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

[L_B]

I completely agree with you. It seems most unusual. I thought a judge is meant to be impartial?

It does seem that way at times, but I also thought at times it favoured the prosecution, so overall I'm just keeping an open mind for the rest of the instructions before forming a final opinion on it. I would like to think that he is trying to ensure an appeal can't be made.

 

[L_B]

That's a hard one to follow logically. IMO

Is it perhaps a reporting error and possibly he said 'that does not mean you should find her guilty'?

This wording is phrased better (via Judge in Erin Patterson murder trial begins instructions to jury — as it happened)

He says if they don't believe her, they have to put her testimony aside and then still see if the prosecution has proven the rest of the case beyond reasonable doubt.

To me this is the key in them finding her guilty.... First the jury needs to not believe her testimony (cos otherwise the Judge said if they believe or might believe her testimony they have to find not guilty!!). Now can the jury come to this conclusion?

I am hoping all her lies and inconsistencies, against the laws they need to weigh it up against, will lead them deciding this and there isn't at least one person who decides they might/do believe in Erin's account. If they end up believing her or having doubt about it, then none of the other evidence matters at the end of the day right...

So if they aren't believing her testimony and can put it aside, then can the jury be satisfied with the prosecution's evidence? Especially around the testimony's of those where Erin was claiming the witnesses were incorrect or the stories didn't add up
Eg the plates, the cancer lie, the panic and disposing the dehydrator, the bush poo etc etc, are they satisified that all these people are telling the truth or not?

 

[Old Soul]

BBM I've searched in this thread for this comment by the judge and I can't find it. I'm not saying he didn't say it, but could you point to the part where he said that please.

Beale told the jury: “If you find that she had a tendency to pick and eat wild mushrooms, including putting them in meals she served to others, or if you think it is a reasonable possibility that she had that tendency, you may consider that it increases the possibilities that the death cap mushrooms ended up in the beef Wellingtons accidentally, rather than deliberately.”

Erin Patterson murder trial day 40 LIVE: Jury begins its deliberations after judge finishes instructions; verdict must be unanimous

The jury in the trial of Erin Patterson, accused of murdering three people with a poisonous mushroom meal, is now deliberating its verdict.

www.theage.com.au

 

[potr]

Erin Patterson trial: Judge begins charge to mushroom murder jury​

Jurors in the triple-murder trial of alleged death cap poisoner Erin Patterson have been given a hint as to the hearing’s progress.

A large crowd gathered outside court on Tuesday to attend the case. Picture: NewsWire / Nadir Kinani
Justice Beale began his closing remarks on Tuesday, setting out that he would direct the jury on the principles of law and summarise the evidence and arguments on the issues they would need to judge.

Jurors were each handed a white binder containing an 86-page index of the chronology of the trial.

“I hope it will be of assistance to you in managing the great amount of information you’ve received over the last eight weeks,” the judge said.

Turning to the issues that sit at the heart of the trial, Justice Beale told the 14-person panel they would need to set aside sympathy and focus on whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt Ms Patterson was criminally responsible for the deaths.

He said the case had attracted “unprecedented media attention and excited much public comment” but urged jurors to be careful not to let it influence them.

“Any decent person would feel great sympathy for the Wilkinson and Patterson families, but you must guard scrupulously against prejudice,” he said.

Erin Patterson’s defence team includes Colin Mandy SC (left), Bill Doogue (centre) and Sophie Stafford (right). Picture: NewsWire / Nadir Kinani
‘Inconsistencies’ raises in witness statements

The Supreme Court judge has moved on to inconsistent statements, highlighting examples where the prosecution and defence claim witnesses had given various accounts previously that differed to their evidence.

Justice Beale said the defence had asked him to draw attention to five witnesses while the prosecution asked him to address Ms Patterson’s evidence.

He begun with the evidence of Simon Patterson, pointing the jury to a series of questions and answers around two topics — whether he agreed his friendship with Ms Patterson was “strong” up until December 2022 and around his used of the words “serious” and “important” when giving evidence the accused woman allegedly invited him to the lunch.

Justice Beale moved on to evidence from Ian Wilkinson, Dr Chris Webster, Tanya Patterson and Sally Ann Atkinson.

For Ms Patterson, the judge raised eight topics he said the prosecution wanted to highlight.

These were;

1) Whether she had a tendency to pick and eat wild mushrooms;

2) Whether her children were “invited to or free to attend the lunch”;

3) The source of mushrooms that went into the beef wellingtons;

4) How much the accused woman ate of her beef wellington;

5) How much Gail Patterson ate of her beef wellington;

6) When Ms Patterson claimed she started to experience diarrhoea after the lunch;

7) Whether Ms Patterson knew or begun to suspect the lunch was the cause of Don and Gail’s illnesses on the evening of July 30;

8) Whether she knew Don and Gail were in comas by August 1, 2023.

