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

[Detechtive]

In total, she'd purchased well over the 1kg of mushrooms from Woollies, needed for her recipe...

And mushrooms are light. 1kgs of mushrooms is a lot, IMO.
I make a mushroom pasta dish which is highly concentrated in mushroom flavouring, and for 6 people I only use 250gms.

 

[SouthAussie]

Yes I understand that but am confused that it seems the prosecution didn't produce any of these messages as evidence but the defence is now doing it.

The defence will have all of the prosecution's evidence. And the defence will see more importance in things that might seem to exonerate Erin's behaviour. (Like her friends calling her in-laws 'morons'.) So they will present that info in Erin's defence case.

Doesn't mean the defence actually had Simon's phone, just all the evidence that the prosecution had gathered.

imo

 

[Detechtive]

The defence will have all of the prosecution's evidence. And the defence will see more importance in things that might seem to exonerate Erin's behaviour. (Like her friends calling her in-laws 'morons'.) So they will present that info in Erin's defence case.

Doesn't mean the defence actually had Simon's phone, just all the evidence that the prosecution had gathered.

imo

I really don't think it's working for them so far.
IMO it makes the defence seem petty and weak, at best.

 

[SouthAussie]

I really don't think it's working for them so far.
IMO it makes the defence seem petty and weak, at best.

Yes. I don't think they have much of a case to present. All they can do is try to make witnesses seem less credible through abstract and often non-sensical means.

imo

 

[Detechtive]

Yes. I don't think they have much of a case to present. All they can do is try to make witnesses seem less credible through abstract and often non-sensical means.

imo

Agree.

I do feel for them, Erin's case looks difficult to defend.

 

[Lord Peter Flimsy]

I don't think the police are allowed to be present for a person's conversation with their lawyer, unless the person lets them.

imo

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?

 

[Yh5r]

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?

Good point! While they have a search warrant for her house, it's surprising she is allowed to be alone with a critical piece of evidence.

 

[Lord Peter Flimsy]

I understand she didn’t have a great relationship with her mother who died of cancer, but do we know when her father died and what he died of?

 

[SouthAussie]

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?

I don't know. She wasn't under arrest at the time. Just subject to a search warrant. I don't think they could limit her movements, only follow her around.

She wasn't arrested until November. And she may not have had a landline. Many people don't these days.

imo

 

[Detechtive]

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?

Virtually nobody has landlines nowadays.

Like @SouthAussie mentioned, police aren't allowed to be present whilst Erin is speaking to lawyers, that conversation is privileged.

But also, police aren't allowed (before a suspect is charged) to accompany them to a bathroom, either.

It doesn't point to police incompetence, IMO.

The fact she changed the sim while the police were in her vicinity, and then, factory reset the phone remotely when the phone was in police custody, is damning evidence IMO.

None of this "doubt" raised by Mr Mandy SC is very compelling, IMO

 

[HoneyBunOne]

Erin Patterson murder trial day 22 – as it happened

This blog is now closed

www.theguardian.com

Defence lawyer says boy seen on Subway CCTV is not Patterson’s son

Mandy turns to CCTV footage of Patterson dropping her son at Subway in Leongatha on the evening of the lunch. The footage was played earlier in the trial.

Mandy says this is not Patterson’s son who is seen in the footage. He shows the jury a photo of Patterson’s son, who cannot be named for legal reasons. Patterson’s son is with his grandfather, Don, in the photo.

He then shows a still from the CCTV image which he says is not Patterson’s son.

“That is not [Patterson’s son],” Mandy says.

Eppingstall says he believes it is Patterson’s son and says it is a “matter for the jury”.

Shortened by me.
Surely this can be cleared up with bank statements, CCTV within the store and car park, CCTV around the site, testimony from the son, phone pings (Erin's and the son's if he had one), etc?

 

[HoneyBunOne]

Has this officially been stated? IMO the motive is that she felt more and more excluded from and unsupported by Simon (and one way this showed was through her losing the family tax benefit when he labelled himself as "separated" on his tax return) and the family and grew resentful. Her anger turned into hatred and hence her actions of allegedly poisoning them.

Why can't it be both? If she was seething and planning for months, then the motive can twist, turn and change throughout.

