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

[drsleuth]

2m ago

Another break called​

By Melissa Brown​

Justice Beale uses the end of his instructions on heresay evidence to call for another break.

The jury has now been lead out of court.

Judge in Erin Patterson murder trial begins instructions to jury — as it happened

Justice Christopher Beale begins his final instructions to the jury before they start their deliberations. The instructions are expected to go for at least two days. Follow his address as it happened.

www.abc.net.au

 

[drsleuth]

Hearsay evidence​

Justice Beale has told the jury they also heard hearsay evidence throughout the trial.

He then referenced testimony by Simon Patterson.

In his testimony, Simon said his aunt Heather told him she found it odd different coloured plates were used at the lunch, and his father Don told him Patterson announced a cancer diagnosis.

Justice Bealse also noted testimony from Ian Wilkinson, in which he said said he spoke to his wife Heather at Leongatha Hospital about the mismatched plates at the lunch.

Justice Beale said those bits of testimony were examples of hearsay evidence.

He said it was up to the jury to determine whether those statements truly occurred.

“If you find they did, you can use that as evidence Patterson had a different coloured plates and that she told the guests she had cancer,” Justice Beale said.

However, Justice Beale said he had to warn the jury about possible issues with hearsay evidence, primarily that the statements referenced were made outside of the courtroom.

He said the reliability of out-of-court statements need to be questioned, as they may be prone to error due to memory issues or mistakes.

He said the person who made the out-of-court statement was also not bound by court affirmations and there is no opportunity for the defence to cross examine the out-of-court statement

“The law says every jury should take this into account when considering out-of-court statements.,” Beale said.

Judge delivers final speech to jury in Erin Patterson mushroom trial

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

7news.com.au

 

[drsleuth]

Sorry that's all I can update for now.

 

[Kemug]

But somehow evocative of mouldy nuts, or off mushrooms.

I really love "Kittybunny", so cute!

 

[Kemug]

Claiming that she never went to Loch or Outrim to forage Death Caps.

And that she couldn't visit her sister because of the press hounding her.

 

[Scooby-Doo]

Arguments made to the jury by the opposing legal teams​

Arguments made by the prosecution:

• The only evidence Erin Patterson foraged for edible mushrooms came out of her mouth
• Patterson was a self-confessed liar
• Photos she took didn’t constitute evidence of her eating wild mushrooms
• Before 2022, she had a good relationship with estranged husband Simon Patterson, and he told others he never knew her to forage for mushrooms
• Her children said they had no memory of their mother foraging
• There were no messages to family or online friends regarding foraging
• No books on wild mushroom foraging at her home
• Patterson denied being a forager until the “recent invention” of her story

Arguments made by the defence:

• Erin Patterson loved mushrooms
• More people started foraging during pandemic lockdowns
• That her children didn’t recall her foraging was consistent with them being young children
• Photos of wild mushrooms at her home were found on an SD card seized by police
• Patterson likely visited the iNaturalist website, but her interest wasn’t sinister as she only wanted to know if death caps grew in South Gippsland
• She didn’t hide purchasing the dehydrator or telling her online friends about it
• If Patterson was guilty she would have dumped the dehydrator before the lunch
• She gave consistent evidence
• There was no evidence of a motive to kill her lunch guests
• She is a person of good character

 

[Walk A Mile]

She may lie about having cancer, destroy evidence, and obstruct police and public health investigations, but she's of good character.

 

[Yh5r]

?????????

I feel "undertaking to tell the truth" means that she is testifying by taking an affirmation and 'is expected to tell the truth' on the stand MOO

 

[L_B]

I feel "undertaking to tell the truth" means that she is testifying under oath and 'is expected to tell the truth' on the stand MOO

Not to be an Erin, but technically she didnt take an oath but an affirmation!

 

[Yh5r]

Not to be an Erin, but technically she didnt take an oath but an affirmation!

Haha fair call, will edit.

 

[dothetime]

Have you forgotten her wonderful 'tearful' speech to reporters?

The only 'sorry' in that was, 'I'm sorry . . . they have lost their lives.' No personal accountability at all.

 

[Monstradamus]

He says Simon also gave evidence about driving Ian and Heather Wilkinson to hospital, and Heather asking him if Ms Patterson was short on crockery.

Heather worked it out. She was feeling extremely unwell and on the way to hospital and she asked Simon that question. She knew...

She was intuitive enough to mention it to Ian and Simon. Smart woman.

 

[Monstradamus]

She may lie about having cancer, destroy evidence, and obstruct police and public health investigations, but she's of good character.

I know, right? Good character, pull the other one, mate.
MOO

 

[MrJ]

dbm personal

Closing instructions are interesting, especially the inconsistencies of witnesses. Feeling a bit meh about them overall

 

[Monstradamus]

Just got back from the interview, I think it went very well!

Closing instructions are interesting, especially the inconsistencies of witnesses. Feeling a bit meh about them overall

I feel a bias towards EP when addressing the Prosecution's case atm. I'm hoping once he gets into the Defence this will change course? Of course, she doesn't need to prove her innocence. MOO

 

[Kemug]

She was intuitive enough to mention it to Ian and Simon. Smart woman.

She was probably thinking even during the meal "Why is Erin's plate different?" Maybe she was more intuitive than the others. Maybe she often read murder mysteries? If so, Ian and the remaining family would know that. But they are under no obligation to tell us. They have already had far too much of their family's life exposed for the whole world to see. In fact, I can't think of any family less likely to write a book about this saga.

 

[Kemug]

She was probably thinking even during the meal "Why is Erin's plate different?" Maybe she was more intuitive than the others. Maybe she often read murder mysteries? If so, Ian and the remaining family would know that. But they are under no obligation to tell us. They have already had far too much of their family's life exposed for the whole world to see. In fact, I can't think of any family less likely to write a book about this saga.

Speaking of which, we were discussing who might play the main characters if a movie or TV show is made. But could it even be made if the family doesn't allow it?

 

[TootsieFootsie]

I haven't followed diligently, but weren't the mashed potatoes shop bought? Remember thinking that was strange if you go to the trouble of making a posh main course.

Maybe her mashed potatoes always turned out lumpy, like mine.

 

[L_B]

Speaking of which, we were discussing who might play the main characters if a movie or TV show is made. But could it even be made if the family doesn't allow it?

Not sure about a fictional show, but there is a documentary "coming soon" on Stan (streaming service here in Aus)

 

[Eloise]

Speaking of which, we were discussing who might play the main characters if a movie or TV show is made. But could it even be made if the family doesn't allow it?

Yes, they can definitely make tv shows about things without family permission. It's been done before. But there are lots of things that need to be taken into consideration. Telling people's stories on film - Arts Law Centre of Australia