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

[Tortoise]

It still makes no sense to me. Again, if a doctor gives medical evidence who, other than perhaps another doctor, can decide to reject it and on what grounds?

Patterson reportedly told the medicos in the hospital that she thought their diagnosis was wrong and thereby makes my point. What the hell would she know about medical diagnoses?

I'm comparing a case from England, because I do think that the legal systems are very similar, but I don't know that they are similar in regard to expert witnesses, however, in England, in the case of Lucy Letby, the serial killer nurse, the judge pointed out to the jury in his summing up that the defence instructed their own experts but they did not call them. In other words there was no expert evidence to refute the prosecution's experts. I wonder if a similar instruction was given to this jury. After the LL verdicts, the prosecution's medical expert said this -

"For the past 10 years I’ve probably prepared as many reports for the defence in criminal cases as I have for the police, for the prosecution. And the rules in relation to the defence are totally different. The defence is under no obligation to disclose anything. Now what they are obliged to do is to get an independent opinion if the prosecution says that the defendant has harmed an individual and that the evidence is based on medical expertise. So therefore they need to get their own expert, or experts. And this is what they did." Linked in WS LL media thread.

 

[ch_13]

It still makes no sense to me. Again, if a doctor gives medical evidence who, other than perhaps another doctor, can decide to reject it and on what grounds?

Patterson reportedly told the medicos in the hospital that she thought their diagnosis was wrong and thereby makes my point. What the hell would she know about medical diagnoses?

Like I said, it's a standard instruction. Not one specific to this case.

In the U.S. there's a whole industry of "experts" who will testify for hire. Some doctor may say, for example, that a man isn't guilty of killing his wife, because he was temporarily insane at the moment he shot her (but he is perfectly sane today). Does the jury have to take the expert's testimony at face value? Or can they discount his testimony because on cross-examination, it turns out all the studies he was relying on have long been discredited?

If an expert makes a fool of themselves on the stand, then a jury doesn't have to give any weight to their testimony. I think that's true in any courtroom, anywhere.

I get that this long summing up is making us all a little punchy. But from what I can see, the judge's instruction about experts is just boilerplate. I have no idea why people are interpreting it as "You must ignore all the doctors and believe everything Erin said unconditionally."

Basically, the instruction tells the jury that they can believe the experts or they can believe Erin. It's completely 100% up to them. Isn't that how it should be?

 

[Detechtive]

I'm comparing a case from England, because I do think that the legal systems are very similar, but I don't know that they are similar in regard to expert witnesses, however, in England, in the case of Lucy Letby, the serial killer nurse, the judge pointed out to the jury in his summing up that the defence instructed their own experts but they did not call them. In other words there was no expert evidence to refute the prosecution's experts. I wonder if a similar instruction was given to this jury. After the LL verdicts, the prosecution's medical expert said this -

"For the past 10 years I’ve probably prepared as many reports for the defence in criminal cases as I have for the police, for the prosecution. And the rules in relation to the defence are totally different. The defence is under no obligation to disclose anything. Now what they are obliged to do is to get an independent opinion if the prosecution says that the defendant has harmed an individual and that the evidence is based on medical expertise. So therefore they need to get their own expert, or experts. And this is what they did." Linked in WS LL media thread.

In Australia, the defence is required to disclose expert evidence they intend to rely on at trial, and must provide a copy of any expert report to the prosecution before the trial begins. This is part of the pre-trial disclosure regime, aimed at ensuring fairness, transparency, and efficiency in criminal proceedings.

So, in some cases, like this one, it's probably best not to try to engage expert witnesses who might come to the same conclusion as the prosecution, IMO.

 

[Detechtive]

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).

Agree 100%. Jurors, IMO, need to understand the 'why' in order to get to 'intentionally caused them to die'.

 

[Kemug]

Great news people, I have worked out where the Asian shop is! It never left Asia!

 

[Tortoise]

In Australia, the defence is required to disclose expert evidence they intend to rely on at trial, and must provide a copy of any expert report to the prosecution before the trial begins. This is part of the pre-trial disclosure regime, aimed at ensuring fairness, transparency, and efficiency in criminal proceedings.

So, in some cases, like this one, it's probably best not to try to engage expert witnesses who might come to the same conclusion as the prosecution, IMO.

I see the argument for not instructing experts in case they agree with the prosecution's experts, however in the event of a conviction that does seem to me to be an argument to say my legal team didn't dispute evidence which led to my conviction, which I now wish to challenge, so they weren't effective.

I think all arguments should be on the table for trial. Here the appeal court would say you had your chance. If it's not new evidence, unavailable to you/experts the first time around, you can't argue it later.

Anyway, I don't wish to sidetrack the discussion.

