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

[arrogantcat]

True!

But Erin crying her crocodile tears in front do the TV reporters and saying “I loved them!” is in stark contrast to these messages and again shows her to be untruthful.

While many people complain about their exes and in laws, they don’t allegedly murder them. In Erin’s case the messages can clearly be seen as a motive for the murder charges.

Yeah, that’s a fair point.

Although, to play devil’s advocate, there’s a huge gulf between being infuriated by someone’s behaviour and wanting them dead. My MIL drives me utterly crazy but I still love her and want the best for her.

It would be a very odd person who announced “actually I’d been really annoyed with them lately so I’m fine with this” in response to their deaths lol

 

[mamamama9873]

In Australia, many/most dinner sets come in sets of 4. You have to usually buy two sets to bump up the numbers. Unless you buy everything singularly.

imo

How many adult households with a solid income and interest in cooking use different plates when entertaining though

 

[mamamama9873]

Yeah, that’s a fair point.

Although, to play devil’s advocate, there’s a huge gulf between being infuriated by someone’s behaviour and wanting them dead. My MIL drives me utterly crazy but I still love her and want the best for her.

It would be a very odd person who announced “actually I’d been really annoyed with them lately so I’m fine with this” in response to their deaths lol

yes good points but in combination with all other things (inviting Ian and Heather for the first time and ‘coincidentally’ they become very sick and of them them dies/ not enquiring about her in laws’ wellbeing when at the hospital/ etc) all paints a very clear picture IMO

 

[SouthAussie]

Yeah, that’s a fair point.

Although, to play devil’s advocate, there’s a huge gulf between being infuriated by someone’s behaviour and wanting them dead. My MIL drives me utterly crazy but I still love her and want the best for her.

It would be a very odd person who announced “actually I’d been really annoyed with them lately so I’m fine with this” in response to their deaths lol

I can't consider people who (allegedly) murder as being just like you and me.

There is something different in their brain cells that enables them to kill another person.

imo

 

[SouthAussie]

How many adult households with a solid income and interest in cooking use different plates when entertaining though

I don't know. But I can see how someone who doesn't entertain and has a 3 person household might have a 4 piece dinner set in Australia. And a few others odds and sods.

While the different coloured plate she used is probably an indicator, it is only a good indicator because of all the other evidence. Defence-wise, it can be too easily explained away due to the size of our standard dinner sets.

imo

 

[Bats]

DBM

 

[Neet_Mc]

True!

But Erin crying her crocodile tears in front do the TV reporters and saying “I loved them!” is in stark contrast to these messages and again shows her to be untruthful.

While many people complain about their exes and in laws, they don’t allegedly murder them. In Erin’s case the messages can clearly be seen as a motive for the murder charges.

From memory there were no tears. She rubbed her eyes and looked at her hands where tears would have been expected.

 

[arrogantcat]

I want to make it clear I'm not asserting particular guilt or innocence. IMO EP seems like the sort of person who cannot, or finds it very difficult to, take 'no' for an answer. And a strong sense of feeling scorned by others who see things differently to her. 'Gaslighting', 'abusive', all sorts of "therapy language" that can also be weaponised. Obviously I don't know the full situation, none of us do, but this sort of rage expressed through text is terrifying. IMO JMO

May I ask which parts of the evidence in particular you found helpful in sketching her character as this? I’m super curious because for me, there’s been frustratingly little provided by the prosecution for me to form any real opinion. I confess I was hoping we’d get more, if only because I sleep better at night when I can believe the killers amongst us are easily identifiable!

But with the exception of the events around the crimes she’s accused of, everything I’ve seen of EP seems fairly ordinary. Yes, there are examples of her bitching about her husband and in laws, but nothing particularly unusual, or wildly vitriolic.
It all seems like things ordinary, reasonable and non-murderous people might do or say too, during life’s stresses and strains.

If we take the exchanges about the husband and child support as an example; what *should* EP have done in this situation, if she genuinely believed their father was skirting his responsibilities to their kids?

I’m sure we can agree there are circumstances where ‘not taking no for an answer’ and pushing would be the *right* thing to do, and not an indication of any great character flaw or pathology. If you imagine for a moment she’s absolutely in the right on this, the messages just seem like her fighting for her kids.

