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

[Montrealaise]

Was friends for a few years. I don't know if any of her current friends are on this forum, and I doubt it. They are too busy at court each day. The majority of her friends pulled the plug on the friendship in the lead up to the charges when they questioned her about the lunch incident - these are all crime sleuth types like us here on this forum, so she was quizzed, hard by (some) of them. She did a post lunch "AMA" (ask me anything) with the friends group. That is where as we know, some of the cruicial evidence for the prosecution case came from as we know from the trial. The rest pretty much backed away after the charges were laid.

Prior to the charges they were out in force on social media attacking anyone who thought she was guilty. It was quite bizarre to witness.

Most were scared to cooperate with police, but four eventually did.

I have daily contact with a bunch of people from our previous joint friend circle. We are all watching the case and discussing it in shock and awe, one of us is a crime journalist so we get to updated about the events he witnesses in front of the jury, which has been really interesting! None of us can stop watching - it's so bizarre to have known someone accused of such things.

She held an AMA with friends on her true crime group? Unbelievable. You can't make this up!

 

[Megnut]

Throughout several days of cross-examination, Ms Patterson's voice largely remained level as she answered prosecutors' questions.

But during re-examination by her barrister, Colin Mandy SC, her voice became choked when asked about the need for her to pack her daughter's bag for a ballet rehearsal on the Monday after the lunch.

The prosecution asserted this was in fact never required, but Ms Patterson reaffirmed under re-examination that it was.

Ms Patterson's voice again cracked when discussing her son's flying lesson, explaining she did not cancel it following the lunch as he was "really passionate" about flying and "I just didn't want to disappoint him".

Erin Patterson denies using mobile phone factory resets to deceive police

The cook of the deadly beef Wellington lunch rejects a prosecution claim she carried out factory resets in a bid to deceive police about her mobile phones, as she finishes giving evidence in her triple-murder trial.

www.abc.net.au

How do you know when a narcissist is losing an argument? She'll start crying, that she was only doing right by/for the children.

Genuine? No. Deflection.


  JMO

 

[JBowie]

How do you know when a narcissist is losing an argument?

You'll be invited to their house for lunch, for the first time ever.

 

[Moll]

Jury research (in the USA) has shown that many jurors make up their minds very early in a trial, for example [bbm]:

Most juror consultants have found from their research in interviewing jurors after trial, that about 80-90 percent of jurors make up their minds about how they are going to vote at the conclusion of opening statements. Although jurors will not often admit this (because they were told by the defense and the judge not to make up their minds until after they have deliberated) jurors will regularly tell that they were leaning in a particular direction by the end of openings; and the research shows that almost always, their leaning predicts their vote. That is because once jurors lean towards siding with a particular party, they will see the rest of the trial through a lens that favors that party and reinforces their original inclination.

Opening statement: Setting the tone for trial

www.advocatemagazine.com

Interesting. You couldn't do this research in the UK or, I believe, Australia, because jurors are prohibited from discussing their deliberations or reasoning even after the trial - it would be a criminal offence to do so.

 

[Megnut]

You'll be invited to their house for lunch, for the first time ever.

I can't laugh because it's too true.

Spot on.

 

[ch_13]

Seriously though, If there was to be a second trial due to a mistrial, she would have learned from all her mistakes, craft a new set of lies to better fit, and most importantly, she wouldn't be giving evidence in the witness box next time.

I am guessing that all witness testimony evidence, including hers from the first trial, would be wiped clean and could not be used against her if it went to a second trial?

The prosecution, unless they find the elusive smoking gun type of evidence, might decide not to go to another trial.

After a hypothetical hung jury, I feel like the second trial would give the state an edge, not the defense.

The prosecutors would be able to talk to the hold out jurors to better understand why they weren't ready to vote guilty. They could then tailor their case to address those objections.

But what could the defense do? The facts are the facts. Erin could just not testify, but then the jury will never hear her side of the story. And if she does testify, it isn't like there's some new story that would better fit the evidence and be more believable.

 

[CityKid]

Four plates means she bought just enough plates for herself, her husband and her two kids. Many (most?) people have everyday dishes and special occasion dishes, and it seems logical that she would serve her guests at the "special" luncheon on the good dishes. So why only four of them? Did she never plan on having guests over for special occasions?

And does she never make a salad or side dish in addition to a meal?

 

[JBowie]

Interesting. You couldn't do this research in the UK or, I believe, Australia, because jurors are prohibited from discussing their deliberations or reasoning even after the trial - it would be a criminal offence to do so.

Correct, and frankly I agree with that approach and also the prohibition on cameras. The circus atmosphere created by some US cases makes a mockery of the system, IMO.

 

[Moll]

After a hypothetical hung jury, I feel like the second trial would give the state an edge, not the defense.

The prosecutors would be able to talk to the hold out jurors to better understand why they weren't ready to vote guilty. They could then tailor their case to address those objections.