JMO

 

[Kittybunny]

I'm comparing a case from England, because I do think that the legal systems are very similar, but I don't know that they are similar in regard to expert witnesses, however, in England, in the case of Lucy Letby, the serial killer nurse, the judge pointed out to the jury in his summing up that the defence instructed their own experts but they did not call them. In other words there was no expert evidence to refute the prosecution's experts. I wonder if a similar instruction was given to this jury. After the LL verdicts, the prosecution's medical expert said this -

"For the past 10 years I’ve probably prepared as many reports for the defence in criminal cases as I have for the police, for the prosecution. And the rules in relation to the defence are totally different. The defence is under no obligation to disclose anything. Now what they are obliged to do is to get an independent opinion if the prosecution says that the defendant has harmed an individual and that the evidence is based on medical expertise. So therefore they need to get their own expert, or experts. And this is what they did." Linked in WS LL media thread.

Hi Tortoise! I followed the Letby case and remember there was a judge’s summary there as well, but thought it was very even-handed at the least, and even strong in bolstering the prosecution’s case. Is that true or am I misremembering?

In this case, I feel the judge has diminished the prosecution case and overly weighted to the defense case.

 

[Tortoise]

Hi Tortoise! I followed the Letby case and remember there was a judge’s summary there as well, but thought it was very even-handed at the least, and even strong in bolstering the prosecution’s case. Is that true or am I misremembering?

In this case, I feel the judge has diminished the prosecution case and overly weighted to the defense case.

Personally, I think he strayed big-time into juror territory with this direction -

He says he “inadvertently skipped a part” while speaking about this a little earlier.

He tells the jury that if they find Ms Patterson had a tendency to pick and eat wild mushrooms, or if they think there's a reasonable possibility she did, they may consider it increases the possibility that death cap mushrooms ended up in the beef Wellington accidentally rather than deliberately.

Judge in Erin Patterson murder trial begins instructions to jury — as it happened

Unless it was an argument stated by the defence and the reporter missed that nuance out - IMO - tendency to forage has no bearing whatsoever on intention, and the counter argument to weigh against his apparently personal view of there being an increased chance of them accidentally ending up in the four guests' lunches is that the forager did not die.

MOO

 

[JBowie]

they may consider it increases the possibility that death cap mushrooms ended up in the beef Wellington accidentally rather than deliberately.

And what is he going to say about the fact that she didn't exhibit any of the symptoms of death cap toxin yet claimed to have eaten the same meal?

I'm really hoping the jury is wide awake to Patterson despite the tripe that has been coming from the bench.

 

[Warshawski]

There were a few things Rodgers could have addressed from EP's testimony. But that would have required rebuttal witnesses, and maybe she didn't want to prolong the very long trial?

Agreed, there’s certainly been things that I’ve wondered why they weren’t probed more.
However, if I recall correctly, there was a ‘delay’ early on due to discussion between all parties in an attempt to shorten proceeding. IMO there were certain topics taken off the table - one would imagine they were deemed of minimal importance to each side for that to happen. IMO

 

[JBowie]

I'm getting the feeling that Beale's dissertations are creating conditions for a hung jury, and therefore a mistrial. In that event I would expect the prosecution to file for a retrial.

IMO, two benefits from that would be (a) the prosecution can refine its approach, having seen how Patterson performs on the stand and (b) there will be a different judge on the bench.

(Perhaps also, new evidence could be admitted.)

 

[ellyvantelli]

It is very regrettable that there was no expert witness on this, but to be instructed to disregard the possibility of cross contamination and become unwell from it seems unreasonable as it makes common sense.

Are the jurors not allowed to use common sense at all?

RSBM BBM

I think the ‘common sense’ bit the jurors are allowed, is that getting stuck on whether or not the kids would definitely get sick or not from meat that had been in proximity to toxins [and which it is disputed as to whether they actually ate or not] is irrelevant to reaching a verdict. Whilst I suspect this clarification might have been requested by the defence, IMO it's just another attempt to distract.

Common sense says that mothers do not feed their kids food they expect might make them sick.

Testimony from Erin claims she was ‘sick’ by the time she allegedly handled, then heated up some leftovers for her kids, consisting of bits from the last meal she ate before she got sick.

So,
Either she was feeling sick [v&d, dehydration, headaches, stomach cramps etc] from an unknown cause, and chose to feed her kids reheated leftovers from some of the bits of that last meal she ate before getting sick.

Or she’s lying about feeding them BW leftovers [as opposed to spare, unused steaks & mash].

If alternately she thought she had ‘gastro’, she, as an intelligent adult, should not have been preparing a meal for her kids at all, much less deconstructing BWs [afterall they had been eating takeaways all weekend, why not order in again?]