We haven’t really had enough evidence to determine whose claim was more credible here, but we do know SP was paying a very small amount of Child maintenance, so we know her claims were not totally without basis.

I’ve certainly known ppl very much like who you’re describing, and IME they usually leave a trail of social transgressions in their wake. Conflict with the kids’ school, with other parents, with neighbours, and heaps of scathing reviews for businesses etc. Refusing her barrister’s advice and insisting on self representation, or taking the stand. All of this may be true for EP too, but afaik we haven’t seen any of it to date. I guess I’m just hungry for something tangible lol

<modsnip: Removed due to sub judice>

 

[Spectrix]

From memory there were no tears. She rubbed her eyes and looked at her hands where tears would have been expected.

Quite the performance, but not particularly convincing. Aside from the complete absence of tears, stable and regular breathing between the words and the crying noises did not appear to corralate with either heartache nor grief.

.

 

[tillytatler]

So now we've seen her texts showing the animosity she had been brewing against her inlaws was almost as bad as what she felt toward Simon. Still flabbergasting that she chose to invite them to a lunch of death cap mushrooms, but at least now we see how she really felt about them and sort of see her motive.

But what about the other couple? They were just Simon's aunt and uncle, godly people, saints almost! And from what we've seen so far, she had never had any sort of negative interaction with them at all. There has never been any mention of them being involved in "adjudicating" their separation. She couldn't possibly have had anything at all against these good people.

I guess it has to be she just wanted to hurt Simon as much as possible, but that explanation still doesn't work very well for me. I wonder what her thinking was there. I wonder how long before she invited them did she decide to invite them. Maybe it was spur of the moment just when she saw them at church and she didn't even think through what inviting them meant at all.

I think it possible that her lack of negativity towards them might be "motive" in itself - sort of a double bluff? Like, if people knew she had bad blood with her husband and his parents, then they all got fatally ill after a dinner that would immediately look suspicious, whereas random people being involved makes you think "well why would she do that? It must have been a mistake".

But could be anything, hard to know her (alleged) thinking and I suspect we will never know the answer on this one!

 

[MsMarple]

Given that it’s unlikely the accused will take the stand I guess all her defense team can do is try to cast doubt upon the testimonies of medical personnel, toxicologists, mycologists, law enforcement, digital forensic techs and so on, one by one.

And then try to weave all those doubts into a reasonable argument. IMO it’s a fine line between casting doubt and outright calling the experts’ statements flawed or mistaken: that line can only go so far.

I get that they could simply do nothing and then claim the prosecution failed to make their case, in fact they’ll likely make a motion to dismiss (if that’s allowed in Australian trials) but more often than not such motions are denied.

We still have further testimony from LE and maybe other investigators so who knows what will happen? I’m getting itchy to see the defense’s case.

 

[CityKid]

This may have long since come up, however I only just saw EP's text to Simon re his refusal of the dinner invite, and her very clear desire that he would attend.
The question came to mind - what colour plate would he have been given?? A moot point really at this stage, but if there had been a fifth grey plate intended for him that matched the other guests' plates, she could have used it herself when he didn't show up.

Just curious - how many people really only have 4 of a matching plate?

And how many people have more iPads stashed around their home and property than they have matching plates?

 

[MrJ]

May I ask which parts of the evidence in particular you found helpful in sketching her character as this? I’m super curious because for me, there’s been frustratingly little provided by the prosecution for me to form any real opinion. I confess I was hoping we’d get more, if only because I sleep better at night when I can believe the killers amongst us are easily identifiable!

RSBM

Hi, good question! I think admittedly I was casting a few aspersions, and look perhaps some of her concerns are valid. I tend to perceive emotions quite quickly and feel them rather intensely due to ADHD, that and making connections quickly whether they be accurate or not. While it's true most people would vent about their ex, for me the messages fit in with the searches and the cancer searches. I think it shows her state of mind and alleged intent as to why she invited them for the meal. Imo

 

[Bats]

Given that it’s unlikely the accused will take the stand I guess all her defense team can do is try to cast doubt upon the testimonies of medical personnel, toxicologists, mycologists, law enforcement, digital forensic techs and so on, one by one.

