The female presenter is genuinely sympathetic to Erin, in my opinion. After the first week she was part of a end-of-week summary and she made a point of how alleged female perpetrators can be unfairly judged for perceived deficiencies or differences in their responses and gave Lindy Chamberlain as an example.
Like, if it were a man, no one would question it? 'Sure, we all know blokes often mistakenly poison people, but this female just gives off a weird vibe.'This is definitely true. The previous two presenters just focused on the facts, whereas the female presenter clearly has a notion that this is another example of women being treated a certain way. She does a lot of 'it makes sense' comments etc.
True. The problem for the defence though, IMO, is that if it was truly accidental, then she and her kids, and probably her dog too, would have also been poisoned.This is where the ‘accidental’ comes in, IMO. It’s majorly important to sow that seed as that’s their only defence
When, in fact, it wasn't an elegant meal at all, as cooks on this thread have pointed out! Skipped half the ingredients, skipped half the steps, shortcut the grand presentation in favor of individual bread bowls.True. The problem for the defence though, IMO, is that if it was truly accidental, then she and her kids, and probably her dog too, would have also been poisoned.
She ate about the same amount of the 'accidentally poisoned' meal as Gail did. Even if EP had stuffed herself with cake and Brough it back up later----that still left several hours for the Death Caps to enter her blood stream and her digestive track.
I don't think there was any convincing evidence shown that EP suffered any health setbacks after she ate her meal.
If she truly fed her children leftover meat that had been cooking in the oven with Death Cap paste on top of it, scraping off the mushrooms would not have prevented them from severe illness.
So 'accidental' does not ring true for me. If she thought that meal was 'safe', her Labrador would have been given those leftover meat scraps that night, IMO.
It is just too hard for me to believe that Death Caps were accidentally added to that elegant meal, and somehow the ONLY people who were deathly ill were her invited guests.
Motivation has been an issue for me in this trial (without it being a requirement of course).
After hearing her speak, I do think there is a possibility that she might have wanted to make them ill and then been able to look after them etc. She's admitted to lying for attention and being a bit of a hypochondriac, it's not a huge step to a form of munchausens.
I'm not sure we'll ever know of course, I'm just speaking out loud.
Yes, that is a good suggestion that others share.Motivation has been an issue for me in this trial (without it being a requirement of course).
After hearing her speak, I do think there is a possibility that she might have wanted to make them ill and then been able to look after them etc. She's admitted to lying for attention and being a bit of a hypochondriac, it's not a huge step to a form of munchausens.
I'm not sure we'll ever know of course, I'm just speaking out loud.
Exactly considering she's an "experienced forager" and supposedly can identify Death Caps. And supposedly they also grow in her yard. She had plenty of mushroom photos for identification.Originally, I found it hard to believe that EP decided to take the stand. Now I'm more convinced than ever that it was a bad idea.
Prior to it, I felt the prosecution hadn't quite done enough to prove her guilt. Now, not only has come up with a number of inconsistencies and explanations that seem hard to swallow, but she has admitted repeatedly to lying for a number of different reasons. She's set herself up to have a lot of her explanations torn apart by the prosecution as possible lies as well.
There are also elements that now make less sense than they did before. On the one hand she is very capable and scientific and actually knew the risk of DC etc, but on the other she wasn't careful about which exact ones she picked and couldn't remember that she had added these until days after the meal?
Also, these DC that she picked just happen to be ones she didn't test at the time, didn't put in the kids muffins and then didn't test when she put them in the finished beef wellingtons?
Prior to her taking the stand, the jurors could have simply contended that she accidentally picked DC mushrooms and used them unknowingly. Now it is bizarrely less believable.
Can you imagine this scene----Ian offers to pray over Erin, in order to help her heal from Ovarian cancer, and the 4 guests began to pray for her, meanwhile she knows that they were deathly ill already. Ghastly.Yes. Or also just for the sense of control it might give her - which is often a motive for murder. Watching someone eat while keeping your little secret about what you put in there...
I do think the lack of an even probable motive is one of the best arguments for the defence. Aside from being a psycho serial killer, it doesn't make sense that she would want to murder these 4 people.
Rage to get back at her ex-husband. It's his family she wiped out and now he has to live with the grief. That's her motive as I see it. Plus, they weren't siding with her in her battle(s) with him.Estimates vary but Wikipedia has death rates at 10-30%. Maybe she thought that a small amount would only make them seriously ill.
Of course it's only pure speculation to a possible motive. The husband's mystery illness is incredibly suspicious, but could be indicative of a previous attempt at something similar.
I do think the lack of an even probable motive is one of the best arguments for the defence. Aside from being a psycho serial killer, it doesn't make sense that she would want to murder these 4 people.
Rage to get back at her ex-husband. It's his family she wiped out and now he has to live with the grief. That's her motive as I see it. Plus, they weren't siding with her in her battle(s) with him.