STOPPING THE SPREAD OF GASTROENTERITIS

There are many ways to reduce the spread of
gastroenteritis.

• Do not share your towels, face washer, toothbrush, drinks or cutlery with others.
• Wash your hands well (for at least 10 seconds) with warm soapy water after using the toilet, changing nappies, cleaning up vomit and before eating or cooking meals.
• Handle, store and prepare raw and cooked foods apart. Cook all raw foods well.
• People who have gastroenteritis should not prepare or handle food for others.
• Stay at home and away from others while you are unwell.
• Clean bathrooms and toilets often.
• Take care when handling animals and their faeces or urine.
• If you think the source of your illness may have been food, report it to your local council’s health department right away. Keep any leftover food for testing.
• Return to school or work – guidelines vary between schools and workplaces. Hospital, healthcare and food handling staff should not return to work until 48 hours after the diarrhoea has settled. Check with your school/work about their requirements

B&IBM
JMOO

 

[Tortoise]

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!

Did she ever tell anyone, before taking the witness stand, that she had vomited at that point?

If she didn't, I think it should be in the judge's directions, given his propensity for weighing certain evidence for them, that this decreases the likelihood of it being truthful.



JMO

 

[Tortoise]

It is very regrettable that there was no expert witness on this, but to be instructed to disregard the possibility of cross contamination and become unwell from it seems unreasonable as it makes common sense.

Are the jurors not allowed to use common sense at all? If the judge tells the jury that they are the judges of the evidence presented, and the Jury are assumed to not be experts themselves, isn't this the same as asking them to use their common sense together with their own life experiences?

My common sense tells me that there was an increased chance of the juicy mushrooms soaking into the meat the longer they were wrapped around the meat. That's why meat is marinated. The jury absolutely has to use common sense.

JMO

 

[Detechtive]

Personally, I think he strayed big-time into juror territory with this direction -

He says he “inadvertently skipped a part” while speaking about this a little earlier.

He tells the jury that if they find Ms Patterson had a tendency to pick and eat wild mushrooms, or if they think there's a reasonable possibility she did, they may consider it increases the possibility that death cap mushrooms ended up in the beef Wellington accidentally rather than deliberately.

Judge in Erin Patterson murder trial begins instructions to jury — as it happened

Unless it was an argument stated by the defence and the reporter missed that nuance out - IMO - tendency to forage has no bearing whatsoever on intention, and the counter argument to weigh against his apparently personal view of there being an increased chance of them accidentally ending up in the four guests' lunches is that the forager did not die.

MOO

The problem is, is that nobody in her life knew her to forage mushrooms. Not one single person. Not even her children who she allegedly took foraging with her. And they are not little kids, one is in their teens and the other is pre-teen. They would know.

He is saying they MAY find that she did it accidentally in the case that she normally forages wild mushrooms, but for all intents and purposes, there is zero evidence that Erin ever foraged other than for deathcaps IMO.

 

[Tortoise]

The problem is, is that nobody in her life knew her to forage mushrooms. Not one single person. Not even her children who she allegedly took foraging with her. And they are not little kids, one is in their teens and the other is pre-teen. They would know.

He is saying they MAY find that she did it accidentally in that case, but for all intents and purposes, there is zero evidence that Erin ever foraged other than for deathcaps IMO.

I think it goes further than 'may find', it's may find it increases the chance it was accidental.

I agree there is no evidence she was a regular forager. Which makes the direction even more absurd IMO. Should have been 'I caution you that only the defendant says she had a tendency to forage'.

JMO

 

[JBowie]

Basically, the instruction tells the jury that they can believe the experts or they can believe Erin. It's completely 100% up to them.

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.

 

[Kemug]

RSBM
Look at all the time and trouble everyone would have been spared if Justice Beale had just said "Not Guilty" 2 months ago.

Replying to myself: He certainly seems to be very much an "Erin says" guy. MOO. (although being part of a sheepfarming family, I suppose I should say BAA)

 

[Scuffy35]

He is saying they MAY find that she did it accidentally in the case that she normally forages wild mushrooms, but for all intents and purposes, there is zero evidence that Erin ever foraged other than for deathcaps IMO.

I think the problem with judge Beale's directions, such as this one, is it is in favour of the defence. His directions are not balanced.

For this particular direction, he neglected to add that it may not even be the case that she normally forages for wild mushrooms. i.e He should have informed the jury that they are the judge of whether Erin had normally foraged for mushrooms or not, in the same way he informed the jury that they are the judge of the evidence and opinions from expert witnesses. IMO.

 

[Scuffy35]

Replying to myself: He certainly seems to be very much an "Erin says" guy. MOO. (although being part of a sheepfarming family, I suppose I should say BAA)

Yes, I always say IMO, not MOO, as it gives me a cow complex.