Australia - 3 dead after eating wild mushrooms, Leongatha, Victoria, Aug 2023 #14 *Arrest*

[L_B]

I find this mind boggling and horrific as well. Either way, whether innocent or guilty, she directly caused the death of her 3 relatives whom she supposedly loved.
From what has been reported her testimony has only been about herself, her ‘hardships’, no regret, remorse or grief for her 3 relatives that died as a result of the lunch she prepared.

Totally agree, my partner is not following the case, once I said there was no remorse, they were like, yep that points to guilty for me. I know the jury will base their decision on the evidence, but that basic lack of compassion sure is something!

 

[Salah11]

I will be very Intrigued to see if Simon after this trial will push forward with his own questionable poisonings and illnesses. Moo

 

[Qwertzy2008]

I kept wondering why Erin’s lawyers aren’t pulling her into line after her horrible performance during the cross-examination over the last few days. I found out that, under Victorian law, her lawyer is actually NOT allowed to talk to her while she is being cross-examined/under oath. So everything we are seeing (the hostility, semantic arguments, passive-aggressiveness) - it’s all based on her own beliefs and thoughts about what she needs to do/say to get herself out of 3 murder charges. I think if anything, this just shows how skewed her perception and thinking is. IMO.

 

[Lisa4]

I don’t think she knows how badly she is doing, and if anyone told her how bad she is doing she would be furious and claim they’re nasty and idiotic.

@Detechtive it sounds like @Megnut knows someone of a similar type.

Yesterday at 7:51 AM. #782

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.

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

Tuesday at 5:51 PM

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

• Megnut

• 
• 

Whether guilty or innocent, there are a lot of lies being told by EP, so I think it's fair to comment on this.

BBM. I used to know someone like that too and I fully agree with the bolded.

I dont know how rare or common this personality type/disorder is. It's hard to say because it's only over time and at close quarters that you start to see. So we may well be acquainted with someone like this but not know.

The one I knew really hated to "lose face" in front of anyone. Even themselves.


PS oh look i just managed to share a post from a past thread, now how did I do that!

 

[SouthAussie]

I kept wondering why Erin’s lawyers aren’t pulling her into line after her horrible performance during the cross-examination over the last few days. I found out that, under Victorian law, her lawyer is actually NOT allowed to talk to her while she is being cross-examined/under oath.

Which is why her lawyer is jumping in with objections to questions, from time to time. Trying to keep Erin's testimony from being too damaging in the only way he can.

But I bet her lawyers are recapping with her when they can, and trying to reinforce how she should be answering the cross examination questions.

imo

 

[Lisa4]

DBM duplicate

 

[Montrealaise]

Yes, being so resistant to bringing in the children was a big red flag, imo.

Her answer to the nurses, doctors and to Dr R, that " they didn't eat the mushrooms so they are fine" just doesn't make sense. Wouldn't a mother be so worried and concerned that their children had eaten SOME of that poisoned meal that they'd bring them in for an examination, just to be certain?

The kids had eaten the leftovers one day after the lunch guests had eaten the meal so it was possible they were about to get sick. And the 4 lunch guests were severely ill. It's hard to understand why EP was so stubborn and resistant to just having the kids checked out.

Especially if EP was being truthful about her own 'illness symptoms' she claimed she was experiencing.

EVEN IF she had accidentally served foraged death cap mushrooms, she'd still be frightened and worried that her children had accidentally ingested some when they ate the meat.

She supposedly thought the mushrooms were safe and edible when she scraped off the mushrooms for her kid's leftovers. So how carefully did she really do that scraping? How was she instantly so certain that her kids had not ingested any death cap residue from meat that was cooked WITH the death caps paste on top of it?

Somebody else posted earlier that the toxins in death caps will leak into any other food they come into contact with, so even scraping the mushrooms off the beef wouldn't make the meat safe to eat. I believe she knew that the beef she served the kids had never come into contact with the mushrooms she served her in-laws.

 

[MsMarple]

Would it have been possible for the Prosecution to bring into the Courtroom Death cap mushrooms to show how much they smell as they get older?

Or to cook an individual Beef Wellington with Death cap mushrooms to show how the toxins contaminate the whole meal whether the pastry/mushroom is scrapped off it or not?

My guess… no. It would be far too dangerous to expose the people to lethal toxins.

 

[MsMarple]

This is so implausible to me. Explosive diarrhoea necessitating a stop on the side of the road, but cream pants are intact and, when faced with an actual toilet, doesn’t have further diarrhoea, doesn’t need to clean up a bit more and doesn’t wash her hands

And her son never noticed. Um, okay.

 

[MsMarple]

Amazing she did all that without the children noticing.

Hah, I responded before I saw your post. Great minds…

 

[mamamama9873]

Totally agree, my partner is not following the case, once I said there was no remorse, they were like, yep that points to guilty for me. I know the jury will base their decision on the evidence, but that basic lack of compassion sure is something!

The absolute lack of remorse, grief and compassion (heck she even bad mouthes Simon, who lost both parents as a result of her lunch!) shows her as a terrible human being IMO and this makes would make it much more plausible for the jury to see her as a cold blooded murderer.
Would the defense not advise Erin to show remorse and compassion on the stand?

 

[Qwertzy2008]

Which is why her lawyer is jumping in with objections to questions, from time to time. Trying to keep Erin's testimony from being too damaging in the only way he can.

