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

[ellyvantelli]

On her person?

Presumably on 'silent' mode. Probably not on vibrate.

 

[tillytatler]

What would happen next (in Aus) in the event of a hung jury?

 

[JBowie]

What would happen next (in Aus) in the event of a hung jury?

That's a mistrial. It's then up to the prosecution to decide if a retrial would be scheduled.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

She knew Sunday morning her guests were already in hospital. She had more than 24 hours to tell authorities it was possible mushroom poisoning. Instead, she went about life as normal. IMO
Crickets

This was another false dichotomy. They are basically saying there are two options 1) she could have told them before the doctors know, but she didn't know about it yet or 2) she could have told them afterwards but there was no point because they were already working on the presumption of DC.

How about 3) she could have told them afterwards because EP didn't know whether a DC/mushroom confirmation would have helped in any way or not.

They might have been receiving treatment but confirmation would have accelerated it and ruled out other things. How would EP know that it wasn't going to help?

 

[MaxDecimus13]

RSBM
That ain't necessarily so, Mr Mandy. Just because she went to church, bible study, etc, does not make her a Christian, and she could very well be an atheist, or agnostic. Some people attend church and keep quiet about their real beliefs (or lack of) for various reasons, eg this is where their circle of friends is, because they may have lost their faith but don't want to lose their friends. Or, as may have been the case for Erin, members of their family are so very religious that they don't want to rock the boat.

I've pointed out a few times that I'm an atheist who has often been in this situation.

I recognised her messages to friends about praying straight away.

That is one area to which I have very little doubt.

 

[CityKid]

This was another false dichotomy. They are basically saying there are two options 1) she could have told them before the doctors know, but she didn't know about it yet or 2) she could have told them afterwards but there was no point because they were already working on the presumption of DC.

How about 3) she could have told them afterwards because EP didn't know whether a DC/mushroom confirmation would have helped in any way or not.

They might have been receiving treatment but confirmation would have accelerated it and ruled out other things. How would EP know that it wasn't going to help?

100%. Sorry, Mandy, but a reasonable person who was innocent would share any detail that had the slightest chance of saving their friends' lives. Nothing would be considered pointless.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

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.

I completely agree with this, and there were many instances where the prosecution were trying to elicit a particular wording that would look more incriminating.

It fails when there are instances like if she was asked if she foraged mushrooms and she is pedantic that they only asked if foraged mushrooms were in the meal. A natural response would be to say no but that she had foraged in the past.

A worse example was with phone A and how she had just changed the Sim while the police were there. When asked about it, she said they just asked for her current phone. It looks very dodgy that she didn't mention it had only been her current phone for a matter of minutes.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

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

Yeah, her grandmother from Adelaide who left her some money was originally from Egypt.

How Erin Patterson’s family money helped build a comfortable life - The Australian

 

[iridized]

I've been reading some old articles and saw that Erin said she had a "psych". Whether that refers to a psychologist or a psychiatrist I do not know. Has there been any reason given why she was under their care?

https://www.news.com.au/national/vi...s/news-story/64c964a2a37d52dd5193f5828beb94c2

 

[katydid23]

No disrespect but why are the plates still discussed? Heather noticed, she mentioned it to Ian who remembered. That’s it.

Innocent: she gave her guests matching plates, a standard set of 4 in AU. She took a presentable plate from her everyday (mismatched?) plates for herself.
Guilty: she distinguished her ‘safe’ plate by using a different colour. Too obvious imho.

Remember, she fed kids, probably their friends, didn’t entertain.

It's still being mentioned because of the curious way that EP has responded to Ian and Simon's descriptions of the plates.

As you said, there is an innocent believable explanation. But EP pushed back on their version and claims thy are mistaken. She says her plates are all mismatched, some white, some black, but no small orange coloured plate.

That's why I am still interested because Heather seemed very focused upon her memory of the plates. It was kind of a dying declaration---but EP adamantly refutes it. WHY?

Why is EP so adamant that Ian and Heather were wrong about the plates?

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Yes, it's one of many obvious lies she's telling to try to get away with the murders. moo

If they were really like Ian said, why lie if innocent? Just say you didn't have more than 4 matching. The lie is because she knows the truth is she did do it to identify her safe meal easily.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

Being behind, I've not long heard the last of the defence. I wanted to look at the 4 ridiculous propositions that Colin Mandy claimed they could dismiss to see how convincing they are:

1) it didn't matter that EP had no motive

Whilst legally they don't need a motive, it is quite convincing circumstantial wise. However, he wants to have his cake and eat it when he says we shouldn't say that everybody would act the same in a certain situation but he's making out like nobody would act in a way that we can't fully comprehend.

2) the cancer lie should be rejected as she only told them after the meal

This and number 3 are very similar IMO. There is an issue with this as it was heavily implied that there was a serious health issue when there wasn't. It is pretty clear there was a fabricated reason for the meal. It doesn't have to be for murder purposes, but denying it is weak.