Justice Beale said it was a matter for the jury to determine if a witness had made prior inconsistent statements, but if they did they could use it to assess credibility.

He said inconsistent statements do not necessarily lead to the conclusion a witness was lying and they would have to determine which, if any, statement to believe.

“It’s for you to determine whether or not to draw this conclusion from any inconsistencies you find,” he said.

The Crown’s case has been led by prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC. Picture: NewsWire / Nadir Kinani
Judge addresses hearsay evidence

Justice Beale turned to the topic of hearsay evidence, which he warns jurors must approach with caution.

The judge warned that errors could occur when the statements are said, heard or repeated in court and defence were not given the opportunity to cross examine the maker.

Justice Beale pointed to examples of hearsay evidence, including Simon Patterson’s evidence Heather Wilkinson had remarked to him that Ms Patterson had served herself on a differently-coloured plate to the guests.

The judge also pointed to Ian Wilkinson’s evidence his wife Heather remarked that Ms Patterson had a different coloured plate.

Another example raised was Simon’s evidence his father, Don, said Ms Patterson told the lunch guests she had cancer.

Justice Beale said it was up to the jury to determine if Heather said those things to Simon and Ian and if Don said this to Simon.

“Even if you accept it as truthful, it might not be an accurate reflection of what was heard or said,” he said.

Lunch survivor Ian Wilkinson attended the hearing. Picture: NewsWire / Nadir Kinani
Mushroom jury laughs after mistake

Taking the jury through the evidence in relation to Ms Patterson’s claimed tendency to forage for wild edible mushrooms, Justice Beale erred when discussing what one witness, Laura Muldoon, said the accused woman had told her.

“Dr Muldoon gave evidence she asked Ms Patterson whether she used wild mushrooms in the beef wellington,” the judge said.

“Ms Patterson said she thinks she told Dr Mushroom, ah Muldoon, she had not used wild mushrooms.”

The mistake prompted a hearty laugh in the courtroom from jurors and the public gallery, with Justice Beale commenting “that was deliberate just to check if you were still awake,” before laughing himself.

Prosecutors allege Ms Patterson deliberately spiked the meal with the poisonous mushrooms intending to kill, or at least seriously injure, her guests, while her defence maintains it was a tragic accident.

Last week, jurors in the trial were sent home early on Thursday by Justice Christopher Beale, who advised he would begin his closing address on Tuesday morning.

“It is more important than ever that you have a good weekend,” he said.

“I really want you to come back refreshed on Tuesday.”

Simon’s parents, Don and Gail Patterson, died a day apart in early August 2023. Picture: Supplied
The judge said he had a lot of ground to cover in his remarks, estimating it would take two or three days to deliver.

He said the charge would cover three topics – the relevant legal framework, the issues for jurors to determine and a summary of the evidence and arguments.

In her closing arguments delivered last week, Crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC argued the evidence adduced over the previous seven weeks could allow the jury to “safely reject” the theory the lunch was a terrible accident.

“We say there is no reasonable alternative explanation for what happened to the lunch guests other than the accused deliberately sourced death cap mushrooms and deliberately included them in the meal she served them, with an intention to kill them,” Dr Rogers said.


Heather Wilkinson was the first of the lunch guests to die on August 4, while her husband, Ian Wilkinson, survived. Picture: Supplied.
On the other side of the bar table, Ms Patterson’s barrister, Colin Mandy SC, argued the prosecution’s case was built on cherrypicked facts and the jury should accept his client’s account of an accidental poisoning.

“There’s no possible prospect that Erin wanted in those circumstances to destroy her whole world, her whole life. Surely, it’s more likely that her account is true,” he said.


He said Patterson, who spent eight days in the witness box, was not obliged to give evidence in the trial and did not have to prove her own innocence.

"She is no different to any other witness," Justice Beale said.
"You must assess her evidence the same as you assess the evidence of any other witness."

He listed several conclusions for them to take into account about Patterson's evidence.
If they found her evidence was true, or likely to be true, they must find her not guilty of all charges, he said.

It was not enough to "prefer" the prosecution's case to Patterson's evidence, or to choose which they prefer.

Rather, it was up to the prosecution to establish she was guilty, the judge said.

If jurors did not believe Patterson's evidence, they must put it aside and establish if the prosecution had proven she was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on their evidence.

The 14 jurors will be balloted down to 12 and sequestered when they begin deliberations.
They must return with a unanimous verdict on all charges.