And then try to weave all those doubts into a reasonable argument. IMO it’s a fine line between casting doubt and outright calling the experts’ statements flawed or mistaken: that line can only go so far.

I get that they could simply do nothing and then claim the prosecution failed to make their case, in fact they’ll likely make a motion to dismiss (if that’s allowed in Australian trials) but more often than not such motions are denied.

We still have further testimony from LE and maybe other investigators so who knows what will happen? I’m getting itchy to see the defense’s case.

I don't think the defence are trying to cast doubt on any of the prosecution's witness's testimony. But rather that its possible their evidence can be interpreted differently to the way the prosecution are asking for it to be interpreted.

 

[SouthAussie]

I don't think the defence are trying to cast doubt on any of the prosecution's witness's testimony. But rather that its possible their evidence can be interpreted differently to the way the prosecution are asking for it to be interpreted.

I think the defence are trying to cast doubt on prosecution witness testimony. It is one of the main strategies of a cross examination.

With regard to the last sentence below, there has been quite a bit of "you may be misremembering?" going on during cross examination.


A witness may be cross-examined on the facts in issue and also as to credit.
These are matters which are put with a view to impugning the credit of the witness and discrediting his/her testimony generally.
There are numerous ways in which the credit of the witness may be attacked.
These include attacking the competency of the witness; testing the ability of the witness to accurately recall the relevant factual circumstances, and establishing bias or lack of impartiality.

How to Cross-Examine a Witness in an Australian Court - Svenson Barristers

 

[Deleted member 363451]

From memory there were no tears. She rubbed her eyes and looked at her hands where tears would have been expected.

It wasn't exactly an Oscar winning performance...

 

[Bats]

I think the defence are trying to cast doubt on prosecution witness testimony. It is one of the main strategies of a cross examination.


A witness may be cross-examined on the facts in issue and also as to credit.
These are matters which are put with a view to impugning the credit of the witness and discrediting his/her testimony generally.
There are numerous ways in which the credit of the witness may be attacked.
These include attacking the competency of the witness; testing the ability of the witness to accurately recall the relevant factual circumstances, and establishing bias or lack of impartiality.

How to Cross-Examine a Witness in an Australian Court - Svenson Barristers

Yes, that's true in some cases.

But in this one, I'm not sure they are. For example, they are not trying to cast doubt over the credibility or testimony of witnesses like Dr Sorell, Dr May or any of the doctors or any of Simon’s family etc..

I'm not sure cross-examining a witness is necessarily try to cast doubt over their testimony.

JMO

 

[mamamama9873]

I don't know. But I can see how someone who doesn't entertain and has a 3 person household might have a 4 piece dinner set in Australia. And a few others odds and sods.

While the different coloured plate she used is probably an indicator, it is only a good indicator because of all the other evidence. Defence-wise, it can be too easily explained away due to the size of our standard dinner sets.

imo

I’m in Australia too and it certainly strikes me as odd - she went to the trouble of making a complex and expensive meal like Beef Wellington, only to serve it on mismatching plates. Very odd.
The fact that Heather noted it is to be considered as she certainly found it odd too.
Anyways as a stand alone fact, it could be easily explained away, with all the other evidence it does paint a clear picture.

 

[SouthAussie]

Yes, that's true in some cases.

But in this one, I'm not sure they are. For example, they are not trying to cast doubt over the credibility or testimony of witnesses like Dr Sorell, Dr May or any of the doctors or any of Simon’s family etc..

I'm not sure cross-examining a witness is necessarily try to cast doubt over their testimony.

JMO

They said to both Simon and to Ian that they may be misremembering.
They said to the Child Protection person - Katrina Cripps - that she may be misremembering. I recall that one easily, because she came back with a terse (and very good) response.

It is pretty hard to say that doctors may be misremembering because they have actual documented records.

imo

 

[Jake18]

What is the prosecution alluding to with the photos of the mushrooms?

I was just listening to the ABC podcast on the way to work and they explained this - they have a reporter in the courtroom.

The same picture of mushrooms in a dehydrator (retrieved from Erin’s phone) was also shown to the jury last week. Dr Tom May - who wasn’t given the context of the picture - was asked to identify the drying mushroom. He identified them with “reasonable certainty” as being Death Cap mushrooms.