VERDICT WATCH Australia - 3 dead after eating wild mushrooms, Leongatha, Victoria, Aug 2023 #16 *Arrest*

[Warshawski]

No, I'm not thinking like that. I still don't think we can tell the way it's going.

I’m with you on that, I’m just waiting for the result.

I am tho confused (even concerned) by the LOD that the Judge is going into.

Sure, he does have a duty of care to the members of the Jury in so far as making them comfortable & confident in undertaking their role, and in understanding its nuances.

However (IMO) it’s not his role to give his ‘opinions’ on the evidence provided or how it should be interpreted - and I am concerned that he may be subliminally going that way.

Members of the Jury must be permitted to (and feel absolutely free to) examine & interpret the evidence in their own way, and not be subjected to external influence - from anyone.

A Jury Decision is actually the result of 12 people having a common individual belief.

It is up to each individual in that Jury to make up their own mind as to whether the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime in question, or not.

The words ‘individual’ and ‘reasonable’ doubt are hugely important IMO. … and possible why a Jury is comprised of so many people.

As ‘individuals’ we all have different viewpoints, simply because our perspectives / our interpretations are shaped by our own unique experiences, values, beliefs, emotions etc.

‘Reasonable doubt’ refers to a doubt based on Reason & Common Sense. It’s a doubt that would cause any reasonable person to hesitate before doing something of importance to them / in their lives ( a pretty familiar feeling over my lifetime )
Having said that, it is subjective and relies on the individual’s interpretation of the evidence & their own level of judgement.

In the reverse, and noting that since we live in a fallible world it’s impossible to remove All Doubt - for a Charge to be Proven, any lingering doubt must be found to be ‘unreasonable’. i.e. Beyond Reasonable Doubt.

Certainly no doubt it leads to animated discussion in the Jury room, but that’s the way it’s intended to be.
for the right decision, whatever it may be, and also for Simon, the children and their Uncle who have all lost & suffered so much.

 

[Scuffy35]

This is what can happen when the prosecution cannot provide a strong feasible motive.

Regardless of what the law says about motives, in my strong opinion human beings naturally want to know why things are/were done, especially when they are sitting in judgement of the action(s).

For this case, I don't think the prosecution could provide a strong motive that jurors can understand as they would never be able to understand the mind of a psychopath.. It would not be simple and coherent one.

The judge certainly hasn't helped with his one sided directions, but the real failings has been sloppy police/detective work in bringing the case to be prosecuted and then sloppy work of the prosecution in failing to include expert witnesses to cover the scraping of the mushrooms from the beef and the vomiting that we previously discussed.

IMO the prosecution did not even do such a good job with examining other witnesses either - they just did not seem to drive the main points of incriminating evidence home. They did a bit better when cross-examining Erin, but it was sheer luck that they even got a chance to do that as no one was expecting her to take the witness box. IMO

 

[JBowie]

but the real failings has been sloppy police/detective work in bringing the case to be prosecuted and then sloppy work of the prosecution in failing to include expert witnesses to cover the scraping of the mushrooms from the beef and the vomiting that we previously discussed.

IMO, the police have done a good job of assembling the evidence, and getting it tested, etc, having regard to the litany of lies told to them by Patterson.

On the matter of scraping off the mushrooms, my gut tells me that no sane juror is going to swallow that (pun intended) regardless of Beale's comments.

 

[Warshawski]

I wish the prosecution called a rebuttal expert about this! And also about whether vomiting the meal hours post-lunch would have affected the toxicity if Erin had consumed the Death Caps!

Welcome back Detechtive !

I wish too, I do think that opportunities went by the wayside. However as I mentioned earlier, I recall a pause in proceeding to try to ‘contain’ and shorten proceedings. I think some of the ‘gaps’ we see possibly appeared then, however I doubt either side would have culled anything they believed was of strategic value. Well, in the name of ‘justice’, I certainly hope not !

 

[Scuffy35]

However as I mentioned earlier, I recall a pause in proceeding to try to ‘contain’ and shorten proceedings.

This was a red flag to me as soon as I heard it. Judge Beale certainly hasn't played his part in trying to shorten the proceedings, except he should have allowed for prosecution rebuttal evidence, which may have only needed a day.

Also I always felt that Ian was under utilised as a witness. They should have asked him much more questions to get the finer details of the lunch event, which is what the whole case centres on.

IMO

 

[ch_13]

In which case IMO the instruction should be: You can choose to not believe the experts -- whose qualifications and subject expertise have been tested by the court -- and instead choose to believe the accused, whose one word answers such as "incorrect" or "disagree" you therefore consider have fully and absolutely refuted the expert evidence.

Hey, sounds good to me.

But I think you know that a jury instruction like that would certainly result in a successful appeal. And then we'd have to go through the trial all over again.

