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

[MaxDecimus13]

Mild grievances to you. To narcissist any slight is major and unforgiveable.

Without sounding combatative, is there any evidence other than forum speculation that she is actually a narcissist?

Before coming on this forum and as an atheist, I've spent many years of my life talking with theists and also conspiracy theorists. One mistake they regularly make is thinking that because they can come up with an answer, that it is a good one. This is most obvious with conspiracy theorists. There was a recent flat earth experiment where they went and experienced the 24-hr sun, of course the flat earthers just dismissed it with claims of shilling and fakery and moved on.

We are all capable of this way of thinking in obviously less-extreme ways, when we have a conclusion that is firmly held. If something comes along that challenges something that we deeply believe, we scratch around for a possible answer. I'm 100% that the Turin shroud is a fake, but once in a while a fact will come out that I can't easily rebut. I then accept a less convincing answer because regardless, it isn't going to mean the shroud is real.

This is what I think people are doing with a couple of the key aspects of this case, and I'm not sure they quite realise it. They are so certain of her guilt that they can't see that saying murderers don't think about what happens afterwards isn't a very convincing answer, and nor is the idea she was filled with such hatred over what is a normal family dispute that she wanted these people dead at great cost to herself.

For me and some others, the evidence against EP isn't that strong and unexplainable by other ways that I can discount what the defence called anti-motives.

This isn't me saying I think she is definitely or probably innocent, I don't, but if I was a juror I certainly wouldn't be going in certain I'd be able to get over reasonable doubt.

 

[Kemug]

It's really not that complex. Erin was being cross-examined in a court of law. She was being adversarial to try and control the narrative. This included answering in as few words as possible, being very precise when speaking, and making corrections to put the prosecutor off her game.

Like when she corrected Ms Rogers about what date a certain day was! It certainly didn't put the Prosecutor off her game, and then it seemed that it was a trap that Erin fell right into. She "couldn't remember" quite a few things, and then she corrected Ms Rogers about something that happened 2 years ago!

 

[MaxDecimus13]

Another of the little things I've been considering is the idea of Erin's lies around say the dehydrator.

Say for instance, they hadn't had the CCTV as proof that she dumped the dehydrator, do we think that she would have eventually come clean?

I think we all know the answer to this, which begs the question, what else happened that we don't know?

 

[Kemug]

Without sounding combatative, is there any evidence other than forum speculation that she is actually a narcissist?

Before coming on this forum and as an atheist, I've spent many years of my life talking with theists and also conspiracy theorists. One mistake they regularly make is thinking that because they can come up with an answer, that it is a good one. This is most obvious with conspiracy theorists. There was a recent flat earth experiment where they went and experienced the 24-hr sun, of course the flat earthers just dismissed it with claims of shilling and fakery and moved on.

We are all capable of this way of thinking in obviously less-extreme ways, when we have a conclusion that is firmly held. If something comes along that challenges something that we deeply believe, we scratch around for a possible answer. I'm 100% that the Turin shroud is a fake, but once in a while a fact will come out that I can't easily rebut. I then accept a less convincing answer because regardless, it isn't going to mean the shroud is real.

This is what I think people are doing with a couple of the key aspects of this case, and I'm not sure they quite realise it. They are so certain of her guilt that they can't see that saying murderers don't think about what happens afterwards isn't a very convincing answer, and nor is the idea she was filled with such hatred over what is a normal family dispute that she wanted these people dead at great cost to herself.

For me and some others, the evidence against EP isn't that strong and unexplainable by other ways that I can discount what the defence called anti-motives.

This isn't me saying I think she is definitely or probably innocent, I don't, but if I was a juror I certainly wouldn't be going in certain I'd be able to get over reasonable doubt.

Fair enough.

 

[Salah11]

I am quite thick, so any help from the intelligent folk on here would be great



So, if she is found not guilty , can they bring new charges like tampering with evidence and obstructing justice, which she has admitted to on the stand?

 

[Megnut]

I am quite thick, so any help from the intelligent folk on here would be great



So, if she is found innocent, can they bring new charges like tampering with evidence and obstructing justice, which she has admitted to on the stand?

