weak the particular evidence is, not whether it is direct or indirect.

However, you must take care when drawing conclusions from indirect evidence. You should consider all of the evidence in the case, and only draw reasonable conclusions based on the evidence that you accept. Do not guess. While we might be willing to act on the basis of guesses in our daily lives, it is not safe to do that in a criminal trial." --- Judicial College of Victoria

 

[Detechtive]

I know nothing about it, but I would have thought that in a murder case, the sister could have been subpoenaed?

I mean, you can be forced to testify but it doesn't usually benefit anyone to have a hostile witness. As far as I am aware, they have been estranged on and off for many years, but in particular since the mother passing in 2019. IMO

 

[Detechtive]

Circumstantial Evidence and Inferences​

"Evidence comes in many forms. It can be evidence about what someone saw or heard. It can be an exhibit admitted into evidence. It can be someone's opinion.

Some evidence can prove a fact directly. For example, if a witness said that s/he saw or heard it raining outside, that would be direct evidence of the fact that it was raining.

Other evidence can prove a fact indirectly. For example, if a witness said that s/he saw someone enter the courthouse wearing a raincoat and carrying an umbrella, both dripping wet, that would be indirect or ‘circumstantial’ evidence of the fact that it was raining outside. You can conclude from the witness’s evidence that it was raining, even though s/he didn’t actually see or hear the rain.

As far as the law is concerned, it makes no difference whether evidence is direct or indirect. Although people often believe that indirect or circumstantial evidence is weaker than direct evidence, that is not true. It can be just as strong or even stronger. What matters is how strong or weak the particular evidence is, not whether it is direct or indirect.

However, you must take care when drawing conclusions from indirect evidence. You should consider all of the evidence in the case, and only draw reasonable conclusions based on the evidence that you accept. Do not guess. While we might be willing to act on the basis of guesses in our daily lives, it is not safe to do that in a criminal trial." --- Judicial College of Victoria

That's what I said previously (pretty much). Although, I would argue that just because a witness says something as direct evidence, it doesn't make it strong evidence. The strongest would be CCTV footage. Witness testimony and recollection is notoriously unreliable, especially with the passage of time. Circumstantial evidence is much more powerful when compared with witness testimony in most cases, IMO.

 

[JBowie]

Although, I would argue that just because a witness says something, it doesn't make it strong evidence.

Agreed, and it's up to the other side to attempt to weaken such evidence and/or diminish the credibility of a witness in the eyes of the jury.

 

[Scooby-Doo]

She was searching for death caps online one year before.

But in the meantime, she's also feeding her estranged husband experimental amounts of poison in his food, and ridiculously grinding harmless mushrooms into her kid's muffins as well as the chocolate brownies.

This is someone gearing, preparing herself, planning, and plotting

Even her story about having cancer was planned online through research.

But at what point did she think, four deaths at one dinner wouldn't be investigated?

 

[Lord Peter Flimsy]

I’m guessing sales of ready made Beef Wellington’s have plummeted in Australia?!!

 

[JBowie]

I’m guessing sales of ready made Beef Wellington’s have plummeted in Australia?!!

Dunno, but mushroom sales took a hit at the time:

Mushroom sales fall after suspected poisoning at Leongatha lunch

Supermarkets are telling their mushroom suppliers that sales have decreased by up to 10 per cent in the past few weeks. It comes in the wake of three people dying of suspected death cap mushroom poisoning in Gippsland, Victoria.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Walk A Mile]

Could someone please explain to me how Simon putting that he was separated on his tax income form affected Erin claiming Family Tax Benefit? Had he already claimed it?

Fwiw I think the meaning of the message has been mangled in the media. I suspect, as a single parent, she would be entitled to receive child support and FTB, but she hadn't applied because she believed they were filing their taxes as a married couple. I feel like the actual text of the message was published somewhere - perhaps someone can find it?

 

[Porky1]

@

I find it very hard to follow all of this multiple phone business and, from what has been reported so far, I have no idea what the prosecution is driving at with this evidence.

Is the suggestion/allegation that the missing Phone A is the one from which she initiated all of the resets on Phone B, and is that why it is likely missing?

What is the jury supposed to make of the missing phone?

Iam trying to catch-up but do you think there’s a possibility she put it in to get the screen replaced? Innocently or not, there was mention of it in her fb posts. Why collect it during that investigation?

Would you hand over your phone? Everything in there, your only contact with kids, school, all services. Iam a law abiding citizen but I think I’d have trouble. Everything requires two-factor ID. My mobile is everything.

 

[Detechtive]

Fwiw I think the meaning of the message has been mangled in the media. I suspect, as a single parent, she would be entitled to receive child support and FTB, but she hadn't applied because she believed they were filing their taxes as a married couple. I feel like the actual text of the message was published somewhere - perhaps someone can find it?

I did a calculation and it looks like Erins income was over 250k per year to be receiving only $48 per month from Simon - that is, more than double his income. This isn't surprising considering her land only cost $260,000 and she inherited 3m from her mother in 2019. So I assume even if the house cost $600,000 to build, she should have 1.8-2m or so in assets/stocks/high interest bearing accounts, rental property, investments which could return an income of $250,000 PA for Erin.

She wouldn't have been eligible for FTB A or FTB B.

No Payment: FTB Part A ceases when ATI exceeds $128,383 for two children of these ages.
Single Parents: Eligible if ATI is $117,194 or less.

If Simon took one child 1.5 extra days per week, or had both children for 1 day per weekend extra, Erin would have to pay him child support.

She was on a great wicket when Simon was paying over >$400 per week in school fees, plus medical bills. Him changing his tax status to "separated" and her filing for FTB A & B and child support would have seen a reduction in her income of approximately $21,000 per year.

https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/online-estimators?context=64107