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

[drsleuth]

1m ago07.03 BST
The court has adjourned a little earlier than usual for the day.

Mandy’s closing address will resume from 10.30am tomorrow.

Erin Patterson mushroom trial day 33 – as it happened

This blog is now closed

www.theguardian.com

 

[drsleuth]

4.03pm

A neighbour’s bin? Buried in the backyard? Defence asks why leftovers weren’t hidden​

By​

Why would a guilty woman direct police to the bin?

This, claims Colin Mandy, SC, would be an action that seems inconsistent with guilt? Instead, he argues, it is an action that points to his client’s belief that the food was harmless.

His client – Erin Patterson – has pleaded not guilty to three charges of murder and one of attempted murder following a fatal beef Wellington lunch she served in 2023.

As part of his closing address, Mandy is examining part of the prosecution’s theory that his client ate her whole portion of beef Wellington – and that the leftovers in the bin amounted to a whole beef Wellington parcel.

“There is no evidence at all as to how big those beef Wellingtons were,” Mandy told the jury.

Mandy said the prosecution’s assertion that those were “clearly two halves” was speculation.

“There’s not enough evidence or information to say that,” Mandy said.

“It’s speculation. Clearly two halves. Which you heard for the first time in the closing address.”

Mandy said that assertion was never put to Patterson or Ian Wilkinson, who were present at the lunch.

He described the prosecution’s proposition that she did not volunteer where the leftovers were to the police by the prosecution as a “pedantic point” that amounted to “nonsense”.

Mandy said Patterson had told the police in her record of interview that she volunteered the location or access to the leftovers of the meal.

“She must have been confident there was no poison in them in order to do that. She was wrong,” Mandy said.

Mandy said a guilty person, who had carefully planned the lunch and who had been at the premises for some time that morning, would have already thrown out the leftovers.

“Put them in a neighbour’s bin, bury them in the backyard ... instead of directing police where to find the evidence that there were death cap mushrooms in the bin,” Mandy said.

He said that at that time on Monday morning, July 31, 2023, the only inference that the jury can draw from Patterson’s behaviour is that she did not believe that there were death cap mushrooms in those leftovers.

Erin Patterson murder trial day 33 as it happened: Accused mushroom cook lied to authorities and in witness box, prosecutor says in concluding argument; defence argues no intent, panic explains actions

Inside courtroom four in Morwell, Patterson, on trial for murder, listened intently as prosecutor Nanette Rogers, SC, concluded her closing argument, and defence barrister Colin Mandy, SC, commenced his.

www.theage.com.au

 

[JBowie]

[Mandy] says it’s “likely” Patterson was “being consistent”

Yep, consistent with her lies, that is.

 

[Megnut]

He's saying that it was hard for EP to remember what she said with 21 or 22 different people talking to her. But we're to believe she is honest, credible, to be believed, and it's not her answers that are changing but a failure on the part of the hearers to keep her story straight.

Because that's how that works.

Not.

JMO

 

[MrJ]

I get that Mandy is just trying to do his job, but solely on the basis of what we've all been reading through updates, I think his arguments are pretty poor, in many ways. IMO

 

[Deleted member 363451]

Erin must have been 'confident there was no poison' to direct police to leftovers in bin​

Mr Mandy refuted the prosecution’s claim that Erin had been “forced” to tell police where the leftovers were.
He said she directed them to the bin “without hesitation”.
“Pointing out where to find the leftovers, without hesitation, must mean almost certainly that she did not know at the time they were poisoned,” he said.
“She must have been confident that there was no poison in them to do that.
“The inference you can draw is that she genuinely believed there was no death caps inside the leftovers.”
Mr Mandy said the Crown’s case that she ate her whole portion of beef wellington, which she disputes, is concocted to suit their theory that she is guilty.
They claimed she ate an unpoisoned portion and must have consumed the whole thing so that there would be no uncontaminated leftovers in the bin for police to find.
“There is not an iota of evidence that Erin ate all of hers. Not a whisper of evidence. This is an example of the prosecution making up a theory,” he said.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/the-mushroom-cook/erin-patterson-trial-live-closing-addresses-continue-in-mushroom-cook-case/live-coverage/2d6e483591ad308c611f94b4f9620a47#/entry/32266498

Wasn't the meat missing from the Beef Wellington she had binned though?

 

[MaxDecimus13]

Innocent people don't tell lies.
IMO

Have you met people?

Funny, my wife would have a very similar opinion to many on here about things like that, and she thinks she murdered them on purpose.

However, we had a very ironic moment recently. She'd got a Mercedes hire-car, and unbeknownst to us it had some marks on the door. When they picked it up, they claimed my wife had done it so she naturally disputed the claim. Luckily, we had time-stamped photographs (it was a nice car), and ring doorbell footage where you could see it.