She'd only be found 'not guilty'.

Perjury charges but I'd doubt it.

They withdrew the other charges iirc so perhaps she could be re-chargedcand tried for that

JMO

 

[Salah11]

She'd only be found 'not guilty'.

Perjury charges but I'd doubt it.

They withdrew the other charges iirc so perhaps she could be re-chargedcand tried for that

JMO

Thanks I changed it

 

[Deleted member 363451]

Without sounding combatative, is there any evidence other than forum speculation that she is actually a narcissist?

Before coming on this forum and as an atheist, I've spent many years of my life talking with theists and also conspiracy theorists. One mistake they regularly make is thinking that because they can come up with an answer, that it is a good one. This is most obvious with conspiracy theorists. There was a recent flat earth experiment where they went and experienced the 24-hr sun, of course the flat earthers just dismissed it with claims of shilling and fakery and moved on.

We are all capable of this way of thinking in obviously less-extreme ways, when we have a conclusion that is firmly held. If something comes along that challenges something that we deeply believe, we scratch around for a possible answer. I'm 100% that the Turin shroud is a fake, but once in a while a fact will come out that I can't easily rebut. I then accept a less convincing answer because regardless, it isn't going to mean the shroud is real.

This is what I think people are doing with a couple of the key aspects of this case, and I'm not sure they quite realise it. They are so certain of her guilt that they can't see that saying murderers don't think about what happens afterwards isn't a very convincing answer, and nor is the idea she was filled with such hatred over what is a normal family dispute that she wanted these people dead at great cost to herself.

For me and some others, the evidence against EP isn't that strong and unexplainable by other ways that I can discount what the defence called anti-motives.

This isn't me saying I think she is definitely or probably innocent, I don't, but if I was a juror I certainly wouldn't be going in certain I'd be able to get over reasonable doubt.

They are so certain of her guilt that they can't see that saying murderers don't think about what happens afterwards isn't a very convincing answer, and nor is the idea she was filled with such hatred over what is a normal family dispute that she wanted these people dead at great cost to herself.

So let's just say that she only intended to make her lunch guests sick. Did she consider what would have happened afterwards or the possibility that it would be discovered that they'd eaten Death Caps? According to your reasoning, it's not believable that she didn't consider the aftermath.

 

[Salah11]

Who is to say hatred and loathing didn’t outweigh common sense?!

Moo

 

[Deleted member 363451]

Who is to say hatred and loathing didn’t outweigh common sense?!

Moo

Exactly. The prisons are full of people who committed murder, without considering the outcome.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

I am quite thick, so any help from the intelligent folk on here would be great



So, if she is found not guilty , can they bring new charges like tampering with evidence and obstructing justice, which she has admitted to on the stand?

I've thought many times in this case that even if EP is innocent, surely she has done some things that would be classed as criminal ie tampering with evidence but also whether accidental use of poisonous mushrooms is an adequate excuse.

It seems to me that if you are going to use foraged mushrooms then you should have to tell the people who are having the meal. After this case, I'd be furious if I found out somebody had cooked a meal with foraged mushrooms and not told me. It seems like the sort of thing you should have to consent to.

 

[Susjay]

Like when she corrected Ms Rogers about what date a certain day was! It certainly didn't put the Prosecutor off her game, and then it seemed that it was a trap that Erin fell right into. She "couldn't remember" quite a few things, and then she corrected Ms Rogers about something that happened 2 years ago!

Yes agree Last thing to do is try and be combative. Not a good look.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

Who is to say hatred and loathing didn’t outweigh common sense?!

Moo

Maybe, but again it doesn't seem very likely does it?

The only evidence we have that she had any ill-feeling whatsoever is a few messages to her Facebook group that are much more normal that people like to think they are.

If we found a secret confession, then I would absolutely be speculating about things like this. For me, the evidence isn't so cast iron that their unlikely nature is actually a doubt that needs to be considered.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

Exactly. The prisons are full of people who committed murder, without considering the outcome.

