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

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

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.

The only things we can deduce for sure about this foraging and the serving dried mushrooms to her children is:

1) She was a *secret* forager and nobody except herself knew about it;

2) She was a *secret* feeder who snuck powdered shrooms into her children's food;

3) She knew what DC mushrooms are, more or less where they're located, and that they kill;

Above facts extrapolated from EP's own testimony.

Do those sound like the statements of a poisoner? They do to me! JMO MOO

 

[MaxDecimus13]

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

As somebody who is more on the fence than others, while it is clear that EP has told a lot of lies, pretty much of all of them can be quite plausibly explained by other non-murderous reasons. This will make it difficult for the jury to say with certainty.

Since Day 1, I've always thought it was reasonable that she might have lied so that she didn't appear culpable for their deaths. I know if I had caused deaths in this way, it would be very tempting to try and not look like I was to blame. If this was true, it explains so many of the worst lies: the foraging, the dehydrator, the Asian grocer, the feeding of the BW to the children.

The problem with the trial is that there are a number of lies that can't be explained as easily by this: the cancer, the gastric band, the pooing by the side of the road etc. However, I think it is plausible that she was trying to save face and been caught out. She's an attention seeker who was planning on pretending to have cancer for sympathy only to get caught out and make up a lie to make it better.

Prior to this trial, I was really eager to hear the medical evidence because I felt that was key. Whilst this forum has answered quite a lot of these, I'm not sure the prosecution have.

 

[potr]

I'm presuming she has admitted that she made at least three pasties more than she needed for the number of guests? One in the bin, and two she allegedly pulled apart and fed to her children because she allegedly didn't feel like cooking for them.

Why did she keep the two extra ones she gave them, because she wouldn't have known she wouldn't feel like cooking when she kept them, and why would she have gone to the trouble of making two for her children, who she knew did not like mushrooms, knowing she would have to scrape them off?

It doesn't make sense that she wouldn't just keep the fresh individual steaks to cook for them. Reheated cooked meat is going to dry out. From her son's description it didn't sound like it was reheated dry leathery steak.

If she is guilty, I think she came unstuck because she always wanted people to think she made one big beef wellington, hence restocking her fridge with extra pastry she wouldn't have had to use if she hadn't made individual pasties. I don't think she anticipated her guests would survive long enough to describe what they had eaten, and that is why she would have had to scrape off the mushrooms for her children, if it was one log.

JMO

yes, my friend who is a chef said to me there was no way that those children were fed the "reheated" meat innards - it would have been a rock. I wish we could see the receipt and see if it said how many actual fillet steaks she bought - and whether it actually quantified them.
We decided she had left over raw meat and cooked that up for the kids, thus "the best steak" her son had ever had.
And some other observations.... buying presliced mushrooms for a special meal - you just don't - you buy the whole mushrooms - they are guaranteed to be fresher. She also used i am pretty sure pre cut and stripped beans and gravy mix.... lazy or what - its not THAT special - plus filo pastry as a substitute for prosciutto - that ain't an appropriate substitute two layers of pastry? crazy

 

[katydid23]

​

Ok, this really angers me----


Justice Beale has directed the jury to dismiss a key prosecution (Dr Rogers pictured right) argument that if the children had eaten the scraped-off meat from the lunch they would've experienced symptoms.
'You have no expert evidence as to whether that would be the case, and so I direct you to disregard that argument,' Justice Beale said.
'You would be speculating if you would go down that path.'
Justice Beale previously said experts couldn't say for certain that the toxins would have entered the meat and the mushroom paste had been unable to be separated from the sample.
Forensic experts said while death caps were found, it could only be said it was in the sample alone.
The defence submitted the leftovers in the bin could've been cross-contaminated from seeping juices.


OK, THE DEFENSE SAID "the leftovers in the bin could've been cross-contaminated from seeping juices."

Leaking juices can contaminate the meat? What would be happening when the death caps would be cooking while on top of the meat? Isn't the defense admitting th leftover meat would be contaminated?


ALSO:
Justice Beale told the jury the defence said the evidence suggested that Erin told staff at Leongatha Hospital she had fed her children the leftovers when she re-presented to hospital.
“So there wasn’t hours of delay as suggested by the prosecution,” he said.

He added that the defence argued that when Dr Foote explained to Erin that death cap toxins could have penetrated the meat, she made arrangements for her children to be brought to hospital.



WAIT A MINUTE: Isn't Dr Foote an expert? He told Erin that the death cAp toxins could have penetrated the meat.

WHY DID THE JUDGE INSTRUCT THE JURY TO DISREGARD THAT INFO? I thought the jurors were the finders of fact.

 

[katydid23]

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?

OK, THE DEFENSE SAID "the leftovers in the bin could've been cross-contaminated from seeping juices."

