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

[Warshawski]

I think a lot of people would think it's fair if the Judge was very obviously leading the jurors in the direction of finding EP guilty.

I'm beginning to think a bias in that direction would be just perfectly fine with many.

Trying to be fair and putting both sides views to the jurors seems to be frowned upon.

Irrespective of any individual opinions / bias, it’s not the Judge’s place to err to any side.
The responsibility of that position is to assist / guide the Jury in their understanding of their role in the trial, and in the laws that govern their decision.
IMO.

 

[Salah11]

How can anybody believe a word she says when she has consistently lied and it’s been proven time and time again?

I honestly don’t understand it.

MOOO

 

[Sarahlou]

How can anybody believe a word she says when she has consistently lied and it’s been proven time and time again?

I honestly don’t understand it.

MOOO

Hopefully the jury won't. I still have faith that they will see the truth of what happened here.

Irrespective of any individual opinions / bias, it’s not the Judge’s place to err to any side.
The responsibility of that position is to assist / guide the Jury in their understanding of their role in the trial, and in the laws that govern their decision.
IMO.

Completely agree.

 

[Warshawski]

But I cannot even get to the 'accidentally' served death caps portion of the scenario.

There are just so many problems and inconsistencies with that version of the story.

She is a very smart woman. She claims she was looking up Death Caps for safety concerns. So how did she end up purposely picking wild mushrooms near Oak Trees? Why didn't she compare the characteristics of the death caps to pictures of death caps?

And why did she say that she learned there were no DCs in Gippsland area? That seems to be another lie.


Why did she pick delicious fresh mushrooms, that she LOVES and not taste any of them before drying them out and throwing them in Tupperware with funny smelling pungent ones?

Why would she add the old dried out pungent mushrooms to her gourmet expensive special meal?

How did she not know those were foraged mushrooms? Did she really pick unknown unverified mushrooms and put them in her pantry where she used foods for her kids to eat?

That seems very negligent for someone so devoted to her children.

How did those foraged mushrooms not get added to any of her kids meals?

How did she escape severe illness? She powdered those mushrooms, most likely.

Why did she want the kids away from home while she served the meal? She tried to deny it during the trial, but that was a lie she tried to walk back.

She claims both her kids were mistaken when they said they were told it was a meal for grown ups discussions. But it was obviously the truth. Why did she need to lie about that?

She said she began feeling unwell on Saturday afternoon. But none of the others felt unwell that soon. And she appears to be lying about having explosive poo every 10 minutes. She would not have taken a 3 hour road trip in white pants imo. And she never went poo in the bush either.


There is no innocent reasons for all of her lies, imo.





So if your beloved in-laws were in intensive care, would you continue to lie about what you 'accidentally' served them?


Should there be any legal ramifications for that kind of lying? Or is it OK because it's fine to lie in order to hide one's mistakes?

Maybe some people would but does that make it right?

Even IF it was an accident, it was very irresponsible and negligent on her part.

She should not have picked wild mushrooms if she didn't know how to ID Death Caps.
She should not have put them in her food pantry without identifying if they were safe to eat.

She should not have served unidentified unverified wild mushrooms to others.

And once they were ill, she should have come clean.

You seem to be saying it was OK that she lied and lied again to her family, the doctors, CPS, the Public Health Officials, the jury, because she didn't want to be blamed for her own negligence. [at best]

Absolutely applaud your post Katy. Thank you for saying it as it ‘really’ is (imo) . .. noting that it’s ‘realism’ that sustains our Australian justice system.

Judgements here are determined on the consideration of ‘reasonableness’. … in other words & in simple terms, it comes down to the question - ‘is this what any sane person would determine as being reasonable lawful & acceptable behaviour’ ?

Disappointingly ( for so many reasons ) I have to cast my vote to her guilt. … imo some stuff you can find excuses for, but the sum of the total leaves no doubt in my mind that this was a planned occurrence .

JMO.

 

[Warshawski]

So sounds like her smaller group of friends were pretty much “like minded” and the others that stepped back or stepped away, weren’t comfortable with her style or just sensed she wasn’t their type of online friend.

The % of each would be interesting - even if only to give me insight to myself !

 

[MaxDecimus13]

The issue of reasonable doubt is going to be key in this case I think.

I'm sure my antipodean friends will be more familiar with the case of Phillip Polkinghorn.