This is often asserted and maybe it is true. It is certainly true for in-the-moment killings.

Off the top of my head, I struggle to think of an example where somebody has planned a murder months in advance and not considered the aftermath at all. Not only that, but there was no actual gain for them and only likely negative consequences.

 

[JBowie]

Without sounding combatative, is there any evidence other than forum speculation that she is actually a narcissist?

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck ... then it's on the duckery scale.

I follow Prof Sam Vaknin's channel on narcissists and I have his book Malignant Self Love: Narcissism Revisited, (some 700 pages of small type).

(Vakinin is a self-described narcissist and has made a short documentary about his mother.)

IMO (as a non-professional), given what I have read about her, EP fits fairly well one of the models that he describes -- the covert type.

Vaknin claims that parents (particularly mothers) mold narcissistic children. EPs' description of her mother as a cold, no-contact robot and her life as a child as akin to being in a Russian orphanage align with the sort of conditions that Vaknin describes as being ripe for creating narcissistic kids -- narcissism being a way of coping with the situation the child finds itself in. They create a false self.

“My mum was ultra weird her whole life,” she wrote.

“We had a horrible upbringing. Mum was essentially a cold robot.

“It was like being brought up in a Russian orphanage where they don’t touch babies.”

https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/news/erin-patterson-shared-details-of-her-horrible-upbringing-in-revealing-2019-text-messages/news-story/64c964a2a37d52dd5193f5828beb94c2

 

[ch_13]

They are so certain of her guilt that they can't see that saying murderers don't think about what happens afterwards isn't a very convincing answer

Rsbm.

Has anyone actually said this? Because, I for one, do not believe that it's true.

IMO, Erin did think about what would happen, but it's just that her planning went awry.

I think her original plan was to claim that the poisonings happened elsewhere. Even if people suspected that the lunch was the source, there'd be no physical evidence. The mushrooms were in powdered form, so they wouldn't be present in stool samples, and after 48 hours they wouldn't be detectable in blood tests. Giving the kids "leftovers" would also give her plausible deniability. Pretty much Saturday evening and Sunday she treated like normal days. Driving a long distance for the flying lessons, eating fast food, etc. She would never have done those things if she was truly ill, or even was planning to lie that she became ill.

Really it wasn't until Monday that went to the hospital complaining about illness. Once she realized (probably from talking to Simon) that they were asking questions about mushrooms, she realized she had to change tacks. Maybe it was always her plan B, but I think she did not expect the medical authorities to hone in on amanita toxin as quickly as they did.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

They are so certain of her guilt that they can't see that saying murderers don't think about what happens afterwards isn't a very convincing answer, and nor is the idea she was filled with such hatred over what is a normal family dispute that she wanted these people dead at great cost to herself.

So let's just say that she only intended to make her lunch guests sick. Did she consider what would have happened afterwards or the possibility that it would be discovered that they'd eaten Death Caps? According to your reasoning, it's not believable that she didn't consider the aftermath.

With the poisoning theory, as with the murder theory, it is reliant on DC not being discovered. Most of us suspect that Simon was poisoned without discovery and her panicked actions started straight after DC were mentioned.

With the poisoning however, EP is far less of a suspect because she has after all gotten ill against a spectrum of illness. This is far more believable than 4 on their death beds and one person having diahorrea. Even if they hadn't found DC, she would have obviously been the prime suspect. This isn't necessarily true with poisoning, I don't think she was suspected about Simon's illness although I'll admit I'm not sure.

Without identification of the poison, there could have been a number of different possibilities, some innocent some not. There also wouldnt necessarily have been significant police involvement like there was with deaths. This is possibly naive, but not as naive as thinking 4/5 would die and you wouldn't instantly be the suspect.

 

[Susjay]

Without sounding combatative, is there any evidence other than forum speculation that she is actually a narcissist?

Before coming on this forum and as an atheist, I've spent many years of my life talking with theists and also conspiracy theorists. One mistake they regularly make is thinking that because they can come up with an answer, that it is a good one. This is most obvious with conspiracy theorists. There was a recent flat earth experiment where they went and experienced the 24-hr sun, of course the flat earthers just dismissed it with claims of shilling and fakery and moved on.

