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

[potr]

Not only is this not a strong possible motive, the prosecution haven't come close to proving it.

I would hazard a guess that if I was given the phones of 95% of the people on here I would find instances of people talking in a very negative way about people that they actually like. You certainly would on mine. I've mentioned before how my in-laws can drive me up the wall but I love the bones of them.

An extremely ordinary family dispute is not a likely motive for murder. It is a possible one in an actual psychopath, but again this has never remotely been proven with EP.

not "normally" but the statistics actually say otherwise. Murders committed by someone known to the victim are 56% in the case of male victims and 76% in the case of female victims. so actually kinda normal the other way around

 

[SouthAussie]

(snipped

However, those lies in themselves aren't sufficient to assert her guilt. As I've pointed out, there are other possible and even plausible motives for many of the lies.

Sure. She panicked and covered up everything so people wouldn't know she added foraged mushrooms to her beef wellingtons, and accidently killed her in-laws.

That is the defence response.

 

[Sarahlou]

Not only is this not a strong possible motive, the prosecution haven't come close to proving it.

I would hazard a guess that if I was given the phones of 95% of the people on here I would find instances of people talking in a very negative way about people that they actually like. You certainly would on mine. I've mentioned before how my in-laws can drive me up the wall but I love the bones of them.

An extremely ordinary family dispute is not a likely motive for murder. It is a possible one in an actual psychopath, but again this has never remotely been proven with EP.

A lot of people might talk rubbish about their families but they don't end up with three of them dead after poisoning them. Erin is one of the rare ones who takes her hate/grudges to an extreme due to whatever personality disorder(s) she has - in my opinion.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

But how would she fill her days? We (allegedly) know she is work-shy, probably couldn't be trusted to sweep under the mats and in the corners.
They wouldn't trust her in the kitchen. And I don't think they'd let her "surf the net" all day every day. Didn't she once work in animal welfare? Maybe she could help raise guide dogs, or something like that? But certainly not air traffic control.

Good question! I know that ATC, the main priority is attention to detail. Ditto proof reading and editing. So... maybe quality control checking the stitching on mail bags sewn by prisoners. Do they still do that?

Cleaning, cooking, domestic duties, not for her!

 

[Old Soul]

Speaking of attention to detail:

“I am very good at details, that’s why I’m good at proofreading etc.,” she allegedly wrote in the message, according to Daily Mail Australia.


It’s incongruous that someone “very good at details” couldn’t identify an Asian grocery store she’d been to a few months earlier. Even when offered a list of stores in suburbs she’d said it might be in, she insisted she wouldn’t be able to identify it.

Also hard to believe that someone “very good at details” and having said she used Facebook groups to identify the different types of mushrooms she’d found before she ate them and iNaturalist to see if death caps grow in South Gippsland:

- wouldn’t recall that oak trees are where death caps grow,
- wouldn’t wonder “what type of mushrooms are these?” as she picked them, weighed them, dehydrated them and chopped (or ground) them.

As far as I know Erin has not said what she mistook the death caps for.

Mushroom cook bragged to friends about being 'good at details'

Former online friends of Erin Patterson have revealed new details about the reclusive mother-of-two, calling her “very smart” and revealing she likes true crime novels.

www.skynews.com.au

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I think this is a false dichotomy and they are two different things. The one thing we know from this trial with certainty is that she has lied on numerous occasions. She has clearly lied in some of her accounts with professionals.

However, those lies in themselves aren't sufficient to assert her guilt. As I've pointed out, there are other possible and even plausible motives for many of the lies.

So why is she lying about her symptoms, if not that she was not poisoned?

 

[Monstradamus]

Speaking of attention to detail:

“I am very good at details, that’s why I’m good at proofreading etc.,” she allegedly wrote in the message, according to Daily Mail Australia.


It’s incongruous that someone “very good at details” couldn’t identify an Asian grocery store she’d been to a few months earlier. Even when offered a list of stores in suburbs she’d said it might be in, she insisted she wouldn’t be able to identify it.