In my opinion it's Number 4 that will get her off. Did she intend to make them sick, or to kill them?

She allegedly served them death cap mushrooms. Death cap. Death. Cap. If you believe she knowingly tried to hurt them with these mushrooms, you have to believe it would seriously hurt them or kill them.

 

[Scuffy35]

For example, if your DNA was at a crime scene, you are not necessarily involved in the crime. That could be there for a number of reasons. That is not direct evidence.

I should have clarified that "at the scene of a crime", I meant not just the place but also the time of the crime.

. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly, i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

I am sure there can be DNA evidence that satifies the above, like a rape murder and the perpetrators seamen found or their dna found under the victim's fingernails.

I am not sure about eyewitness accounts or CCTV always being good and reliable evidence, even though they are classed as direct evidence, but would never be a smoking gun evidence for me.

I rather not discuss this further as off topic. Also it is not the first time I have debated this (elsewhere) and I rather agree to disagree.

 

[JLZ]

Erin's sister could no doubt shine a bright light on her personality. But we know nothing about her, they have possibly been estranged for years.

I'm estranged from someone in my family, but if she was accused of murder--I could shine some lights on her personality for sure, and I definitely wouldn't.

 

[Detechtive]

I'm estranged from someone in my family, but if she was accused of murder--I could shine some lights on her personality for sure, and I definitely wouldn't.

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

 

[Yh5r]

Why can't it be both? If she was seething and planning for months, then the motive can twist, turn and change throughout.

Maybe there was a financial element to her alleged motive too. IMO it's still irrelevant whether people feel she's stingy or what she spends or doesn't spend her money on. Goes into a witch hunt direction for me and is not relevant to the actual case JMO

 

[Detechtive]

I should have clarified that "at the scene of a crime", I meant not just the place but also the time of the crime.



I am sure there can be DNA evidence that satifies the above, like a rape murder and the perpetrators seamen found or their dna found under the victim's fingernails.

I am not sure about eyewitness accounts or CCTV always being good and reliable evidence, even though they are classed as direct evidence, but would never be a smoking gun evidence for me.

I rather not discuss this further as off topic. Also it is not the first time I have debated this (elsewhere) and I rather agree to disagree.

That isn't how it works. Semen found in a victim means that there is semen found in the victim and you can infer a sex act occurred but it is not direct evidence that a sex act occurred - for all we know, it could have been placed there post-morten with a turkey baster. It could infer that they had consensual sex, or were raped but there is no direct conclusion that can be drawn from it. It isn't *direct* evidence of rape. It is circumstantial evidence.

It's not a case of agreeing to disagree. One form of evidence is not the same as the other. They are distinctly separated in the eyes of the law.

I find this topic quite frustrating because a lot of people make statements like "it's just circumstantial evidence" without actually knowing what that means.

 

[Kemug]

The defence, through their barrister, Colin Mandy, pointed out to the jury in his openings that Ms Patterson did not deliberately poison the lunch guests with death cap mushrooms.​

​

RSBM
I beg to disagree. The Defence did not point this out, it claimed It.

 

[Lisa4]

The defence will have all of the prosecution's evidence. And the defence will see more importance in things that might seem to exonerate Erin's behaviour. (Like her friends calling her in-laws 'morons'.) So they will present that info in Erin's defence case.

Doesn't mean the defence actually had Simon's phone, just all the evidence that the prosecution had gathered.

imo

I really do not understand how there is any point whatsoever in the defence attempting to use FB comments?! Those FB "friends" had never met Erin or her in-laws IRL, so why would their words count for anything ? Of course they are going to go along with EP, they only have her side of the story.

Jmo

 

[Detechtive]

I really do not understand how there is any point whatsoever in the defence attempting to use FB comments?! Those FB "friends" had never met Erin or her in-laws IRL, so why would their words count for anything ? Of course they are going to go along with EP, they only have her side of the story.

Jmo

I would definitely not go along with a friends side of the story without asking for more context. Sure, you support your friends but you don't blindly accept one side without at least getting some context. IMO.

Who knows? Maybe Erin also manipulated all of the friends with her resentful narrative? Erin comes across as highly manipulative, IMO.