The trial continues.

https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/courts-law/erin-patterson-trial-judge-set-to-deliver-charge-to-mushroom-murder-jury/news-story/2e4f2a6e5aa322aa03e65b7a8e35b44b

Justice Beale said this:

"She is no different to any other witness, You must assess her evidence the same as you assess the evidence of any other witness."

and then he said

“If jurors did not believe Patterson's evidence, they must put it aside and establish if the prosecution had proven she was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on their evidence.”

I find this incredibly quizzical - it seems like he is saying you can find she is lying - but you cannot hold it against her - you must neutralise that
but
if the prosecution's witnesses, say police or forensic people were to lie - and the jury was given reason to doubt their evidence - would that merely be struck as if nothing else was affected - no it would immediately be grounds for a reversal on appeal! if the trial was allowed to continue at all!.

If the Jury are to assess her evidence the same way they would any other then its up to them exactly what weight they accord it and with that whether that weight is against her or for her.

His instructions seemed to me like a little adding up game - she got points added for "good character evidence" based on someone saying from her facebook friends that she was a "good mother" but no points taken away for lying to the police.

 

[Tortoise]

Thank you for finding that @Old Soul

Was there any evidence that she had a tendency of serving meals containing foraged mushrooms to others?

 

[MrJ]

Keep in mind we only get snippets of what he said from the media. I'll try and reserve judgement and read along tomorrow when we hear more from his instructions

 

[potr]

Thank you for finding that @Old Soul

Was there any evidence that she had a tendency of serving meals containing foraged mushrooms to others?

i don't think with foraged - because until the trial she wouldn't even admit she had ever foraged let alone anyone ever noticing or talking to her about it. I hope the Jury parse out the "foraged" from that statement

 

[Old Soul]

Thank you for finding that @Old Soul

Was there any evidence that she had a tendency of serving meals containing foraged mushrooms to others?

Only Erin’s own testimony that her foraged mushrooms had been in meals she prepared for herself and her children. “Chopped up really small” I believe she said, because remember her children don’t like mushrooms

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

In my mind it is crazy that the judge is going through the evidence with the jury. He is even making his own assumptions without scientific evidence such as his comment of being more probable to accidently pick DC mushrooms if more foraging has been done. I don't know why he is not limiting his instructions to the jury on the points of law and without relating to specific pieces of evidence. He shouldn't need to instruct on specific testimonial evidence as all of it was already admissible (unless he instructed otherwise) and the lawyers all had their chance to cross-examine. Judge Beale has already told the Jurors that they are to be the judge of the presented evidence, so why is he prejudging it and adding his own assumptions?

If the example of the assumption he made was instead in the favour of the defence, then that would surely be a a reason for appeal that the Judge had erred.

I am Australian, so I have a right to criticise procedure in my own country. The same with our soft sentencing and the notion of concurrent sentences.

Is this they way judges in the USA give final instructions to jurors?

No, it's not done like that in USA. Judges there only instruct on the laws in question and on how to evaluate testimony in general terms, they don't give a rundown of the evidence presented. I was wondering if that's typical in Australia to detail the evidence like that. I guess it's not? Do the barristers at least have input into the judge's charge, as they do in USA?

 

[Deleted member 363451]

BBM I've searched in this thread for this comment by the judge and I can't find it. I'm not saying he didn't say it, but could you point to the part where he said that please.

I distinctly remember reading that Justice Beale said that, because it didn't make sense at all. If she'd done prior mushroom foraging, it's unlikely that she would accidentally pick Death Caps. If she'd NEVER foraged before, it's possible that she might. (although you wouldn't probably be so stupid as to put them in a meal without checking if they were safe first).

 

[Scuffy35]

BBM I've searched in this thread for this comment by the judge and I can't find it. I'm not saying he didn't say it, but could you point to the part where he said that please.

I should of said I was paraphrasing sorry, and didn't get is quite right either, but my point remails the same. From the ABC reporting:

He tells the jury that if they find Ms Patterson had a tendency to pick and eat wild mushrooms, or if they think there's a reasonable possibility she did, they may consider it increases the possibility that death cap mushrooms ended up in the beef Wellington accidentally rather than deliberately.

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

See also post from "Old Soul" with report for The Age,

 

[Warshawski]

BBM
Don't we know that no actual pieces of death caps were found? They were only detected with further testing, so were likely to be blitzed to dust? That's my belief anyway. As for the Asian store mushrooms, she may have only used a small portion of them, enough to be detected and then she could claim the death caps were in there too - even though they were crushed into tiny pieces/dust.
MOO

Re the BBM above, I’m pretty sure we do know that no actual pieces of anything other than the Woolworths purchased mushrooms were visible Because the botanic gardens mycologist testified that she examined the leftover under her microscope, both at home and again at work, and only saw ‘field mushrooms’ which is the term for the standard button, flat etc mushrooms sold in our supermarkets ( Woolworths)

It was the forensic toxicologists who located the DC toxins via a relatively new Test - and I suggest you’re correct in that it came from the addition of powered DC.