This case makes the evidence against EP look minimal by comparison, but a mixture of a prosecution that left holes to be exploited and the use of reasonable doubt ended with him getting off.

I wonder if the key elements of the prosecution not doing enough to prove the likelihood of DC toxicity, and the incredibly high bar for reasonable doubt set by the judge will be the defining feature of this case.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

RSBM
You may be correct, but not on mine. And if you could find an example on my phone, I don't like them.

Enough that if they died mysteriously and you were nearby it could be used as a convincing evidence of a motive?

 

[Montrealaise]

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.

You are looking at EP's actions in the light of what you would do. I wouldn't even try to guess which personality disorders she might have, but I would like to point out that psychopaths don't walk around with a P stamped on her forehead. They are very good at hiding their pathology. EP's behavior has been disturbing in many ways. Witnesses have testified that when her in-laws were in the hospital fighting for their lives, she never once asked how they were or expressed any concern for them. If one of your in-laws were in the hospital, would you act like that, even if they regularly drove you up a wall? On the stand, EP never once showed any regret, or remorse, or even compassion for the people who died. We'll see what the jury decides, but I'd just like to point out that people who commit murder have mind processes you and I can barely understand.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

So the son never knew that Erin had a dehydrator. I guess it was easy to hide in a huge pantry. You know, the humungous sized pantry that every brilliant cook needs. Especially one with so many plates.

Has the possibility ever been raised that the kids were coached in some way or were saying what they thought their mum wanted them to say?

They weren't exactly very young, and kids have a good ability to say what they think people want to them to say.

 

[Kemug]

All I am getting from this post is that Erin lies a lot.

IMO

Whatever gives you that idea?

 

[Warshawski]

Of course she did! An innocent person with nothing to hide wouldn’t do this.

I find it extremely interesting that EP didn’t put a plea based on mental health issues ( just my opinion that she suffers) ….. I wonder if her defence advised her to make that Plea or to take the Not Guilty stance.

Been thinking & it’s hsuch a broad & challenging topic - unfortunately there are a lot of mentally unwell people who are not ‘self aware’ (often one of the symptoms)
so for such a person to be encouraged to make such a plea would be highly insulting & bewildering for them (to say the least) IMO … just my opinion that EP may fall into that group.

Broadly speaking and imo - there are a lot of people who want their situation to change; however, the reality is it doesn't just happen. Nothing will change for anyone in any circumstance until they gain clarity - be it of themselves, other personalities, behaviours & situations, of triggers / reactions - next requirement is awareness and then the drive & strength to seek what’s necessary for change, and to act upon it.

I don’t envy the Jury the task before them, and I pray for their wisdom & their guidance

 

[Kemug]

Enough that if they died mysteriously and you were nearby it could be used as a convincing evidence of a motive?

Ooh, that's a tricky one! But don't forget that I said If!

 

[Montrealaise]

Well this is an interesting tidbit from this article- apparently Erin has a history of hypochondria too IMO... Simon told the jury that the accused was known for complaining about her health condition, giving examples of heart arrhythmia, sleeping issues, mental illness, postnatal depression, and a probable Multiple Sclerosis (MS) diagnosis. Simon told the court that the accused had never told him about an ovarian cancer diagnosis in the past.

So she complained endlessly about her poor health, but never took any steps to correct it - ate junk food, never exercised, never lost weight.

 

[Megnut]

How can anybody believe a word she says when she has consistently lied and it’s been proven time and time again?

I honestly don’t understand it.

MOOO

Honestly, I think that is why the judge is going to such great lengths to lay out every last one of EP's assertions. She made them under oath/affirmation, it was the defense she chose to deliver, when she did not have to present one at all.

He is now going through the State's case laying out their assertions, through testimony, and now including EP's responses on cross.

Sometimes it sounds like he is inserting his own judgment, but he must not be. He had maintained throughout that that is the sole office of the jury. I just think EP's testimony is so lengthy, inherently contradictory (to other witness testimony but to her own) and so convoluted, he HAS to protect the jury from mistakenly finding her guilty for lying. That is not the charge nor a proper deliberation.

Once they have determined she's a liar, if indeed they do, they will have to decide whether anything she has said is truthful and give it whatever weight they decide, same as every other witness. Then they have to work through each charge.

