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

[Deleted member 363451]

I agree with you in context.

I don’t see her as incompetent though. In my training, in regards to skill assessment, you were either competent or not competent (yet).

What if it really was a terrible tragedy? We weren’t there in court. So much is missed without observing cues.

Iam on the fence and I am surprised by this after following this case for 23 months. It was either calculated or an innocent mistake and some pretty poor/deplorable mistakes made in panic afterwards.

A terrible tragedy that didn't kill her or her kids...

 

[katydid23]

A terrible tragedy that didn't kill her or her kids...

Or her dog. She threw away steak scraps and gave none to her Labrador?

 

[MaxDecimus13]

She admits she poisoned her guests so how exactly was that careful?

Even if you believe she is innocent it’s still sheer incompetence and 3 people are dead because she played Miss Congeniality.

I've always had a lot of time for this opinion.

Even if it wasn't intentional, it was a level of carelessness that cost people their lives. If somebody cooked me a meal and used foraged mushrooms without me knowing, I'd be furious.

It also should be stated, that even though I'm not nearly as certain as others, I've never bought the idea that she accidentally put them in.

 

[Salah11]

And one other point. Let's play it out. You accidentally cause the poisoning of four people, supposedly ones you love. You might be embarrassed, devastated, all of those things. Why hide it, even if you were embarrassed? Wouldn't you want medical care ASAP for your loved ones? EP's actions after the meal just simply do not make sense. The 'panic' defence is a bit incongruous.

Exactly she poisoned them and then lied when she had a chance to help the hospital identify what was wrong so they could get quicker help.

Why would I ever have any sympathy for such a selfish, horrible woman?!

 

[Detechtive]

What did she say about them?

She was giddy with excitement. She had purchased the dehydrator just days before. Here is the timeline.

28 April 2023. Visit to Loch and Outrim
28 April 2023 - Purchase of dehydrator
4 May 2023 "I have been dehydrating mushrooms - I put it in all of my kids food (lie, IMO). They can't tell the difference" (paraphrased) "Dehydrating takes out 90% of mushroom volume. I should take my dehydrator to Woolworths to reduce the weight of vegetables" (paraphrased).
4 May 2023 pics of Death caps in "true crime group chat"
4 May 2023 Googles Ovarian Cancer symptoms / Brain Cancer symptoms
June 2023 hosts a lunch with Gail and Don. Simon pulled out
July 2023 hosts a lunch with Gail, Don, Ian, Heather. Simon Pulls out.
August 2023 3 of the people from the lunch were dead.
September 2023 - books appointment for "liposuction" at Enrich Clinic.

 

[Salah11]

I hope the verdict comes in tomorrow because in the absence of any news some people on this forum are clearly getting tetchy!

I think some just find it distasteful to try and diminish her role in their deaths.

Even if it was an accident, she lied and she caused their deaths.

 

[Porky1]

I wish it had been streamed at least. I agree there is a lot lost in translation.

I just cannot get to 'innocent' mistake because so much of her behaviour is so calculated, deceitful and manipulative. IMO

We are reliant on honest media reporting at this point. The well regarded news agencies have inaccuracies, even Justice Beales instructions were edited (loosely) in favour of a particular preference. Iam an interested observer at this point. I don’t envy the jury. It’s a terrible weight to carry on their shoulders whichever way it pans out.

 

[musicaljoke]

The lunch guests died as a direct result of the lunch she prepared. This is not disputed. I would 100% call it careless regardless of the verdict.

Unless that was the plan, in which case she was careful. Careful not to poison herself or the children, but achieve the planned effect for the others.

 

[Procrastinator]

Unless that was the plan, in which case she was careful. Careful not to poison herself or the children, but achieve the planned effect for the others.

Like how similar happened in this fiction book (The Chalet by Catherine Cooper), that's been mentioned previously on the thread ...

The Chalet

Four friends. One luxury getaway. The perfect murder. …

www.goodreads.com

 

[musicaljoke]

The media edited the Judges charges to the jury in a biased fashion towards innocence, IMO. Not the reverse.

@Porky1 you didn't answer my question. Do you know Erin?

Can you point to an example, please?

 

[MaxDecimus13]

And one other point. Let's play it out. You accidentally cause the poisoning of four people, supposedly ones you love. You might be embarrassed, devastated, all of those things. Why hide it, even if you were embarrassed? Wouldn't you want medical care ASAP for your loved ones? EP's actions after the meal just simply do not make sense. The 'panic' defence is a bit incongruous.

To play devil's advocate here, I would say it is a lot more than embarrassment, it is fear of repercussion. Even if this was a 100% genuine accident, that doesn't mean people are going to treat you nicely and not suspect you did it on purpose.

I find the second aspect harder to justify and an area where there was or at least could have been serious consequences in her deflecting. The idea that she just tossed in a few random mushrooms and then forgot was never a believable idea.

Even if she is somehow innocent, I think she knowingly put in foraged mushrooms and knew all along she had done.

 

[katydid23]

Except this is exactly not what the jury are being asked.

They are not being asked whether they think she did it or might have done it.

They are being asked whether the crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt whether she did it.

I've always had a problem with the following statement:

"They are not being asked whether they think she did it or might have done it.

They are being asked whether the crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt whether she did it."

That's ^^^ kind of a weird sticking point to me.

