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

[Jake18]

It was a classic example of the defence and the prosecution both having their own experts.

However, the circumstantial evidence around it was insane. It was similar to EP in that for Polk to be innocent it needed an incredible number of strange coincidences to have happened. I would argue that there were considerably more for his trial.

I thought he was guilty - but the pathologist for the prosecution said the post-mortem findings couldn’t differentiate between suicide (hanging) or murder (strangulation) and the defence pathologist said he would have confidently stated that cause of death was suicide.

IMO that was reasonable doubt, with that testimony

 

[potr]

I disagree strongly.

Beale is taking each area of disputed evidence and comparing the essence of prosecution evidence, vs the essence of the defence rebuttal.

"He says the defence argued that the individual portions were all cooked on one baking tray and that the only way to control who was served the poisonous meal was to mark the pastry itself.".

Notice: He says the defence said...

The judge is not saying the defense is true or correct, he is just summarizing what they said. The jury must decide for themselves whether they accept the prosecution evidence, or not.

Especially the point about being cooked on one tray - the jury knows that's just what they say. The defense offered no proof.

oh my goodness you are right. i missed that he was apparently "quoting" the defence this time. I am sorry. However, isn't it interesting that he has no problem quoting the defence on spurious claims without commenting, providing caution or outright instructing the jury to ignore this so called "evidence" as there is no corroboration like he was so quick to do regarding the prosecution's claims of dc poison seeping into the actual meat? There were other examples today where he just went straight to NOT quoting defence or prosecution. But I put it to you, the use of some quotes with his own push back versus others without is unevenly handed.

I am an absolute lover of judges. I want them to lead the courtroom! I want the Jury to feel supported and guided by them. I know that so many of them love the law and love learning the law. I want THAT kind of judge.

 

[potr]

Spoke too soon.

Erin Patterson mushroom murder trial LIVE updates

Follow Daily Mail Australia's live coverage of accused mushroom chef Erin Patterson's murder trial here.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Justice Beale has announced the jury will be sequestered for the evening and will continue deliberating at 10.30am on Tuesday.
‘You’ve had a long day, and you deserve a break,’ he said.
‘I hope it’s a pleasant break this evening.’
Justice Beale warned the jurors not to ‘second guess’ the instructions of the jury keepers.
‘I’ll be making sure no one interferes with you. It would be an awful shame if you [make an error with the jury keepers’ instructions] and as a result we have a mistrial.
‘So, thank you ladies and gentlemen.’
Justice Beale said he will be at court tomorrow while the jury is deliberating.

 

[musicaljoke]

Imo, it's a ludicrous instruction. