Australia - 3 dead after eating wild mushrooms, Leongatha, Victoria, Aug 2023 #11 *Arrest*

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #21

2m ago

More Q + A with Mushroom Case Daily​


By Kristian Silva and Stephen Stockwell​

Court reporter Kristian Silva and producer Stephen Stockwell are also answering all the questions you have about the trial.

To get in touch and ask the team something, write to [email protected].

Q: When you say that the prosecutor needs to prove that Erin intended to cause death or very, very serious harm, the prosecutor can prove she intentionally used death cap mushrooms in the meal. Does the act of using death cap mushrooms itself prove intent? Or does the prosecutor need to prove that she meant to seriously harm the guests as opposed to perhaps making them a little bit sick or uncomfortable? - Kourosh

A:
The defence is saying that the act of using death cap mushrooms does not prove intent, and I think that's a fair inference to draw because the defence says that this was a tragic accident.

The defence is not disputing that death cap mushrooms were in the meal, but they absolutely dispute that Erin ever intended to pick death cap mushrooms and they dispute that she ever intended to harm the guests at all.

As to the seriousness of harm that may be caused, with the murder charge it does say you have to prove that the defendant intended to kill someone or cause them very serious injury to prove a murder charge.

If Erin Patterson intended to make them a little bit sick or uncomfortable, if that's what the jury believes, that is not far enough to prove that element of the murder charge.
 
  • #22
4m ago

Q+A with Mushroom Case Daily​

By Kristian Silva and Stephen Stockwell​

Court reporter Kristian Silva and producer Stephen Stockwell are also answering all the questions you have about the trial.

To get in touch and ask the team something, write to [email protected].

Q: What is the relevance of the pub meal delivered to Erin’s house? Was it the date of the meal? It's been mentioned a couple of times now and I've clearly missed why. - Robyn

A:
In analysis of the browser history on a computer in Erin Patterson’s home, the court heard about a visit to the Korumburra Pub website, where meals were ordered online. This was in May 2022, some 14 months before the lunch took place. But it allegedly occurred a couple of minutes after this same computer accessed the iNaturalist website and visited some pages with death cap mushroom material on it.

Like with a lot of the evidence in this case, prosecutors have sought to provide some level of context. For example, when showing phone records from a date, they will also show the jury phone records from before and after that date for context.

I think it's safe to say we just put the Korumburra pub website visit in the broader context of what the person on the computer was looking at on this particular date.

Is it just me or did they really not answer the question that was asked here? Like other posters on WS said, I thought they were using the pub order to show that there's no reason to question if it was truly Erin who was the one looking at the pages accessed just before the order was made. This answer doesn't mention that, does it?
 
  • #23
If it was as the defence says a 'tragic accident', why would EP go to the lengths to:
  • look up death caps sighting on iNaturalist and around the same time in early 2023 buy a dehydrator;
  • throw said dehydrator out at the tip with DC samples in it;
  • make up a bogus cancer story, persist that lie in texts and bring the guests to the lunch with that ruse knowing full well it was a lie;
  • insist she didn't forage for the mushrooms when she did;
  • say in her police interview that she loved her relatives when she was repeatedly disparaging them in her FB friends' group chat;
  • and most importantly, lie to health staff about where she sourced the mushrooms, leading them and council on a wild goose chase to Asian grocers/Woolworths when she later admitted she foraged them herself? Not only that, but ensuring the right treatment to her ill guests was given instead of not being transparent.
A lot of things just don't add up to me. JMO

Let's add:

• tell police you invited grandparents because "they're the only grandparents that my children have and I want them to stay in my kids' life and that's really important to me" - yet fabricate a cancer story to ensure the children weren't even present at the (rare) occasion of inviting grandparents in for lunch
• wipe phones multiple times
• individual servings
• using "funny smelling" dried mushrooms in a "special meal" that did not even call for dried mushrooms

• Also, I believe the dehydrator was actually purchased on the same morning as the outing to a known DC location.
 
  • #24
Is it just me or did they really not answer the question that was asked here? Like other posters on WS said, I thought they were using the pub order to show that there's no reason to question if it was truly Erin who was the one looking at the pages accessed just before the order was made. This answer doesn't mention that, does it?

It doesn't... but on second thoughts, wouldn't it be easy enough for defence to argue that she was allowing someone else (eg another family member) to make the purchase using her card details (possibly card details saved in the laptop)?
 
  • #25
Is it just me or did they really not answer the question that was asked here? Like other posters on WS said, I thought they were using the pub order to show that there's no reason to question if it was truly Erin who was the one looking at the pages accessed just before the order was made. This answer doesn't mention that, does it?
Yeah those Q&A’s aren’t really saying much, at least not in a clear manner. Maybe they’re just trying to avoid trouble due to the sub judice?
 
  • #26
www.abc.net.au

4m ago

Reporting live from courtroom 4​

By Kristian Silva​

Good morning from inside courtroom 4, as the fifth week of the Erin Patterson trial comes to an end.

Ms Patterson is in the court dock, dressed in a navy top with white polka dots.

All the seats in the courtroom are full today. This has been the standard for most of this case.

This morning, members of the public were queuing up outside the court from before 8am. Interest in this case only seems to be building.

The jury is in the room after about an hour of legal discussion.

“We’ve been dealing with an issue, it’s an ongoing issue. It’s nobody’s fault but that issue won’t be able to be sorted out until Monday,” Justice Beale says.

Victoria Police detective Stephen Eppingstall is back in the witness box for more cross-examination from Erin Patterson’s barrister, Colin Mandy.

The judge says the evidence today might only run for half an hour, and thanks the jury for their patience.
 
  • #27
3m ago

We return to Signal messages from the Patterson family​

By Judd Boaz​

Mr Mandy continues where he left off on Thursday afternoon, taking LSC Eppingstall through messages from the app Signal.

The messages date back to February 2022.

Earlier in the trial, we heard Erin, Simon, Don and Gail Patterson were in a group chat together on Signal, and discussed issues such as child support on it.

Simon Patterson also told the court that his mother eventually stopped looking at messages from Erin due to the anxiety it caused her.
 
  • #28
2m ago

Conversations between Erin and Don Patterson show to jury​

By Judd Boaz​

The February 2022 messages detail an exchange between Erin and Don Patterson dealing with the Patterson children's schooling.

Previously in the trial, the defence stressed the close relationship between Erin Patterson's children and their grandparents, playing a video of Don Patterson conducting science experiments with his grandson.

Further messages discuss Erin dealing with the effects of COVID-19, with Don checking in on her.

PS I just saw a blurb from Herald Sun about Erin ordering a large number of diet books online. No further reference to it but curiosity…
 
  • #29
1m ago
Defence shows more messages of Erin expressing love for in-laws

By Judd Boaz

More messages reflecting the relationship between Erin Patterson and her in-laws are shown the court.

Messages dating to May 2022 are now exhibited by the defence.

"Happy Mother's day to the best mother-in-law anyone could ever ask for," one message from Erin to Gail Patterson reads.

IMO these Signal messages are quite interesting. I'm not sure whether she harboured resentment towards them or loved them, or maybe possibly both but it is interesting nonetheless.
 
  • #30
DBM duplicate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrJ
  • #31
1m ago
Defence shows more messages of Erin expressing love for in-laws

By Judd Boaz

More messages reflecting the relationship between Erin Patterson and her in-laws are shown the court.

Messages dating to May 2022 are now exhibited by the defence.

"Happy Mother's day to the best mother-in-law anyone could ever ask for," one message from Erin to Gail Patterson reads.
Given what she said to her online friends the syrupy text kinda turns my stomach.
 
  • #32
Given what she said to her online friends the syrupy text kinda turns my stomach.
I know everyone to some degree wears different 'masks' depending on who they're talking to but it's rather eerie seeing these messages knowing what would happen just a year after these texts were sent. IMO
 
  • #33
Given what she said to her online friends the syrupy text kinda turns my stomach.

I was just thinking that too. I think it actually makes Erin look worse.

The defence is really struggling to make this better for her, IMO.
 
  • #34
1m ago
SIM cards and factory resets

By Judd Boaz

The defence turns its focus to the SIM cards alleged to have been used by Erin Patterson.

"There's evidence that the 835 SIM card goes into what's being referred to as Phone B ... and there's been a factory reset of that phone," Mr Mandy tells the court.

During the trial, we heard the prosecution argue that Erin Patterson used two SIM cards, one with the number 04XX 🤬🤬🤬 783 and one with the number 04XX 🤬🤬🤬 835.

The prosecution also argued that Erin used two phones, Phone A and Phone B, one of which they allege was never recovered by police.