3) it was absurd that she thought the cancer lie would be taken to the grave

I think the prosecution really dropped the ball with this one. He's absolutely right, there was plenty of time after the meal for news of Erin's cancer to get out, especially to Simon.

4) the illogical claim that EP would think 4 deaths would be passed off as a strange gastro

This is another where I agree with him. EP was a true crime nut and would have known how suspicious it would look on her.

Another poster put up their odds of what they think will happen and I think a hung jury is most likely. I'd be going in there unsure what my final vote would be tbh. It would depend on the detailed conversations that came next. Legally, I'm not sure the prosecution has done enough.

However, for all Mandy's pleas about ignoring what you think likely, or what looks a bit dodgy, or using speculative reasoning my hunch is that jurors will do this anyway. I've never served on a jury but I understand how humans usually act.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

And that whole big 'explanation' was so stupid. We're supposed to believe that Erin was going to tell her in-laws that she was having chemotherapy so they would watch the kids, while she was getting liposuction?

She didn't think anyone would look into it more? Was she going to seriously pretend she had ovarian cancer? She'd come home after lipo treatment and pretend to have a life threatening illness instead?

And then what? She'd have to continue for months to be realistic.

What about her kids? Was she going to tell them she had cancer too?

That whole story is ridiculous.

I've always said there is a chance that EP is innocent and telling lies to conceal embarrassing truths about herself.

If she is innocent, she clearly invited them to the meal to tell them about health problems and then announced it was cancer. She would have done this because she's been exposed as a pathetic attention-seeking liar. However, she couldn't accept this being out so tried to invent a less-damaging version of it which ended up tying her in knots.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

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.

I suspect it's not getting much of a mention as it's a bit of a failing on behalf of LE.

I know we're an LE friendly forum and don't want to speak out of turn but it does seem EP was treated with a level of freedom and flexibility that gave her quite a lot of opportunity to destruct evidence or cover potential finds. I feel certain she ditched her crockery and everything those DC mushrooms touched. JMO MOO

 

[Gavel Rash]

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

Did they do a cavity search ???

 

[Monstradamus]

Did they do a cavity search ???

I guess you're not referring to the brick cavity That phone and sim card had to go somewhere. Would have been an uncomfortable interview later that day at the police station.

 

[Monstradamus]

I've been reading some old articles and saw that Erin said she had a "psych". Whether that refers to a psychologist or a psychiatrist I do not know. Has there been any reason given why she was under their care?

https://www.news.com.au/national/vi...s/news-story/64c964a2a37d52dd5193f5828beb94c2

Probably a Psychic.
"You will become a person of notoriety "

 

[ellyvantelli]

"Mr Mandy then turns his attention to propositions from the prosecution, which he dubs "convoluted" and "absurd":

• That Erin Patterson would commit murder without any motive"

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

RSBM

[Firstly, Mr Mandy, the prosecution hasn't suggested there is no motive, they just chose not to detail any specific one]

This whole motive thing is an interesting one.

Let’s just accept for a moment that most people don’t think murdering people is a rational act. So arguing about whether someone has sufficient motive to murder is a bit spurious.

That said I actually started following this trial because I didn’t see why Erin went ahead with the poisoned lunch if the obvious intended victim [SP] had already RSVP’d no show. [if she is guilty of knowing the foraged mushies were DC]

However as the trial has progressed, I have come to see that, through Erin’s eyes, there are plenty of potential motives, including individual ones for each and every one of the people sat around the table. I agree with the prosecution decision not to go down the suggesting motive route, because which ones would they choose? It would just confuse the case. And the revelation of possible motives is largely from Erin’s own testimony or what Mr Mandy has chosen to highlight, so there is a good chance jury members who feel they need a motive will also have seen them uncovered, particularly as they will have seen a fuller version of the evidence than we have gleaned from press reporting.

Personally I think a lot of the driving force behind these murders is that Erin simply wanted to. She thought she could see a way to commit a multiple murder and get away with it, planned it all out, including how to handle the subsequent enquiry [panic] and decided to try it. I’m not even sure that the motives she might perceive against these people was a motivating force.

Afterall this is an unusual murder case. She is able to admit she 'did it' [fed poisonous mushrooms to her guests] and still have the opportunity to get acquitted by claiming it is a horrible accident. For a murderously inclined, intelligent, true crime fan it had to have been tempting to try.

JMOO

 

[BreakingNews]

I don't envy being one of the jurors in this case. I wonder what stuff they have been privy to since we don't get the full story in the media

They would be privy to everything they heard in court. Nothing extra.

 

[Maat99]

I've always said there is a chance that EP is innocent and telling lies to conceal embarrassing truths about herself.

If she is innocent, she clearly invited them to the meal to tell them about health problems and then announced it was cancer. She would have done this because she's been exposed as a pathetic attention-seeking liar. However, she couldn't accept this being out so tried to invent a less-damaging version of it which ended up tying her in knots.

Idk - she seems to have no problem testifying at length and in excruciating detail on many humiliating details about herself. Jmo