If I watch the trial and then I am convinced that the defendant is guilty, then it follows that the Prosecution proved it's case, imo. How else would I come to that conclusion?


I've seen people make that distinction and it seems iffy.

Imo ,If you were convinced of their guilt then the P successfully proved their case.

 

[Detechtive]

Can you point to an example, please?

Not really. I know someone in court who is hearing the jury charge. The judge is being quite objective in his jury charge, but the MSM who are interested in click-bait headlines, are not quoting verbatim.

I suppose a loose example might be: The media reporting "Judge Beale said that you should find Erin not guilty if you have any doubt" (paraphrasing)
In reality: Reasonable doubt is not "any doubt" - It has to be explained away by reason. What was actually said by judge Beale was much more legal and more precise, in the strict definition of the law in regards to reasonable doubt.

He is a seasoned judge. There is no chance he is going to sway any way. I have faith in the justice system and especially in a highly educated and seasoned judge like Judge Beale.

 

[Salah11]

Considering how much Erin claimed to love mushrooms, isn’t it strange that for the months that those mushrooms sat in the pantry she was never tempted to try them?

Just another odd consistency in her story.

 

[BreakingNews]

I totally agree with you @katydid23 - she is responsible for these peoples deaths, whether deliberate or not, I think she should be punished and kept away from other people in society. Recklessness, Deliberate homicide - either way, she killed 3 people and permanently maimed a 4th. It is not acceptable no matter how you slice it (pun intended ). IMO

That is why I was surprised that manslaughter wasn't on the table (yet). As is, the jury are looking at murder or accident. imoo.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

I've always had a problem with the following statement:

"They are not being asked whether they think she did it or might have done it.

They are being asked whether the crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt whether she did it."

That's ^^^ kind of a weird sticking point to me.

If I watch the trial and then I am convinced that the defendant is guilty, then it follows that the Prosecution proved it's case, imo. How else would I come to that conclusion?


I've seen people make that distinction and it seems iffy.

Imo ,If you were convinced of their guilt then the P successfully proved their case.

It isn't iffy at all, it is literally how the court system works.

The judge outlined it extremely clearly: you can even think on balance she probably did it but have some doubts about it and that isn't enough to convict her.

 

[Woolly]

To play devil's advocate here, I would say it is a lot more than embarrassment, it is fear of repercussion. Even if this was a 100% genuine accident, that doesn't mean people are going to treat you nicely and not suspect you did it on purpose.

I find the second aspect harder to justify and an area where there was or at least could have been serious consequences in her deflecting. The idea that she just tossed in a few random mushrooms and then forgot was never a believable idea.

Even if she is somehow innocent, I think she knowingly put in foraged mushrooms and knew all along she had done.

I do understand the fear of repercussions. However, I feel like an innocent person who accidentally poisoned everyone would be absolutely frantic trying to get doctors all the information they could in order to save them. After all, if they live, the repercussions are less than if they die. (I would also imagine innocent people to be motivated by love and empathy for the victims, but if we’re assuming fear of repercussions is the driving force here, I still think it makes more sense to try to save them than to hide everything and hope no one catches on.)

 

[Old Soul]

Considering how much Erin claimed to love mushrooms, isn’t it strange that for the months that those mushrooms sat in the pantry she was never tempted to try them?

Just another odd consistency in her story.

It is strange.

Why forage and dehydrate mushrooms (with so much enthusiasm that you’d brag to online friends about purchasing a dehydrator) and purchase Asian grocery mushrooms (that curiously you couldn’t recall what type they were)
only to keep them in the pantry……..meanwhile buying vast quantities of supermarket button mushrooms to eat and hide in brownies/muffins.

I suppose she might argue that she had some bizarre mushroom hoarding disorder

 

[katydid23]

Can you point to an example, please?

I posted some specific examples upthread somewhere, with exact quotes and links.

But just from memory now, there were two 'prosecution' arguments the judge said had to be rejected by the jury.

One argument was that 'the leftover scraped off meat would have been toxic' to the kids. Judge B said that was speculation with no proof offered.

But I pinpointed two places in the trial where the P did offer expert evidence.

One of the doctors testified specifically that her children needed to be examined 'because the meat that she scraped could still be toxic.'

And the fungi expert testified that the Death Caps are dangerous because their poisons are released through fluids when cooking.[And we know the death caps were cooked on top of the beef.]

So the Judge instructed the jury to reject that argument by the P because 'it was speculation' on their part. But the Judge ignored the testimony by the Fungi expert and the Emergency Doctor who both testified to factual evidence that the leftover meat could/would be toxic.

There was another argument they told the jury to reject too but I have to go back upthread to find it.

 

[katydid23]

It isn't iffy at all, it is literally how the court system works.

The judge outlined it extremely clearly: you can even think on balance she probably did it but have some doubts about it and that isn't enough to convict her.

I disagree with this: "you can even think on balance she probably did it but have some doubts about it and that isn't enough to convict her."

One is allowed to 'have some doubts' and still vote Guilty. Just not substantial doubt.


Reasonable doubt is a legal standard of proof used in criminal trials. It means the evidence presented must be so convincing that a reasonable person would have no substantial doubt about the defendant's guilt.

It's not about mere speculation or a whimsical doubt, but a doubt based on reason and common sense, arising from the evidence or lack of it