Also hard to believe that someone “very good at details” and having said she used Facebook groups to identify the different types of mushrooms she’d found before she ate them and iNaturalist to see if death caps grow in South Gippsland:

- wouldn’t recall that oak trees are where death caps grow,
- wouldn’t wonder “what type of mushrooms are these?” as she picked them, weighed them, dehydrated them and chopped (or ground) them.

As far as I know Erin has not said what she mistook the death caps for.

Mushroom cook bragged to friends about being 'good at details'

Former online friends of Erin Patterson have revealed new details about the reclusive mother-of-two, calling her “very smart” and revealing she likes true crime novels.

www.skynews.com.au

Agree @Old Soul
So meticulous with details, yet spins a great yarn when caught in an elaborate web of mistruths. What a superiority complex she must have, being so much more intelligent than everyone else. It's worked her entire life to her advantage. Until it didn't.

MOO

 

[MaxDecimus13]

After suffering through the bits of the judge's directions that I've been able to hear, I share many of the frustrations of many. Whether he is trying to or not, he does certainly seem to be giving instructions favourable to the defence. He clearly takes 'innocent until proven guilty' extremely seriously but I wonder whether he ends up making the bar of reasonable doubt impossibly high.

One example is in something like his directions about hearsay. Of course he needs to mention that hearsay should be considered. However, in these examples, not only are the hearsay comments backed up by other live witnesses, but they are actually individual witnesses reporting something that somebody said to them directly. It is not like it is a third or fourth hand rumour.

It would be easier (somewhat) to accept these if he was then even-handed about other evidence. For example, has he given directions warning against claims that Erin has made that not only contradict what she originally said, but that are only her say so and cannot be proven? Especially when they are extremely convenient for her. Why should hearsay evidence be given less prominence than this? Nobody can prove if Erin threw up or not, cross-examination does not really help.

Similarly, why has he not mentioned weighting evidence where two people disagree but where one has significant reason to lie and one does not? For instance the plates dispute between Ian and Erin. It does not make much sense that Ian would lie about what he saw, whereas it is in Erin's interest to do so. Where is the direction suggesting the jurors consider those aspects?

 

[MaxDecimus13]

Sure. She panicked and covered up everything so people wouldn't know she added foraged mushrooms to her beef wellingtons, and accidently killed her in-laws.

That is the defence response.

<modsnip>

If I cooked a meal and accidentally killed my in-laws there would be all sorts of potential ramifications. Not only would I feel guilty, shameful and mortified, I would likely face accusations from members of the family and members of the general public. It would affect dealings in every aspect of my life, my friends might doubt me and distance themselves, it might affect my work etc. In my instance, I would be concerned about physical threats. Of course this is sufficient motive to make it look like it wasn't your fault; if you can pass the blame off onto somebody else (ie Asian grocers) then many people would take that option.

That is not to say that I think that this is what happened, but I believe in being truthful about all of the evidence in this case. Even if I think she is guilty, I'm not going to pretend that people wouldn't absolutely act this way in this situation.

 

[jesse]

RSBM
It seems he is reluctant to credit anyone with any common sense. Or life experience.

I feel like he's usurping the jury's role.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

A lot of people might talk rubbish about their families but they don't end up with three of them dead after poisoning them. Erin is one of the rare ones who takes her hate/grudges to an extreme due to whatever personality disorder(s) she has - in my opinion.

I've always said if we found a signed confession tomorrow then it would be absolutely appropriate to start presuming things like this.

However, from a trial point of view, the evidence isn't so strong that there can be a presumption that is in fact given as a reasonable reason for the murder.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

So why is she lying about her symptoms, if not that she was not poisoned?

It hasn't been proven that she was lying about her symptoms.

She has certainly lied about aspects of them, for instance pooing by the side of the road seems very unlikely, but she could be trying to exaggerate to appear more ill than she was in the vain hope that it appears more convincing that she was actually ill.

Both children reported that she was ill or claimed to be ill, and in the hospital she didn't show liver damage but there were readings in-line with some degree of illness.

Again, I'm not saying she is innocent, but I don't think we can just assert that it is proven that she was lying about all of her symptoms. You might believe that as might I, but it hasn't been factually proven in this case.

 

[jesse]

wow - thats interesting because re the meat ep said - and this is a NEAR QUOTE she "cut the meat up into cubes and microwaved it!!" - did the son then cut them into teenier cubes?