Leaking juices can contaminate the meat? What would be happening when the death caps would be cooking while on top of the meat? Isn't the defense admitting th leftover meat would be contaminated?



ALSO:
Justice Beale told the jury the defence said the evidence suggested that Erin told staff at Leongatha Hospital she had fed her children the leftovers when she re-presented to hospital.
“So there wasn’t hours of delay as suggested by the prosecution,” he said.

He added that the defence argued that when Dr Foote explained to Erin that death cap toxins could have penetrated the meat, she made arrangements for her children to be brought to hospital.



WAIT A MINUTE: Isn't Dr Foote an expert? He told Erin that the death cAp toxins could have penetrated the meat.

WHY DID THE JUDGE INSTRUCT THE JURY TO DISREGARD THAT INFO? I thought the jurors were the finders of fact.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

As somebody who is more on the fence than others, while it is clear that EP has told a lot of lies, pretty much of all of them can be quite plausibly explained by other non-murderous reasons. This will make it difficult for the jury to say with certainty.

Since Day 1, I've always thought it was reasonable that she might have lied so that she didn't appear culpable for their deaths. I know if I had caused deaths in this way, it would be very tempting to try and not look like I was to blame. If this was true, it explains so many of the worst lies: the foraging, the dehydrator, the Asian grocer, the feeding of the BW to the children.

The problem with the trial is that there are a number of lies that can't be explained as easily by this: the cancer, the gastric band, the pooing by the side of the road etc. However, I think it is plausible that she was trying to save face and been caught out. She's an attention seeker who was planning on pretending to have cancer for sympathy only to get caught out and make up a lie to make it better.

Prior to this trial, I was really eager to hear the medical evidence because I felt that was key. Whilst this forum has answered quite a lot of these, I'm not sure the prosecution have.

I used to think it likely she lied to save face and because she has the sort of personality (disorder) where being held accountable and being apologetic is not possible.

However, I no longer believe that because there's way too much circumstantial evidence that makes zero sense and suggests that this was a pre-planned event where nobody was expected to live to tell the tale.

Also, the near death experiences of her ex husband SB. These cannot be considered by the jury in this case as evidence but we know about it.

The main thing EP has going for her is that it defies plausibility that she'd try to kill four / five people in one sitting and get away with it but IMO, that's exactly what she did. JMO.

 

[Lisa4]

The main thing EP has going for her is that it defies plausibility that she'd try to kill four / five people in one sitting and get away with it but IMO, that's exactly what she did. JMO.

"The bolder the lie..." concept.

 

[LinasK]

My thoughts exactly. Also It doesn't seem that the police really knew what needed to be searched for and properly catalogued / collected during the house search. Same with the blender that Scooby-Doo just mentioned. IMO

Sloppy police work shouldn't get a guilty person off, though it happened in the OJ case, and Karen Read I believe.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

"The bolder the lie..." concept.

JMO but my suspicion is she was on a learning curve and exploratory mission.

She'd snuck toxins into food served to SP, nearly killing him a couple of times but not quite.

I don't partic believe she fed her children powdered mushrooms in their cookies, I think she was saying that to see how it would land in the online forum re consent and also to gauge likelihood of that sort of thing passing or what anecdotes or ideas other people would share back.

She may have tried all sorts of things on various people we don't even know about? Some becoming a bit poorly, others not having any reaction. Maybe she got kicks out of sitting back, waiting, wondering?

Then she did her most recent science experiment. Maybe the results took her by surprise. IMO she thought it'd be slower, more drawn out, different reactions in different people. After a few days zero proof left even if people suspected her. Suspected some type of food poisoning or such.

My suspicion at the beginning was the four could have eaten or drunk something in a different location - ie coffee en route that morning. EP could have been relying on this type of possibility meaning she couldn't be investigated or blamed as there'd be no facts and no certainty. JMO

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

OK, THE DEFENSE SAID "the leftovers in the bin could've been cross-contaminated from seeping juices."

Leaking juices can contaminate the meat? What would be happening when the death caps would be cooking while on top of the meat? Isn't the defense admitting th leftover meat would be contaminated?



ALSO:
Justice Beale told the jury the defence said the evidence suggested that Erin told staff at Leongatha Hospital she had fed her children the leftovers when she re-presented to hospital.
“So there wasn’t hours of delay as suggested by the prosecution,” he said.

He added that the defence argued that when Dr Foote explained to Erin that death cap toxins could have penetrated the meat, she made arrangements for her children to be brought to hospital.



WAIT A MINUTE: Isn't Dr Foote an expert? He told Erin that the death cAp toxins could have penetrated the meat.

WHY DID THE JUDGE INSTRUCT THE JURY TO DISREGARD THAT INFO? I thought the jurors were the finders of fact.

I would hope he would also have said that we have no proof she fed them leftovers other than from her testimony. If not, then that is problematic.