But what could the defense do? The facts are the facts. Erin could just not testify, but then the jury will never hear her side of the story. And if she does testify, it isn't like there's some new story that would better fit the evidence and be more believable.

I don't think the prosecution would be allowed to do that - the general rule protecting the secrecy of jury deliberations would still apply.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

She released a false statement to the whole world and the police, remember..

The point I'm making is that the act itself isn't necessarily crazy, and there are plenty of people who can't quite believe that people could do such a thing.

Now particularly to Erin, there absolutely might be other motives at play. She might have been enjoying it, she might have been using it to manipulate the narrative. But the idea of having an AMA isn't in itself a psychotic move like has been implied at times.

Genuinely interested, but I appear to have missed the false statement?

 

[ch_13]

I don't think the prosecution would be allowed to do that - the general rule protecting the secrecy of jury deliberations would still apply.

Is this an Australian rule?

I know in the U.S. jurors can't be forced to speak with anyone. But once a trial is over, they are no longer bound by any requirement for confidentiality and are allowed to voluntarily discuss the case with whomever they wish, whether that's the prosecution, defense or the media.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

In a second trial, the jury would not be the same jurors as in the first trial.

So there is no second go at changing the so called hold out jurors minds.
Those jurors would not be a part of a second trial.

 

[JBowie]

Is this an Australian rule?

I know in the U.S. jurors can't be forced to speak with anyone. But once a trial is over, they are no longer bound by any requirement for confidentiality and are allowed to voluntarily discuss the case with whomever they wish, whether that's the prosecution, defense or the media.

Yes:

7.235 The rule of jury secrecy, also known as the exclusionary rule, prohibits a juror from discussing the deliberations in the jury room, based on public policy considerations requiring that the verdict of the jury should be final, ensuring that jurors are not subjected to pressure or harassment. The rule is a convention or rule of conduct rather than a rule of law, and it is reinforced by statutory provisions that make it an offence to disclose or solicit information about jury deliberations.

Jury service

7.204 Trial by jury is an important element of the justice system in Australia. Juries are made up of citizens randomly chosen from the electoral roll.[242] They serve as a means for members of the community to participate in the administration of justice, and to ensure that the application of...

www.alrc.gov.au

 

[Moll]

Is this an Australian rule?

I know in the U.S. jurors can't be forced to speak with anyone. But once a trial is over, they are no longer bound by any requirement for confidentiality and are allowed to voluntarily discuss the case with whomever they wish, whether that's the prosecution, defense or the media.

Also part of the law of England and Wales. Both US and Australian law came from the English common law tradition, but of course differences have developed over time.

 

[ch_13]

Yes:

7.235 The rule of jury secrecy, also known as the exclusionary rule, prohibits a juror from discussing the deliberations in the jury room, based on public policy considerations requiring that the verdict of the jury should be final, ensuring that jurors are not subjected to pressure or harassment. The rule is a convention or rule of conduct rather than a rule of law, and it is reinforced by statutory provisions that make it an offence to disclose or solicit information about jury deliberations.

Jury service

7.204 Trial by jury is an important element of the justice system in Australia. Juries are made up of citizens randomly chosen from the electoral roll.[242] They serve as a means for members of the community to participate in the administration of justice, and to ensure that the application of...

www.alrc.gov.au

Very interesting. Thanks.

 

[Puzzles]

Innocent or guilty of purposefully killing three adults, this Patterson woman has effectively killed the lives of her children by the forever torment and grief bestowed upon them by the choices she has made throughout this entire tempest in a toilet bowl.

My heart aches for them.

 

[Jess D]

I do think people maybe use their dislike of Erin and suspicion of what she has done, to cloud their opinions on things that are actually not that bad.

If I had innocently caused the deaths of 3 people, and I was an international news story I would inevitably be getting bombarded with messages from friends and relatives. I can imagine thinking that it would be a good idea to address questions to everyone all at once, in the hope that it would allay their fears and stop rumours being spread.

I wouldn't call it an AMA (although I'm not sure it has been claimed that it actually was) because that gives the impression of levity in what is a very serious situation.

Not everything she does is going to be psychotic or narcissistic.

I do think people maybe use their dislike of Erin and suspicion of what she has done, to cloud their opinions on things that are actually not that bad.

On things that are actually not all that bad?

You can't be serious?

 

[MaxDecimus13]

I do think people maybe use their dislike of Erin and suspicion of what she has done, to cloud their opinions on things that are actually not that bad.

On things that are actually not all that bad?

You can't be serious?

Don't misread what I said. I'm distinctly not talking about the deaths of the people, lying to police or the lying about cancer etc.

 

[Jess D]

How do you know when a narcissist is losing an argument? She'll start crying, that she was only doing right by/for the children.

Genuine? No. Deflection.


  JMO

I wonder if she produced any tears? Cough.

 

[Jess D]

Don't misread what I said. I'm distinctly not talking about the deaths of the people, lying to police or the lying about cancer etc.

What are you talking about?