MICROWAVED IT??

 

[Baby baby Jane]

Erin herself denied being a witch in the interview beside her red car …. It’s another lie, it’s clear that she has bewitched Judge Beale over the past 10 weeks

 

[Megnut]

The flow chart isn't probably that complicated. I don't know why but it appears thst the judge expects the jury to stay with the defense, which is essentially EP's testimony. Do they find her credible or not? She lies, she admits to lying for self-preservation, attention (they were so kind to her about her ovarian elbow that she just ran with it), her attorney acknowledges that she lies, the judge has outlined the lies....

So it seems like no hard back bend to determine that she lies and discredit her testimony entirely.

Then onto the State's case to see whether they met the burden BARD.

And there is not just one action, it's the whole of evidence.

For instance, plates. If EP has been binned as not credible, that leaves Ian and the young people's testimony about plates. Credible? Why would they lie? Why would they make that up? And if one plate was another color, why? Pretty coincidental it signs be the plates of the one person who didn't have liver damage...

I think the jury will work through it methodically and reach reasoned verdict.

JMO

 

[jesse]

<modsnip>

If I cooked a meal and accidentally killed my in-laws there would be all sorts of potential ramifications. Not only would I feel guilty, shameful and mortified, I would likely face accusations from members of the family and members of the general public. It would affect dealings in every aspect of my life, my friends might doubt me and distance themselves, it might affect my work etc. In my instance, I would be concerned about physical threats. Of course this is sufficient motive to make it look like it wasn't your fault; if you can pass the blame off onto somebody else (ie Asian grocers) then many people would take that option.

That is not to say that I think that this is what happened, but I believe in being truthful about all of the evidence in this case. Even if I think she is guilty, I'm not going to pretend that people wouldn't absolutely act this way in this situation.

People absolutely panic and would be in fear of repercussions. But if you could save the lives of three people you claim to love, who you may have accidentally poisoned, wouldn't you come clean and tell them everything you know? I would think in this case, that would outweigh everything else, to a "normal" and moral person.

It's not just one or two incidents of lying, it's the accumulation of lies that kept authorities from getting to the bottom of it sooner and possibly being able to administer the antidote sooner or give better or more targeted care.

 

[Megnut]

MICROWAVED IT??

IKR

Cubed beef welldoneington

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

It hasn't been proven that she was lying about her symptoms.

She has certainly lied about aspects of them, for instance pooing by the side of the road seems very unlikely, but she could be trying to exaggerate to appear more ill than she was in the vain hope that it appears more convincing that she was actually ill.

Both children reported that she was ill or claimed to be ill, and in the hospital she didn't show liver damage but there were readings in-line with some degree of illness.

Again, I'm not saying she is innocent, but I don't think we can just assert that it is proven that she was lying about all of her symptoms. You might believe that as might I, but it hasn't been factually proven in this case.

It has been proven and you even agreed, see the bolding. But then you go through some acrobatics to try to get out of it.

Being a little bit sick is not being poisoned. It's proven she was not poisoned. And there's no way she would not have been if she ate the same meal. And if she only ate very little or none while at the table, the guests would have noticed. She ate enough to be poisoned if she really ate the same food. But she did not eat the same food because she intentionally fed the guests poison but not herself. This case is really so very easy.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

It has been proven and you even agreed, see the bolding. But then you go through some acrobatics to try to get out of it.

Being a little bit sick is not being poisoned. It's proven she was not poisoned. And there's no way she would not have been if she ate the same meal. And if she only ate very little or none while at the table, the guests would have noticed. She ate enough to be poisoned if she really ate the same food. But she did not eat the same food because she intentionally fed the guests poison but not herself. This case is really so very easy.

Exaggerating your symptoms is not the same as lying about your symptoms.

As far as this case is concerned it has not been proved that she wasn't poisoned. There was a study included in the trial that conceded that some people can only have gastro-like symptoms in response to ingesting DC mushrooms, depending on age, weight and tolerance to the toxins.

 

[Spectrix]

Not wanting people to believe that you caused the death of three people, is actually a potentially pretty powerful motive to lie.

Especially if you did it on purpose.