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

[arrogantcat]

Well, I really can't imagine that it will be unanimously "Not guilty", can anyone?

My predictions in order of probability:

• unanimous guilty
• hung jury
• court is hit by a meteorite before a verdict is reached
• unanimously not guilty

 

[JBowie]

The police only used the dogs in the 2nd search, in November. 2 months after she allegedly threw Phone A away in a skip bin clean up.

Yes, but my point is that police here don't routinely tear a house apart as described in the original post by arrogantcat.

 

[Susjay]

"I'll just go home for a quick nap and think about what's happened / what to do next "

Or maybe I should go for a drive via Outtrim. Go figure?

 

[arrogantcat]

Yes, but my point is that police here don't routinely tear a house apart as described in the original post by arrogantcat.

My understanding is that they’re allowed to use “reasonable force”, and are liable for damages (which I think is brilliant - it’s utterly crazy that this isn’t the case everywhere!)

But if she was able to hide a phone quickly and without any special tools, I’d expect them to be able to find it within the use of reasonable force.

I do think not finding it here is a bit of a failure on their part.

 

[Susjay]

Well, I really can't imagine that it will be unanimously "Not guilty", can anyone?

I have no idea but hearing what I assume the jury heard, I would be thinking what is the story here-? What’s the point? - I’m hearing this but where’s the punchline or the slam dunk?

 

[SouthAussie]

On her person?

They could only search Erin herself if it was specified in the warrant. I imagine this warrant was for "mushrooms, cooking utensils, preparation utensils, dishes, anything related to mushrooms or mushroom poisoning, plus her devices". Something like that.



An application for a search warrant must set out the general nature of the offences that the warrant relates to the reasons that the police have for believing that they will find evidence of that offence on the premises or in the vehicle.

The police officer (who must be a Senior Sergeant or higher in rank) must satisfy a magistrate that they have reasonable grounds to believe that there is (or will be within the next 72 hours), in the building or vehicle something that is connected with the an indictable offence that has been committed or might be committed in the next three days, or anything that can be used as evidence for any offence. If they wish to search any person on the premises or in the vehicle, they must get the magistrate’s approval.

Search Warrants in Victoria.

 

[CityKid]

Somewhere in this thread I believe I did read of an Egyptian connection . . . ?

She may be of British descent and had ancestors living in Egypt when it was under British occupation, but that doesn't mean she has any ethnic connection to Egypt..

History of Egypt under the British - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Woolly]

I will certainly try to remember that tip for the next time I murder someone, and get caught disposing of the murder weapon, etc.

lol @Kemug

 

[Susjay]

My understanding is that they’re allowed to use “reasonable force”, and are liable for damages (which I think is brilliant - it’s utterly crazy that this isn’t the case everywhere!)

But if she was able to hide a phone quickly and without any special tools, I’d expect them to be able to find it within the use of reasonable force.

I do think not finding it here is a bit of a failure on their part.

Wow, but the police would have to know what they were looking for, wouldn’t they? It’s almost like they need psychic powers (which clearly don’t exist) to see what they need to find. It’s like looking for a needle in a haystack. Or in the case of searching for Deor Kunz, searching for a needle in a valley of haystacks. The disappearance of Deor Kunz attracted me to this site. Maybe one day we will learn where he is. Xx

 

[Woolly]

“Mr Mandy says the idea that Ms Patterson created a decoy mobile phone [Phone B] while hiding her original phone [Phone A] from police does not hold up.

"Why would she go to all the effort to setting up Phone B as a dummy phone to give to investigators?" he asks.

He says if his client was guilty, she would have simply taken her original phone to the tip.”

Erin Patterson was 'unscathed' by cross-examination, jury told — as it happened

Defence barrister Colin Mandy SC is continuing to deliver his closing address to the jury in Ms Patterson's triple-murder trial. Follow the trial as it happened

www.abc.net.au

Isn’t that kind of what she did with it, though? After hiding it from the police, she threw it in her yearly (lol) skip rental.

 

[BerylTutu]

I’d actually argue that the in laws were healthier than Erin even though they were much older. Don was extremely fit and healthy in particular. They didn’t drink or smoke and were in good health and physical activity.

Erin on the other hand never exercised and that’s why I first doubted she foraged, she’s more of a couch potato type. IMO

What’s your take on all her lying and stories @Detechtive from your knowledge of Erin?