But I bet her lawyers are recapping with her when they can, and trying to reinforce how she should be answering the cross examination questions.

I do wonder whether this rule about not speaking to a defendant during cross-examination applies to the entire duration of their testimony (i.e., in Erin’s case over several days), or does it just apply during the day while she’s on the stand.

I tried to look it up but can’t seem to find an answer.

EDITED TO ADD: I just asked Chat GPT, and this was the answer:

In Victoria, Australia, legal practitioners are generally prohibited from conferring with a witness they have called—including their own client—on matters related to the proceedings while that witness remains under cross-examination. This rule applies throughout the duration of the cross-examination, even if it spans multiple days. The prohibition is designed to preserve the integrity of the witness’s testimony and prevent any undue influence.

 

[Detechtive]

Agree. However a liar doesn't make her a murder. I have to remain neutral until this trial is over. She is entitled to a fair trial and innocent until proved guilty.

While it's true that being a liar doesn't inherently make someone a murderer, lying specifically about events surrounding a homicide often indicates consciousness of guilt.

IMO Erin is the kind of person with little to no self reflection and likely believes her own lies. I believe she feels she is doing well on the stand.

Definitely, and I think if she is indeed a pathological liar, that combined with her intelligence has probably been the way she has gotten through life, so she is probably usually successful at it.
IMO

 

[Detechtive]

The absolute lack of remorse, grief and compassion (heck she even bad mouthes Simon, who lost both parents as a result of her lunch!) shows her as a terrible human being IMO and this makes would make it much more plausible for the jury to see her as a cold blooded murderer.
Would the defense not advise Erin to show remorse and compassion on the stand?

I noticed in her media interview before she was charged that she said "I am so sorry... that they lost their lives" - as though it was their fault for dying. Odd wording which distances her from actual remorse. IMO

 

[Jess D]

I've said for some time that I think there is a chance that Erin is innocent, but that she has lied to try and make her story sound better, and it is these lies that will ultimately send her down.

For instance, she knows she has put foraged mushrooms in and realises early on that these are DC mushrooms in, but lies to make it look like she got them unknowingly from an Asian grocer and therefore it wasnt really her fault. An obvious lie.

After the Asian grocer story can't be sustained, she tries to make it sound like she probably put them in in a way that would mean she didn't realise until a few days later and therefore she wasn't misleading anyone at the time. Doesn't sound believable and some evidence makes it seem unlikely.

She realises it looks bad that only she has not developed severe symptoms, so she lies that the kids had leftovers and didn't get symptoms either. This ends up looking like an obvious lie too.

She has been caught out trying to pretend she has cancer for sympathy or manipulation, and out of embarrassment concocts a story about a gastric band. This again ends up being found out as a lie.

The jury end up seeing the lies and seeing guilt in the sheer amount of them when it is just a disastrous attempt to make herself look better.

The alternative of course is that she is lying to cover her actual guilt, which is it hard to argue against when you see the sheer amount of unlikely scenarios.

Do you mind if I ask what makes you think that there's a chance that she's innocent?

 

[Jess D]

I noticed in her media interview before she was charged that she said "I am so sorry... that they lost their lives" - as though it was their fault for dying. Odd wording which distances her from actual remorse. IMO

I wonder why she got Don and Ian mixed up?

 

[Lisa4]

Would the defense not advise Erin to show remorse and compassion on the stand?

I wondered about this too.

The person I knew would not have. They really could not admit to blame even to themselves.
I think in the same situation they would have absolutely refused to go along with a suggestion of remorse or compassion.
To do so, at some level they would have had to internally accept a degree of fault, and it was as though they could NOT bring themselves to.
Maybe someone else can explain this better, dont feel I've done a very good job.

 

[Lisa4]

"I am so sorry... that they lost their lives" - as though it was their fault for dying

This!

 

[SouthAussie]

I do wonder whether this rule about not speaking to a defendant during cross-examination applies to the entire duration of their testimony (i.e., in Erin’s case over several days), or does it just apply during the day while she’s on the stand.

I tried to look it up but can’t seem to find an answer.

EDITED TO ADD: I just asked Chat GPT, and this was the answer:

In Victoria, Australia, legal practitioners are generally prohibited from conferring with a witness they have called—including their own client—on matters related to the proceedings while that witness remains under cross-examination. This rule applies throughout the duration of the cross-examination, even if it spans multiple days. The prohibition is designed to preserve the integrity of the witness’s testimony and prevent any undue influence.

Personally, I think Erin's lawyers can't confer with her when she is under oath on the stand. But when she comes off the stand, when court is done for the day, I think they can chat with her. Perhaps in another room before she goes back to jail, or at the jail.

I think the .... "legal practitioners are generally prohibited from conferring with a witness they have called—including their own client—on matters related to the proceedings while that witness remains under cross-examination" .... likely means that they can't confer with her when the court takes its breaks during the day and she is still in that courtroom, under oath.

Or is she only under oath (or affirmation) while in the witness box?

IANAL
IMO

 

[JennieM]

The key moments from Erin Patterson’s mushroom murder trial​

Welcome to 7NEWS.com.au’s live blog of the Erin Patterson mushroom murder trial.

Here is a recap of what the court has heard so far from the trial:

Erin Patterson mushroom trial: Accused triple murderer takes the stand

The mother-of-two is on the stand at her murder trial, accused of killing her three in-laws with poisonous death cap mushrooms.

7news.com.au