Mr Mandy says that following a factory reset, there would be no personal data left on Phone B, and LSC Eppingstall agrees.
------------------------------------
I'm not sure how this is helpful IMO
 
  • #35
2m ago
Court adjourns

By Judd Boaz

The proceedings draw to a close, with more legal discussions needed before we can continue.

Justice Beale adjourns court for the day.
 
  • #36

2m ago

More Q + A with Mushroom Case Daily​

By Kristian Silva and Stephen Stockwell​

Court reporter Kristian Silva and producer Stephen Stockwell are also answering all the questions you have about the trial.

To get in touch and ask the team something, write to [email protected].

Q: When you say that the prosecutor needs to prove that Erin intended to cause death or very, very serious harm, the prosecutor can prove she intentionally used death cap mushrooms in the meal. Does the act of using death cap mushrooms itself prove intent? Or does the prosecutor need to prove that she meant to seriously harm the guests as opposed to perhaps making them a little bit sick or uncomfortable? - Kourosh

A:
The defence is saying that the act of using death cap mushrooms does not prove intent, and I think that's a fair inference to draw because the defence says that this was a tragic accident.

The defence is not disputing that death cap mushrooms were in the meal, but they absolutely dispute that Erin ever intended to pick death cap mushrooms and they dispute that she ever intended to harm the guests at all.

As to the seriousness of harm that may be caused, with the murder charge it does say you have to prove that the defendant intended to kill someone or cause them very serious injury to prove a murder charge.

If Erin Patterson intended to make them a little bit sick or uncomfortable, if that's what the jury believes, that is not far enough to prove that element of the murder charge.

So am I understanding this correctly?

Defence's case: all a tragic mistake, not guilty

But if jury don't believe that, they then have to decide which option out of:
1. Intent to kill or cause very serious harm
2. Intent to only cause mild harm

Do I have this right? Pls pardon my ignorance.
 
  • #37
So am I understanding this correctly?

Defence's case: all a tragic mistake, not guilty

But if jury don't believe that, they then have to decide which option out of:
1. Intent to kill or cause very serious harm
2. Intent to only cause mild harm

Do I have this right? Pls pardon my ignorance.
Yeah you're reading correctly.
 
  • #38
So am I understanding this correctly?

Defence's case: all a tragic mistake, not guilty

But if jury don't believe that, they then have to decide which option out of:
1. Intent to kill or cause very serious harm
2. Intent to only cause mild harm

Do I have this right? Pls pardon my ignorance.

You really need to focus on whether the prosecution have proven their case, regardless of what the defence have presented.
For example, hypothetically, the jury could find the defendent not guilty, even if the defence said/presented zero.

The defendent is currently sitting in court with the presumption of innocence - Not guilty. And it's up to the prosecution to change your mind.

The defendent can't be found guilty if there are other 'possibilities'. Which is what the defence is trying to show.

I don't believe manslaughter is on the table so it's either guilty of murder and attempted murder or not guilty.

MOO.
 
  • #39
1m ago
Defence shows more messages of Erin expressing love for in-laws

By Judd Boaz

More messages reflecting the relationship between Erin Patterson and her in-laws are shown the court.

Messages dating to May 2022 are now exhibited by the defence.

"Happy Mother's day to the best mother-in-law anyone could ever ask for," one message from Erin to Gail Patterson reads.

IMO these Signal messages are quite interesting. I'm not sure whether she harboured resentment towards them or loved them, or maybe possibly both but it is interesting nonetheless.
This message just points more to the motive IMO - there is no doubt in my mind that EP loved her in laws at one point.

When the love wasn't reciprocated to the level EP wanted it - she complained:
- to her online friends that Don and Gail treated her differently to what they would treat their own daughter
- to Simon how hurt she was not to have been invited to the 70th birthday

does anyone have dates for these events to see how this correlates with this message and the alleged crime?

IMO EP felt more and more excluded from the family and the love turned to resentment and hatred.
 
  • #40
yeah that's true, I guess what I meant by that is IMO there's lots of evidence that points towards at least intent or some degree of panic from being found out, like the inaturalist searches, the dehydrator throwing away and the missing second phone, guess I was just frustrated by the defence's tactics trying to muddy the waters, but that's their job after all. I feel like I have a bit more of a clearer picture in my mind but as always from any of these cases I wish I had the full and complete story from EP herself.
But she lies. So if she did testify, I suppose we could then believe the exact opposite.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
146
Guests online
2,660
Total visitors
2,806

Forum statistics

Threads
633,198
Messages
18,637,848
Members
243,444
Latest member
PhillyKid91
Back
Top