Australia - 3 dead after eating wild mushrooms, Leongatha, Victoria, Aug 2023 #13 *Arrest*

Status
Not open for further replies.
I disagree with pretty much everyone here and think Erin seems to be handling things quite well, all things considered. I guess we'll see soon enough.
I find this extremely hard to believe.

Did you not see just today how she was tripped up about the gastric band surgery? By being on the stand, she has inserted this whole story about lying about cancer because she was having a gastric band fitted and it now looks like another lie.

Also today, she can't quite recall if she ate 1/4, 1/3 or 1/2 of the BW. This just doesn't sound believable and leaves the jury asking more questions.

These are literally scratching the surface with extra, highly-dubious information that being on the stand has presented.
 
IMO people like EP feed off drama and those around them learn to back down. It's not worth challenging her version of the facts. And people like EP take that posture as retreating. A win for them. Which they then confuse for being believed.

And IMO she's is accustomed to that, which is why she's on the stand. And she seems fueled by an audience that isn't slapping back, the jury. I think she thinks she is answering quite convincingly.

But wait until the jury gets to speak its truth.

So far it's been a one sided conversation.

But it's coming.

JMO
 
Last edited:
It must be really hard being Colin Mandy right now.

He must be dying to scream 'I told you so' at Erin.

I think he knew what he was signing up for.

Way back in 2023, Erin put out a statement saying, "I now very much regret not answering some questions following [my lawyer's] advice". She then fired those attorneys and got new ones.


So, Mandy must have known that if he represented her, she wasn't going to sit by quietly while he tried the case. She would always want to testify, believing that she could talk her way out of her situation.
 
I think she's the one who started the rumor that she was smart, because it's certainly not been borne out by anything she's said or done. MOO

To be fair, a person has to be pretty smart to be an air traffic controller. They also need to be quick thinking, and proactive with solutions to be an air traffic controller.

Erin is showing that she can think quickly, always firing back a quick answer at the prosecutor.

imo
 
To be fair, a person has to be pretty smart to be an air traffic controller. They also need to be quick thinking, and proactive with solutions to be an air traffic controller.

Erin is showing that she can think quickly, always firing back a quick answer at the prosecutor.

imo

True but, as we have said, intelligent people are not necessarily smart. A recent comment here mentioned EP's apparent inability read a room.
 
I disagree with pretty much everyone here and think Erin seems to be handling things quite well, all things considered. I guess we'll see soon enough.

I'm really glad you have spoken up @Bats. I appreciate your honesty. 😉

I'm genuinely interested how you feel the below types of comments would have come across in the room?

Cant find exact quotes right now but I'm thinking of the responses to the prosecutor re:
  • It was a quarter, a third, a half
  • I didnt have a tape measure
 
It might not be calling them a liar as such, but it saying they're wrong and she's right.

Well, she is trying to get herself off triple murder and attempted charges. I would expect someone to refute some of the evidence being put forward.
She doesn't have to prove she's right, after all.
 
nope they're just serving up regular dinner! And its been multiple different people too!

There's always the chance with social media that there's weird things happening just to farm engagement. But there are these links that talk about the phenomenon as well.



could be generational or regional, perhaps?
No, paper plates are for parties, or when you run out of clean dishes. It's far too expensive to use them all the time. TV is presenting a distorted view of Americans.
 
True but, as we have said, intelligent people are not necessarily smart. A recent comment here mentioned EP's apparent inability read a room.

Her alleged "panic" at disposing of the dehydrator doesn't fit the air traffic controller mentality. I think she probably calmly drove the kids to school (or to their drop off point to catch a school bus) and calmly took the dehydrator to the e-waste rubbish site. She calmly reset her phone, multiple times. She tried hard to mimic a less-poisoned person.

In other words, she was proactive with her solutions to her problems. She simply miscalculated what all of her problems might be.
 
I'm really glad you have spoken up @Bats. I appreciate your honesty. 😉

I'm genuinely interested how you feel the below types of comments would have come across in the room?

Cant find exact quotes right now but I'm thinking of the responses to the prosecutor re:
  • It was a quarter, a third, a half
  • I didnt have a tape measure

Thanks @Lisa4 !

I think its sometimes really difficult to gauge how things are coming across for the jurors. It sounds like she has been delivering fairly calm responses. Mostly sounding sure of herself, which should come across well.

With regard to those two points, I think by the time the jury come to deliberate, they won't be so important. Little bits she may be giving conflicting information on may not be hugely important.
 
Well, she is trying to get herself off triple murder and attempted charges. I would expect someone to refute some of the evidence being put forward.
She doesn't have to prove she's right, after all.

I agree that she obviously is not going to agree to what could be seen as incriminating evidence. If she was going to do that, she would have pled guilty.

imo
 
BBM. Throwing Dr Rhonda Stuart under the bus.

1m ago
Erin Patterson tells court she didn't measure how much her lunch guests ate

By Joseph Dunstan

The prosecutor then moves to the topic of how much of her beef Wellington meal Erin Patterson ate at the lunch.

"I suggest that it's not the case that you simply picked at your own meal at the lunch?" Dr Rogers asks.

"I don't think I claimed that," Ms Patterson says.

Dr Rogers recaps banter at the table about how much people had eaten and asserts there was no banter about how much Ms Patterson ate because she ate her meal. Ms Patterson disagrees.

The prosecutor recaps how much people ate, starting with Gail, who the court has previously heard ate just half of her meal.

"It may have been more, it may have been less, I didn't measure it," Ms Patterson responds.

Dr Rogers then moves to an account from doctor Rhonda Stuart, who previously told the court Ms Patterson had told her she'd eaten roughly half of her meal.

"I suggest that you had in fact eaten a whole portion of your serve at the lunch ... and you told Professor Stuart, half in an effort to explain to the medical authorities, why your symptoms were not as serious as the symptoms for the other four lunch guests," Dr Rogers says.

"Incorrect," Ms Patterson responds.

She maintains under questioning that she does not recall her conversation with Professor Stuart at all.
She has the worst memory of anyone in the world, doesn't she? she can't recall this, she doesn't remember that....
 
Thanks @Lisa4

I think its sometimes really difficult to gauge how things are coming across for the jurors. It sounds like she has been delivering fairly calm responses. Mostly sounding sure of herself, which should come across well.

With regard to those two points, I think by the time the jury come to deliberate, they won't be so important. Little bits she may be giving conflicting information on may not be hugely important.

Ok thank you @Bats. Appreciate your perspective, good explanation.

I was leaning that way too until I caught some snippets that possibly she is not keeping as calm with her answers as I had originally thought.

And it's impressions like that that I feel may stay with the jury... As you say, we shall see.
 
Well, she is trying to get herself off triple murder and attempted charges. I would expect someone to refute some of the evidence being put forward.
She doesn't have to prove she's right, after all.

Yes, some indeed, I'm sure that would be normal. Is it usual though, for such a high proportion of professional evidence to be refuted?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
131
Guests online
582
Total visitors
713

Forum statistics

Threads
625,560
Messages
18,506,202
Members
240,815
Latest member
Iamyou
Back
Top