However, the hire company dragged their feet about it and we didn't realise that after 3 months the ring footage was wiped. My wife came home a couple of weeks ago saying she'd got herself in a right pickle, because she had tried to make it look like she'd left work at a different time, and got caught out in the lie.

At the time, I was much more on the fence in the EP trial, but I couldn't help but laugh about the irony of the whole thing purely because we'd had the lying discussion a few times.

Of course EP hasn't lied. She has systematically lied, that's the real difference.

 

[Megnut]

When EP was debating whether to testify, perhaps instead of opening her mouth, she should've put a cork in it.

Not the same cork

JMO

 

[Detechtive]

Have you met people?

Funny, my wife would have a very similar opinion to many on here about things like that, and she thinks she murdered them on purpose.

However, we had a very ironic moment recently. She'd got a Mercedes hire-car, and unbeknownst to us it had some marks on the door. When they picked it up, they claimed my wife had done it so she naturally disputed the claim. Luckily, we had time-stamped photographs (it was a nice car), and ring doorbell footage where you could see it.

However, the hire company dragged their feet about it and we didn't realise that after 3 months the ring footage was wiped. My wife came home a couple of weeks ago saying she'd got herself in a right pickle, because she had tried to make it look like she'd left work at a different time, and got caught out in the lie.

At the time, I was much more on the fence in the EP trial, but I couldn't help but laugh about the irony of the whole thing purely because we'd had the lying discussion a few times.

Of course EP hasn't lied. She has systematically lied, that's the real difference.

Everyone lies about small things.

To lie around the event of an alleged homicide makes you likely to be the perpetrator. IMO

 

[MaxDecimus13]

More like explosive lie-arrhea.

This is it, you win. I'm officially retiring from ever making comments.

 

[Megnut]

Wasn't the meat missing from the Beef Wellington she had binned though?

That has always left me wondering if it wasn't the beef itself that was contaminated. And not the duxelle.

Her beef and the children's beef prepared separately.

JMO

 

[Deleted member 363451]

More like explosive lie-arrhea.

 

[LinasK]

That has always left me wondering if it wasn't the beef itself that was contaminated. And not the duxelle.

Her beef and the children's beef prepared separately.

JMO

They found evidence of the Death Cap toxins. Yeah the meat would have gotten them by exposure.

 

[MrJ]

bbm

"Mr Mandy says the prosecution tried to "pull apart" his client's account, "but it didn't unravel".

He suggests to the jury that his client had conversations with more than 21 people over 24 hours at one point in the week after the lunch, and it was hard to remember what she told each of those people.

The defence lawyer says the jury must be vigilant for "misleading" impressions that could have been created during questioning."

Given that we've seen examples of EP's memory on the more minute of things and apparent amnesia when it comes to her purchase of 'Asian grocer' mushrooms, I find it a little hard to believe it was hard to remember what she told each of these people. Not the exact wording, sure, but certainly you'd remember a bit of the gist of each conversation. And I think it's funny that he mentions misleading impressions created during questioning when EP herself has shown to be misleading a) the lunch guests and b) seemingly, her own defence when she mentioned a completely unrelated surgery!

 

[katydid23]

1m ago
No reason for Erin to rob children of 'wonderful' grandparents, defence tells jury

By Joseph Dunstan

Ms Patterson's defence barrister Colin Mandy SC tells the jury there has been evidence of the warm relationship between his client and her in-laws.

"Erin Patterson had a motive to keep these people in her world so that they could keep supporting her and her children," he says.

"And there's absolutely no doubt that Don and Gail had a great relationship with [their grandchildren] ... absolutely no doubt that Erin was devoted to her children.

"Why would she take wonderful, active, loving grandparents away from her own children?"

Again, this does not necessarily rise to the level that it can rebut all of the circumstantial evidence that seems to indicate that she did put death caps into that meal.

So, imo, this description of the in-laws being very actively engaged with her children cuts both ways. I think some might wonder if she resented how involved the grandparents were. That may not have been a positive anymore, since she and Simon were now separated. IMO

 

[Detechtive]

That has always left me wondering if it wasn't the beef itself that was contaminated. And not the duxelle.

Her beef and the children's beef prepared separately.

JMO

I agree! I raised this earlier in the thread.

 

[Detechtive]

I agree! I raised this earlier in the thread.

Soaked in water and death cap powder, IMO. DeathCaps are water soluble. It makes sense IMO.

 

[drsleuth]

4.03pm

A neighbour’s bin? Buried in the backyard? Defence asks why leftovers weren’t hidden​

By​

Why would a guilty woman direct police to the bin?