 

[Susjay]

Not from a police search. They tear the house apart. Remove bath panels, ceiling tiles, boiler covers, everything.

Yup, and depending which police officer was with her, that person may have asked her to nominate a room where she could go in her house to talk to the lawyer. Just being kind. It’s quite natural for police to be accommodating when they are dealing with people who have lost loved ones. In my experience most cops are pretty thoughtful unless you are a big scary person armed to the teeth? But unfortunately I am actually quite scary, built like a large concrete sanitation block and armed with well honed ninja skills that would make any novice yoga teacher shake in their Birkenstocks…

 

[Susjay]

This pedantic dissection of the prosecutor’s language is an intentional defence tactic to avoid being drawn into statements you don’t intend to make.
Eg, “so you admit you picked death caps?”
“No, I admit I picked mushrooms but I do not know if they were death caps”.

It can seem pedantic when applied to less inflammatory statements, but in the witness box you don’t know where they are going with any single sentence. So you stay absolutely true to your story, word for word, and refuse to concede anything, however small or insignificant.yeah no nut yup but noI’m a psychologist, it’s not a tactic in the accused something else but I’m goi

This pedantic dissection of the prosecutor’s language is an intentional defence tactic to avoid being drawn into statements you don’t intend to make.
Eg, “so you admit you picked death caps?”
“No, I admit I picked mushrooms but I do not know if they were death caps”.

It can seem pedantic when applied to less inflammatory statements, but in the witness box you don’t know where they are going with any single sentence. So you stay absolutely true to your story, word for word, and refuse to concede anything, however small or insignificant.

Uhm , she is pedantic but what you are suggesting is not the road I’m going down. It’s complex.

 

[Baby baby Jane]

My understanding is that they’re allowed to use “reasonable force”, and are liable for damages (which I think is brilliant - it’s utterly crazy that this isn’t the case everywhere!)

But if she was able to hide a phone quickly and without any special tools, I’d expect them to be able to find it within the use of reasonable force.

I do think not finding it here is a bit of a failure on their part.

Defo underestimated her criminal cunning

 

[Susjay]

My predictions in order of probability:

• unanimous guilty
• hung jury
• court is hit by a meteorite before a verdict is reached
• unanimously not guilty

I’m always keen for a kidnapped by aliens scenario. Maybe the accused was kidnapped by aliens and thats how death cap’s weaseled their way in to the Beef Wellingtons. I think Mandy would ask, Did anyone check for the accused experiencing lost time? Did they check her torso for prong marks? No? Damn you Prosecution! You missed the aliens!

 

[Baby baby Jane]

I’m always keen for a kidnapped by aliens scenario. Maybe the accused was kidnapped by aliens and thats how death cap’s weaseled their way in to the Beef Wellingtons. I think Mandy would ask, Did anyone check for the accused experiencing lost time? Did they check her torso for prong marks? No? Damn you Prosecution! You missed the aliens!

Aliens!! This happened at my jury duty few yrs ago. One juror’s interpretation of “reasonable doubt” was ….
“Anything is possible, aliens could have come down and assaulted, robbed, beat victim with blunt instrument”. For this juror, we all went back to courtroom w written question for judge - what is reasonable doubt?
Judge explained “what would any reasonable person conclude from the evidence presented”
Guilty.

 

[Megnut]

Thankfully that crap is over with

Pun notwithstanding, I'm writing from behind again.

I can't keep up with y'all.

I'm pleased it's done.

The was some rough defensarrhea.

JMO

 

[Megnut]

JMO... I've been on this thread since the crime first happened and prior EP being arrested or charged. We know EP used different colour plates.

However, to my very best recollection, which could be mistaken, nobody really discussed in depth what EP did immediately after the victims finished eating their hot course meal of BW.

IMO it is yet another example of clear deception and how the plan unfolded that there is a wild inconsistency between the surviving victim's recollection and the deceased victim's memory (four grey / white dinner plates and one orange plate) and the children's recollection and the crockery located by LE.

The explanation for this IMO is that following the hot meal, EP probably disposed of everything off that table like it was toxic nuclear waste because she'd have been going out of her mind that any residue of DC could kill her or her children or dog. She probably refused offers of help, she seems to have refused to allow her guests to see her butler's pantry, and her children have a completely different description of the crockery they saw (small white matching plates).