I suggest the ‘Asian store mushrooms’ story was all a furphy…. but irrespective imo she dried her foraged mushrooms, which would indicate a need to store them somewhere. Whether she added them to a container containing other dried mushrooms from where ever would be anyone’s guess.
It’s my belief that at some stage she powdered dried mushrooms, whether from a mixed container or straight from the latest batch she dried, again would be anyone’s guess.

She ( and her defence) suggests she forgot that there were other dried mushrooms in there… seriously ! She has a memory like an elephant ! ( when it suits her it seems)

To provide some value to her decision to take the stand, it would have made sense for her to clear up these points of ( incriminating) confusion !

MOO

 

[Two SCents]

As I read the above I wondered who first told the media (way back) that Erin was an experienced forager, that she foraged with her family.

Also, who told the media (way back) that Simon asked Erin if she used the dehydrator to poison everyone.

Both of these things seem to have been disputed during the trial.

imo

BBM

Erin said this in the statement she gave to police which was made public in Aug '23.

Ms Patterson said she was at the hospital with her children "discussing the food dehydrator" when her ex-husband, the son of the dead couple, asked: "Is that what you used to poison them?"

Woman who cooked suspected poisoned meal details where she bought mushrooms

The woman who cooked a meal that is believed to have contained poisonous mushrooms and led to the deaths of three people gives a lengthy written statement to police detailing her account of what happened, and revealing she was hospitalised after the incident.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Kemug]

Portions eaten and when symptoms started
Mikaela Ortolan profile image
By Mikaela Ortolan

We quickly look at the different accounts of how much Erin Patterson and Gail Patterson ate of their meals.

We then turn to when Erin started experiencing diarrhoea, which she said occurred on the Saturday night close to midnight.

Simon Patterson however, told the court he remembers her saying it started during the afternoon on the Saturday, around 4pm or so.

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

Shouldn't that be "when Erin allegedly started experiencing diarrhoea"?

 

[Tortoise]

I should of said I was paraphrasing sorry, and didn't get is quite right either, but my point remails the same. From the ABC reporting:

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

See also post from "Old Soul" with report for The Age,

Thank you @Scuffy35

I agree with you. I don't think he should have commented on it at all. Because accident vs deliberate is the crux of the case, and it doesn't increase possibility of accident at all by the fact that she had a tendency or not to forage. Regularly or otherwise.

One might argue that experience of foraging should mean it's less likely to be an accident.

IMO

 

[Scuffy35]

I was wondering if that's typical in Australia to detail the evidence like that. I guess it's not?

I don't know, but as an Australian I am quite horrified about it.

I first thought something was a bit off when Judge Beale outlined his time line last week and indicate he would need two or two and a half days for his instructions to the jury.

I know there are issues with this particular judge in that he gave such an inadequate sentencing to Borce Ristevski. The prosecution successfully appealed it.

'We didn't get justice': family anger as Borce Ristevski gets nine years for killing his wife Karen

Melbourne man may be free in four and half years after admitting to manslaughter over 2016 death

www.theguardian.com

Borce Ristevski's jail term for killing wife Karen increased to 13 years after appeal

Prosecutors argued that nine-year term for manslaughter was manifestly inadequate

www.theguardian.com

 

[Warshawski]

?????????

IMO there’s a basic principle of honesty & truth telling that underpins humanity - irrespective of law court oaths.

However for some people, their lives are underpinned by the lies they tell - and that’s notwithstanding the law court oaths.

MOO

 

[Kemug]

I’ve added some more (in my opinion) lies.

Copied and pasted from HoneyBunOne’s list of lies:

RSBM
OK, let's make it easier. Let's make a list of every time Erin has told the truth.

 

[Kemug]

Thank you for finding that @Old Soul

Was there any evidence that she had a tendency of serving meals containing foraged mushrooms to others?

I don't remember her or anybody else claiming that.

 

[Old Soul]

I don't remember her or anybody else claiming that.

Thank you for finding that @Old Soul

Was there any evidence that she had a tendency of serving meals containing foraged mushrooms to others?

Erin Patterson admits she picked, ate wild mushrooms | Canberra CityNews

Accused triple murderer Erin Patterson has told a jury she started picking wild mushrooms during 2020 and had an interest in eating them as "they taste good".

citynews.com.au

Patterson and her children ate the wild mushrooms she picked and she said she “chopped them up very, very small”.