Australia - 3 dead after eating wild mushrooms, Leongatha, Victoria, Aug 2023 #15 *Arrest*

[Susjay]

For me, that's why I'd have him! If someone on the jury was already inclined to have doubts about the prosecution's case, I think he is doing his job well in furthering those doubts. In my opinion!

I don’t think Mandy is doing a fine job because let’s face it, he has so little to work with. Like making a silk purse out of a sow’s ear… But he is doing a good job of mentioning anything he can possibly mention. And I think it’s about bombardment or muddying the waters to create doubt and maybe confusion. I was surprised that he and the accused were given so much opportunity to weave a narrative to rebut the Prosecutions evidence- having the benefit of having all that evidence laid out for them. And remember the only witness he could call or chose to call was the accused. That maybe says a lot as well. Wasn’t there anyone they could call in the defence?

 

[Susjay]

I said blah blah blah many times through Mandy nonsense, but actually he did fairly well with what he has to work with, he knows fine well Erin's goose is cooked. I'd LOVE to hear about all the run-ins that they've no doubt had, you just Know that Erin knows the law MUCH better

I have never in my life even touched a mushroom much less eaten one, I sure as hell won't ever be tempted to now. Quite tempted to check out the dehydrator setting on my air fryer though!

I'm off on holiday tomorrow, guess I won't be needing to pack a book to read round the pool.

Happy holidays! I thought the same as you during the defence many words spoken but what was the message?

 

[Susjay]

do you think? I think the opposite. Lots of noise, no substance.

If you are really short on substance, make some noise! Maybe that’s the Mandy plan?

 

[MaxDecimus13]

"Ms Patterson says she only ate around one half"

@drsleuth Thx for quoting the article.

EP says she ate about half.
^ "Mr Mandy says is not contradicted by other witnesses."

Well, Mr. Mandy, thing is, four guests were in a position to observe the quantity EP consumed, but sadly only one survived and was able to testify about the luncheon events.
He may or may not have been asked about this at trial, IDK.

Sooo, the jury is back to relying on EP's credibility on this point?

She also suggested at one point eating a quarter or a third. You know roughly how much you've ate that you know the difference between those.

 

[Susjay]

Oh My Lord---the defense is going with the funny smelling Asian mushrooms as being a true story.

IMO there was a lot of evidence put forward showing those were lies about that Asian Market --that she originally just said Woolies, but added the Asian market in later she couldn't even place which town it was in,and named several different ones--- that no other people were ever poisoned by Asian mushrooms from those suburbs, and the health department put lots of effort and resources into tracking down that market, unsuccessfully. But the D now says ' It is clear that his client told the truth about that.'

Yes Mandy is putting a lot of money on that horse called “Asian Grocer”.
And it’s time for the Melbourne Cup but “Asian Grocer” cannot be located!
It’s almost like that horse never existed…

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

When I was reading each point Mandy has raised I wondered whether he actually believed his arguments were super relevant. They seem rather weak to me and I wonder whether it’s a valid defence strategy to bring up almost any thing that’s vaguely relevant. So plant a field full of seeds to of doubt in the hope that one or two couple will sprout? I don’t know much about his role as defence but he seems to be about throwing absolutely anything at the jury in the hope something will stick.

Based on hearing jurors talk after trials, you never know what a juror might find persuasive for either side, even if it's a weak argument. Since the facts are formidably against him, Mandy's hoping there is some juror who will fall for the fallacies he can come up with. moo

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I've just finished listening to The Trial by Daily Mail amd I must say I don't think he did as well today.

He tried to back up some of Erin's most egregious lies like the Enrich clinic and in the process just reminded people of how unlikely that explanation is.

He also seemed to be using a lot of false dichotomies that were irritating, like 'what's more likely, that Erin pooed by the side of the road or she killed 3 people in cold-blooded murder?'

What's more likely is the one with the most evidence, which in this example would be the murder.

 

[dalsglen]

Happy holidays! I thought the same as you during the defence many words spoken but what was the message?

She's a liar that lies to bolster their poor self esteem but she didn't do nowt, honest! Poor Erin! I'd bloody love to have a pint with him post conviction, eta, or not as the jurors may find.

 

[IBR]

I reckon those BW tainted plates ended up in the bin during the Subway drop off later that night. IMO

Yes exactly

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

He says if Patterson wanted to mislead her guests she would have mentioned the medical issue before the lunch.

That's one of his worse laughers. Even if they were already poisoned, they were still all alive after lunch sitting in her house, she had to say something at some point before they left.