Otherwise, I'm not too worried the judge is biasing it against the prosecution. He has been presenting both side's arguments as their arguments not his. But I don't see why doing this is needed, since the jury had just heard both sides give their arguments! It's rather redundant. There may be some jurors who find it helpful, but I would be very annoyed myself sitting through this.

 

[LinasK]

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).

IMO there IS a strong, feasible motive- she hated his family. They didn't take her side and pressure Simon to support her. She wanted revenge.

 

[LinasK]

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

Agreed. Ian could have testified in more detail about the plate colors, the size of the plates, portion sizes and how much people ate, who served whom and in what order, did she actually tell them she had Cancer... as much as he could remember.

 

[LinasK]

The only things we can deduce for sure about this foraging and the serving dried mushrooms to her children is:

1) She was a *secret* forager and nobody except herself knew about it;

2) She was a *secret* feeder who snuck powdered shrooms into her children's food;

3) She knew what DC mushrooms are, more or less where they're located, and that they kill;

Above facts extrapolated from EP's own testimony.

Do those sound like the statements of a poisoner? They do to me! JMO MOO

Yup! It appears exactly the same way to me. Secrecy is important in the intent to kill.

 

[LinasK]

As somebody who is more on the fence than others, while it is clear that EP has told a lot of lies, pretty much of all of them can be quite plausibly explained by other non-murderous reasons. This will make it difficult for the jury to say with certainty.

Since Day 1, I've always thought it was reasonable that she might have lied so that she didn't appear culpable for their deaths. I know if I had caused deaths in this way, it would be very tempting to try and not look like I was to blame. If this was true, it explains so many of the worst lies: the foraging, the dehydrator, the Asian grocer, the feeding of the BW to the children.

The problem with the trial is that there are a number of lies that can't be explained as easily by this: the cancer, the gastric band, the pooing by the side of the road etc. However, I think it is plausible that she was trying to save face and been caught out. She's an attention seeker who was planning on pretending to have cancer for sympathy only to get caught out and make up a lie to make it better.

Prior to this trial, I was really eager to hear the medical evidence because I felt that was key. Whilst this forum has answered quite a lot of these, I'm not sure the prosecution have.

But the most obvious reason to lie, is to not get caught for an actual crime. How many criminals are honest? I understand the point that you are making- a liar isn't necessarily a murderer, but most all murderers are liars.

 

[SouthAussie]

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?

Her story ....


Ms Patterson is now telling the court she wanted to change her phone number in the days after the meal because she was "becoming concerned about Simon's behaviour and his allegations".

Erin Patterson gives evidence for fourth day in Australia mushroom trial

Australian woman Erin Patterson denies murdering three relatives and seriously injuring another by serving death cap mushrooms.

www.bbc.com

 

[SouthAussie]

As somebody who is more on the fence than others, while it is clear that EP has told a lot of lies, pretty much of all of them can be quite plausibly explained by other non-murderous reasons. This will make it difficult for the jury to say with certainty.

The jury doesn't have to be certain.

The jury has to have reasonable doubt that Erin's testimony is the actual truth.

So, to reasonably believe her, they would have to think her story is more accurate/truthful than every other witness who testified against her. (50+ witnesses, including experienced medical professionals, mycologist, poisoning experts, child protection worker, poisoning victim)

imo

 

[BreakingNews]

I tried to find info on the balloting but couldn't. How does it work?

It happens in Victoria. All names put into a hat and 2 names are pulled out who leave before deliberation starts.
In Qld, the system is quite different and I believe fairer. The first 12 jurors to be empaneled are the jury. Additional people empaneled are after that are the extras, who don't get to deliberate if all 12 are still there.

 

[drsleuth]

The jury doesn't have to be certain.

The jury has to have reasonable doubt that Erin's testimony is the actual truth.

So, to reasonably believe her, they would have to think her story is more accurate/truthful than every other witness who testified against her. (50+ witnesses, including experienced medical professionals, mycologist, poisoning experts, child protection worker, poisoning victim)

imo

I agree. I don't think that the jury will easily just discard the "disputed" evidence ( by the defense ) of what was said by all these professionals IMO It beggars belief that they were all "mistaken"

What reason do they have to not tell the truth?? Alot of them would have had taken notes IMO

If I had a patient of mine, who we were so concerned about the risk to their life, to the point of involving police, than I certainly would remember what my patient was saying & doing & would be clearly documented in the patients notes.......verbatim too.

They need to doubt the majority of these people to believe alot of what Erin & her team have said.

I can't see that happening.

 

[Kemug]

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

Yep, the Judge can speculate, but nobody else! GRRR and MOO.

 

[Lisa4]

I would like to know where she apparently read that DCs are not found in Gippsland.

If true that she read it somewhere, should not this have been in defence evidence?

Was it refuted by an expert witness? Sorry I cannot recall. Will take a minute to research now.