This, claims Colin Mandy, SC, would be an action that seems inconsistent with guilt? Instead, he argues, it is an action that points to his client’s belief that the food was harmless.

His client – Erin Patterson – has pleaded not guilty to three charges of murder and one of attempted murder following a fatal beef Wellington lunch she served in 2023.

As part of his closing address, Mandy is examining part of the prosecution’s theory that his client ate her whole portion of beef Wellington – and that the leftovers in the bin amounted to a whole beef Wellington parcel.

“There is no evidence at all as to how big those beef Wellingtons were,” Mandy told the jury.

Mandy said the prosecution’s assertion that those were “clearly two halves” was speculation.

“There’s not enough evidence or information to say that,” Mandy said.

“It’s speculation. Clearly two halves. Which you heard for the first time in the closing address.”

Mandy said that assertion was never put to Patterson or Ian Wilkinson, who were present at the lunch.

He described the prosecution’s proposition that she did not volunteer where the leftovers were to the police by the prosecution as a “pedantic point” that amounted to “nonsense”.

Mandy said Patterson had told the police in her record of interview that she volunteered the location or access to the leftovers of the meal.

“She must have been confident there was no poison in them in order to do that. She was wrong,” Mandy said.

Mandy said a guilty person, who had carefully planned the lunch and who had been at the premises for some time that morning, would have already thrown out the leftovers.

“Put them in a neighbour’s bin, bury them in the backyard ... instead of directing police where to find the evidence that there were death cap mushrooms in the bin,” Mandy said.

He said that at that time on Monday morning, July 31, 2023, the only inference that the jury can draw from Patterson’s behaviour is that she did not believe that there were death cap mushrooms in those leftovers.

Erin Patterson murder trial day 33 as it happened: Accused mushroom cook lied to authorities and in witness box, prosecutor says in concluding argument; defence argues no intent, panic explains actions

Inside courtroom four in Morwell, Patterson, on trial for murder, listened intently as prosecutor Nanette Rogers, SC, concluded her closing argument, and defence barrister Colin Mandy, SC, commenced his.

www.theage.com.au

BBM : Wasn't there photos taken of the left overs at the hospital?

 

[katydid23]

bbm

"Mr Mandy says the prosecution tried to "pull apart" his client's account, "but it didn't unravel".

He suggests to the jury that his client had conversations with more than 21 people over 24 hours at one point in the week after the lunch, and it was hard to remember what she told each of those people.

The defence lawyer says the jury must be vigilant for "misleading" impressions that could have been created during questioning."

Given that we've seen examples of EP's memory on the more minute of things and apparent amnesia when it comes to her purchase of 'Asian grocer' mushrooms, I find it a little hard to believe it was hard to remember what she told each of these people. Not the exact wording, sure, but certainly you'd remember a bit of the gist of each conversation. And I think it's funny that he mentions misleading impressions created during questioning when EP herself has shown to be misleading a) the lunch guests and b) seemingly, her own defence when she mentioned a completely unrelated surgery!

"He suggests to the jury that his client had conversations with more than 21 people over 24 hours at one point in the week after the lunch, and it was hard to remember what she told each of those people."

As my Irish grandmother often said---" If you only speak the truth , then you can always remember what you've said to others. "

 

[drsleuth]

1m ago07.23 BST

Summary​

Here’s a recap of what the jury heard today:

1. Prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC told the jury Erin Patterson “targeted her search” for death cap mushrooms to poison the beef wellingtons she served her lunch guests on 29 July 2023.

2. Patterson cannot be accepted as a truthful and trustworthy witness, Rogers said. In the final moments of her closing address, she said if the jury combines all the evidence in the trial they will be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Patterson deliberately sourced death cap mushrooms and deliberately included them in the beef wellingtons she served her guests.

3. Patterson’s defence lawyer, Colin Mandy SC, said the prosecution had a “flawed approach” in analysing the evidence and “discarded inconvenient truths”. He told the jury to consider whether there is a reasonable possibility that death cap mushrooms were put into the beef wellingtons accidentally. He said jurors should also consider whether there is a reasonable possibility that Patterson did not intend to kill or cause serious injury to her guests.

4. Mandy said his client had no motive and “very good reasons” not to harm her lunch guests. “If you do embark on this plan … you’ll lose the only people in the world who are any support to you and your children, you will lose your children and you will lose everything that’s important to you,” he said.

5. Mandy said that while Patterson had a right to silence and was under no obligation to testify in the trial she chose to give evidence in the trial. In doing so, he said, she opened herself up to days of cross-examination by an experienced barrister and the “scrutiny of the whole world”.

Erin Patterson mushroom trial day 33 – as it happened

This blog is now closed

www.theguardian.com