 

[MrJ]

Good morning, I'll handle the ABC live updates until about 2 pm!

 

[Bats]

I have a lot of sympathy for somebody trying to stick up for Erin on this forum. I also think that a lot of what gets asserted and speculated is seen through the prism of her being a horrendous murderer, and actually is much more understandable if you don't.

However, I nearly spat out my coffee when I read that you said the defence would think they were blessed to have Erin taking the stand. Maybe you have personal reasons for supporting her, or maybe you are emotionally invested in her innocence like so many are emotionally invested in her guilt.

At best, her taking the stand was uncomfortable and at worst it was an unmitigated disaster. The not knowing about Enrich doing gastric bypass was a serious own goal in this trial, it completely undermined her whole narrative about why she lied about the cancer. To anyone not a friend of Erin, it looks seriously like the whole story was made up.

She might have 'stood up' to the prosecution, but she also disagreed with the testimonies of nearly everybody else including her own children. She made some hard-to-believe claims like having bulimia, adding in strong-smelling mushrooms accidentally and pooing by the side of the road, all in the context of being a known liar for self-preservation reasons.

The defence would have an easier job right now had Erin never taken the stand.

Just to correct you on something...

I wasn't stating my support for Erin.... My post was stating my frustration that people continuously say that Erin's defence don't have a lot to work with. I think the opposite.

I have just been working with the assumption that Bats is actually Erin Patterson herself, posting from jail. It's the only way I have been able to reconcile those posts to make any kind of sense.

Thanks @Spectrix

 

[Bats]

I don't like to make accusations of the motives of people, but I wouldn't be surprised if she was somehow involved with EP. It was a bizarrely pro-EP comment to make and it's hard to imagine that somebody saw the last few weeks neutrally and came to that conclusion.

After all, if an ex-friend can be on here what's to stop a current one?

Thanks. I am male. Not a friend of EP nor am pro EP and have been trying to be neutral.

Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.... nice work.

 

[Way2Invested]

I don’t think Mandy is doing a fine job because let’s face it, he has so little to work with. Like making a silk purse out of a sow’s ear… But he is doing a good job of mentioning anything he can possibly mention. And I think it’s about bombardment or muddying the waters to create doubt and maybe confusion. I was surprised that he and the accused were given so much opportunity to weave a narrative to rebut the Prosecutions evidence- having the benefit of having all that evidence laid out for them. And remember the only witness he could call or chose to call was the accused. That maybe says a lot as well. Wasn’t there anyone they could call in the defence?

BBM
I don't know what the alternative is but knowing the defence is given the entire brief of evidence and then has months to concoct a story to "explain" it or come up with ideas to discredit it seems slightly biased.
In the "game of law" I think the defence gets a lot of advantages...

 

[Way2Invested]

Good morning, I'll handle the ABC live updates until about 2 pm!

Please tell me we don't have to endure that many more hours of Mr Mandy's waffling!

 

[Cliff Hardy]

Please tell me we don't have to endure that many more hours of Mr Mandy's waffling!

Days, not hours.

 

[MrJ]

It's got to be a deliberate strategy, going longer than the prosecution. Is that normal? And does that usually work in their favour?

 

[Cliff Hardy]

I don’t think Mandy is doing a fine job because let’s face it, he has so little to work with. Like making a silk purse out of a sow’s ear… But he is doing a good job of mentioning anything he can possibly mention. And I think it’s about bombardment or muddying the waters to create doubt and maybe confusion. I was surprised that he and the accused were given so much opportunity to weave a narrative to rebut the Prosecutions evidence- having the benefit of having all that evidence laid out for them. And remember the only witness he could call or chose to call was the accused. That maybe says a lot as well. Wasn’t there anyone they could call in the defence?

If the defence had called witnesses, the prosecution would obviously have gotten a go at them as well and that would likely have played out about as well as Erin taking the stand herself.

 

[SouthAussie]

I've always thought that grey and white can be pretty close anyway. It's not beyond the realms that a very light-grey would be called white by one and grey by another.

My thought is that an older gent who maybe did not care very much about plates might have called them white, if they were light grey.
I think they must have been distinctively grey in colour, for Ian to have said they were grey.

imo

 

[Cliff Hardy]

It's got to be a deliberate strategy, going longer than the prosecution. Is that normal? And does that usually work in their favour?

Rogers literally hit a home run in her summing up and Mandy will want that buried as far back in the memory of the jurors as possible. So expect a protracted session of smoke, mirrors, denials and deflections.