 

[JBowie]

Hey, sounds good to me.

But I think you know that a jury instruction like that would certainly result in a successful appeal. And then we'd have to go through the trial all over again.

Yes, it's more the sort of sarcasm that could come from a prosecutor, but as I've opined above, I get a feeling that the way Beale is instructing them, we could have a hung jury, and in that event a retrial.

 

[Salah11]

Yes, it's more the sort of sarcasm that could come from a prosecutor, but as I've opined above, I get a feeling that the way Beale is instructing them, we could have a hung jury, and in that event a retrial.

I would take a retrial at this stage with a new judge.

I am starting to feel like people must of with the OJ trial

IMO

 

[SilentHill]

Justice Beale noted defence barrister Colin Mandy, in his closing address, called the prosecution’s argument “contradictory” because if Patterson was trying to pretend to be sick, she would have requested the doctors give her treatment.

Should this not be disregarded as speculative? How do we know how someone faking it would behave? JMO

 

[MsMarple]

IMO a key factor the jury will consider centers around the lunch itself, in particular the preparation and the conversation.

Did Erin admit to tasting the duxelles after adding the pungent mushrooms? I can’t remember if she changed her testimony after saying she did not or if she couldn’t remember.

A big element IMO is whether or not the jury will believe Erin’s claim of having booked an appointment for gastric bypass/liposuction with the allergist. There’s a huge gap between that and witness testimony alleging she wanted to discuss her cancer claims. Will it come down to whose testimony the jurors believe?

Either way it’s quite a responsibility for the jury. I don’t envy them! JMO

 

[SilentHill]

Justice Beale said Patterson gave evidence that she was changing her phone because she didn’t want Simon to be able to contact her and that she carried out three of the four factory resets.

Wait, what?! Was this after she knew her in-laws were dying in hospital following her lunch? Why wouldn't she want be to be contacted by him at such a critical time?

 

[browneyes]

I’m so far behind, is the jury deliberating today or is the judge still instructing? TIA

 

[Moll]

Should this not be disregarded as speculative? How do we know how someone faking it would behave? JMO

Yes. In fact a while ago I said I thought the opposite was true, as that person would want to evade medical testing. Pity the judge couldn't say this should be disregarded, but on the other hand, perhaps the jury will see its implausibility straight away.

 

[Kittybunny]

I’m so far behind, is the jury deliberating today or is the judge still instructing? TIA

Still instructing...and plans on so doing until Monday! I mean, why not just issue the verdict himself at this point?

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Wait, what?! Was this after she knew her in-laws were dying in hospital following her lunch? Why wouldn't she want be to be contacted by him at such a critical time?

And as if someone who knows how to factory reset their phone wouldn't know how to block somebody on their phone.

 

[Salah11]

Still instructing...and plans on so doing until Monday! I mean, why not just issue the verdict himself at this point?

Spot on

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I'm old enough to remember when this was the expectation for last Tuesday.

Erin Patterson mushroom murder trial LIVE updates

Follow Daily Mail Australia's live coverage of accused mushroom chef Erin Patterson's murder trial here.

www.dailymail.co.uk

The jury has been told Justice Christopher Beale won't commence his instructions to the jury until Monday and it may still be going into Wednesday.

'But with the wind in my back it may finish Tuesday afternoon,' Justice Beale said.

 

[Megnut]

I think the judge's difficulty is EP's testimony because  she's not consistent. So he has to provide all her statements as if they are equally true.

So much for the jury to sift through, I could see it taking them a very long time to deliver a verdict. I think they'll get there.

JMO

 

[Megnut]

IMO it's not that the prosecution hasn't provided a strong motive, (if she is guilty as charged) she doesn't have a strong motive. Pettiness, while weak, is often motive enough for some people. Minor grievances, lack of attention, etc, etc.

As SP pulled away, refusing more and more to engage, perhaps she felt she needed to up the ante, as it were.

IMO SP wanted no party of EP's lunch table, but equally, didn't want to show up for what would have been unpleasant, even without the DCs, as I'm sure he expected her to try to create a 5 against 1.

Asking the nice neutral never before invited couple helped create the appearances of friendlies. IMO to mask the motive.

JMO

 

[Baby baby Jane]

Listening to today’s summary on various podcasts … found self wondering what eas the point of this trial & jury? The judge seems to be overstepping …
For example -
Seems he was telling jury why Erin disposed of the dehydrator without mentioning that SP DENIED asking her if she used it poison his family.

IMO he is putting pressure of the jury to see evidence the way HE does. If I were on jury I would be thinking “what the duck is the point of my sitting here for 10 weeks when Judgy Judge is telling me what to think?!?!?” I think it’s HE who is be swayed by emotion.