We are all capable of this way of thinking in obviously less-extreme ways, when we have a conclusion that is firmly held. If something comes along that challenges something that we deeply believe, we scratch around for a possible answer. I'm 100% that the Turin shroud is a fake, but once in a while a fact will come out that I can't easily rebut. I then accept a less convincing answer because regardless, it isn't going to mean the shroud is real.

This is what I think people are doing with a couple of the key aspects of this case, and I'm not sure they quite realise it. They are so certain of her guilt that they can't see that saying murderers don't think about what happens afterwards isn't a very convincing answer, and nor is the idea she was filled with such hatred over what is a normal family dispute that she wanted these people dead at great cost to herself.

For me and some others, the evidence against EP isn't that strong and unexplainable by other ways that I can discount what the defence called anti-motives.

This isn't me saying I think she is definitely or probably innocent, I don't, but if I was a juror I certainly wouldn't be going in certain I'd be able to get over reasonable doubt.

I don’t think anyone here can say oh she’s this or that - definitely a “narcissist”. She has displayed some behaviour though that could be deemed narcissistic? Maybe self-centred? But I don’t think we could or should label her.
And whether she was full of hatred? Well, there’s the “lost cause” and “duck them!”
On your anti-motive point, I don’t believe Mandy did much of a job of the argument that there was an anti-motive. He tried to say how important these people were and how much she cared but for them. In fact I think demonstrated that the relationship between the accused and her relatives wasn’t really that strong or close at all.

 

[Moll]

People might be interested in some general discussions about 'reasonable doubt', since we're on a break from courtroom proceedings. These are from the English courts but as far as I know the principles are the same. The Vicky Pryce case 12 years ago caused a flurry of articles about whether the jury's failure to grasp the concept spelled the beginning of the end for the jury system.

The standard of proof in criminal trials: Peter Hitchens is right, and Lord Goddard was wrong.

There was a rather strange report by Martin Beckford in this week’s The Mail on Sunday that judges have been told to stop using the phrase “beyond reasonable doubt” in directing juries on the…

barristerblogger.com

Vicky Pryce faces retrial after jury 'fails to grasp basics'

Judge dismisses jury in case of Chris Huhne's ex-wife, saying panel suffered 'fundamental deficits in understanding'

www.theguardian.com

The Pryce of a jury's failure

Joshua Rozenberg: Questions asked by those entrusted with reaching a verdict on Vicky Pryce push us towards a disturbing inquisition of our own

www.theguardian.com

 

[MaxDecimus13]

Rsbm.

Has anyone actually said this? Because, I for one, do not believe that it's true.

IMO, Erin did think about what would happen, but it's just that her planning went awry.

I think her original plan was to claim that the poisonings happened elsewhere. Even if people suspected that the lunch was the source, there'd be no physical evidence. The mushrooms were in powdered form, so they wouldn't be present in stool samples, and after 48 hours they wouldn't be detectable in blood tests. Giving the kids "leftovers" would also give her plausible deniability. Pretty much Saturday evening and Sunday she treated like normal days. Driving a long distance for the flying lessons, eating fast food, etc. She would never have done those things if she was truly ill, or even was planning to lie that she became ill.

Really it wasn't until Monday that went to the hospital complaining about illness. Once she realized (probably from talking to Simon) that they were asking questions about mushrooms, she realized she had to change tacks. Maybe it was always her plan B, but I think she did not expect the medical authorities to hone in on amanita toxin as quickly as they did.

I refer you to the post only a few above where Jess D has literally said that murderers don't consider what happens afterwards all the time.

The bigger problem is not that she would plan poorly afterwards, it's that she would think 4 people would die in suspicious circumstances and that she wouldn't instantly be a serious suspect both officially and unofficially. Also, it would have serious negative consequences for her even if it was an accident. Remember, she'd have had a long time to consider these things and it isn't very reasonable (not impossible) to think she would have discounted them.