Iirc the judge even said he would equip then with his 87 page document but IMO it's instruction, not evidence, and he said he doesn't expect them to read it, it's there for them to reference. It's sort of like he's given them a transcript which in the US would be done differently, with the jury brought back in and the court reporter would read back the pertinent testimony. I think he's doing something akin to that. Proactively. How else could anyone keep track of EP's testimonies testimony?

If the State fell short and leaves room for reasonable doubt, it is their duty to find her not guilty.

It's not the State's job however to prove guikt beyond ALL doubt. The jury might have unanswered questions but that's not an automatic reasonable doubt.

I have to have faith in the jury. It's the system.

JMO

 

[MaxDecimus13]

That is usually the reality of the situation. You can have attempted murder charges previously, but the jury isn't told of this. They have to believe reasonable doubt on what is presented by the prosecution. It's the prosecution that has to prove guilt.

The first TVs allowed into a courtroom in the UK were in Scotland for a trial of a man called Nat Fraser.

I watched it without having any knowledge of the case, and it was one where a body had never been found and the case was quite circumstantial and seemingly based on the account of one guy. Despite this, he was convicted which at the time I thought was surprising.

At sentencing, they brought out a number of things that the jury weren't allowed to hear or consider but that the judge could use in sentencing. They were small facts like he'd beaten her within an inch of her life a number of times. I always wondered how that couldn't have been included in a case where they were trying to ascertain whether a husband had killed his wife.

It actually might give hope to those despairing about the possible EP verdict: that jury clearly used a bit of common sense (and even outside knowledge IMO) to convict.

 

[potr]

The first TVs allowed into a courtroom in the UK were in Scotland for a trial of a man called Nat Fraser.

I watched it without having any knowledge of the case, and it was one where a body had never been found and the case was quite circumstantial and seemingly based on the account of one guy. Despite this, he was convicted which at the time I thought was surprising.

At sentencing, they brought out a number of things that the jury weren't allowed to hear or consider but that the judge could use in sentencing. They were small facts like he'd beaten her within an inch of her life a number of times. I always wondered how that couldn't have been included in a case where they were trying to ascertain whether a husband had killed his wife.

It actually might give hope to those despairing about the possible EP verdict: that jury clearly used a bit of common sense (and even outside knowledge IMO) to convict.

That was actually his retrial, he had already been convicted once and had successfully appealed

 

[MaxDecimus13]

That was actually his retrial, he had already been convicted once and had successfully appealed

Thanks for this.

I did think it was a retrial, but wasn't sure why the judge would be sentencing.

 

[potr]

Thanks for this.

I did think it was a retrial, but wasn't sure why the judge would be sentencing.

he was a nasty piece of work

 

[Moll]

Honestly, I think that is why the judge is going to such great lengths to lay out every last one of EP's assertions. She made them under oath/affirmation, it was the defense she chose to deliver, when she did not have to present one at all.

He is now going through the State's case laying out their assertions, through testimony, and now including EP's responses on cross.

Sometimes it sounds like he is inserting his own judgment, but he must not be. He had maintained throughout that that is the sole office of the jury. I just think EP's testimony is so lengthy, inherently contradictory (to other witness testimony but to her own) and so convoluted, he HAS to protect the jury from mistakenly finding her guilty for lying. That is not the charge nor a proper deliberation.

Once they have determined she's a liar, if indeed they do, they will have to decide whether anything she has said is truthful and give it whatever weight they decide, same as every other witness. Then they have to work through each charge.

Iirc the judge even said he would equip then with his 87 page document but IMO it's instruction, not evidence, and he said he doesn't expect them to read it, it's there for them to reference. It's sort of like he's given them a transcript which in the US would be done differently, with the jury brought back in and the court reporter would read back the pertinent testimony. I think he's doing something akin to that. Proactively. How else could anyone keep track of EP's testimonies testimony?

If the State fell short and leaves room for reasonable doubt, it is their duty to find her not guilty.

It's not the State's job however to prove guikt beyond ALL doubt. The jury might have unanswered questions but that's not an automatic reasonable doubt.

I have to have faith in the jury. It's the system.

JMO

I agree with you. I have faith in the jury and I believe the judge has been covering all possible avenues for appeal.

I have no doubts at all myself. To me, the idea that there are plausible alternative explanations for what happened is far-fetched, taking everything together - and frequently, even taking the points separately.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

On the bulimia question. If these are the scars said to be bulimia signs, I would disagree based on the pictures and descriptions of "Russell's sign" I've found. They describe wounds to the lower knuckles not to the fingers, and look like this,