Quite why the prosecution didn't home in on this as an area of 'proof' that EP did some smoke and mirrors performance with crockery, I'm not sure. Instead, we have people saying oh 'men don't remember things the same as women' or 'children don't take much notice of crockery', etc. They did all notice and everything aligns with a probable truth that EP disposed of the first course crockery and utensils with immediate effect - a clear sign of guilt and knowledge of poison that has been seemingly skipped over.

The question would be, what did she do with that crockery and those utensils because I'm 100% certain she disposed of them. Perhaps this is why they don't get much mention, as there's not been much effort to trace or locate them or maybe LE missed a trick there?

JMO MOO

Rbbm

If EP stopped by the side of the road at all, it was to toss her toxic crockery.

I wonder if LE ever checked.

 

[Susjay]

What’s your take on all her lying and stories @Detechtive from your knowledge of Erin?

What’s your take on all her lying and stories @Detechtive from your knowledge of Erin

Getting the accused would believe herself to be

Aliens!! This happened at my jury duty few yrs ago. One juror’s interpretation of “reasonable doubt” was ….
“Anything is possible, aliens could have come down and assaulted, robbed, beat victim with blunt instrument”. For this juror, we all went back to courtroom w written question for judge - what is reasonable doubt?
Judge explained “what would any reasonable person conclude from the evidence presented”
Guilty.

Well that was my sort of joke. Like many things are possible but not probable. Like, well it could be that my dog ate my homework…. I was doing an art class and my dog did eat my watercolour painting. Darn, I was so talented but held back by my dog,!

 

[Kittybunny]

I'm only looking at the facts and the law.

So in the absence of a video showing a murderer committing a crime, how does a jury decide whether someone is guilty or not? Evidence, testimony, statements, common sense, all of which can be interpreted differently by different individuals. It's not so black and white.

Also - I am finally caught up on this thread - hard, as I am in the US and always a day behind, but thank you, thank you, thank you to all the posters who post updates from the trial.

I think the Prosecution's closing was stellar overall - though do agree some of the points of ambiguity around whether vomiting could expel toxins and that the meat given to the children could not have been the one from the BWs could have been made more explicit. However, if the jury disbelieves Erin's accounts about vomiting at all and that they ate that meat given her reluctance to bring the children to the hospital, it won't really matter.

I do think the Defense's strongest arguments lie in whether her actions after the fact (which are pretty damning) truly are those of a cold, calculating murderer or just someone who panicked, because that sort of question comes up all the time here at Websleuths - would they have been that stupid to have done/not done X, Y, and Z if they really wanted to get away with murder?

My counterpoint to that question is..."Why would anyone commit murder if they didn't think they were going to get away with it?"

In my opinion and experience of following these cases of premeditated murder, I never think it's stupidity that gets murderers caught - it's arrogance. They truly believe that their carefully (at least in their minds) prepared lies will be believed hook, line, and sinker by "dumb cops" that certainly couldn't be smarter than they are. And if they have any NPD/sociopathic tendencies, it's an inability to anticipate the reactions and actions of people with real emotions, empathy, and caring for others, especially those that they have long discarded and that have outlived their usefulness to them. A few examples of the top of my head:

Patrick Frazee - killed his girlfriend Kelsey Berreth and "Frazee expressed surprise in the media's interest in the case" in conversations with one of his friends. He also said "no body, no crime."

Barry Morphew - rolled up to the staged scene of his wife's mountain bike, shaking his head and said "Lion?", thinking that everyone would buy his story that a mountain lion got his wife, dragged her away, and that would be that, LE shrugs, says ain't that a shame and that's that. (Although still waiting for justice in that one!)

If there was any panic in Erin's actions, it was surprise that death caps were suspected so quickly, how concerned and insistent doctors were about making sure Erin and her children were not going to die, and the lengths that doctors and public health officials were willing to go to ensure that no other people would fall ill and/or die from these mushrooms. She may truly have believed that they would think, "Oh well, it's her problem if she dies. And oh, some old people died from gastro, maybe it was mushrooms, maybe it wasn't, we can't seem to find where they came from, such bad luck, tsk tsk" and that was that. But unfortunately for her, that's not how it works.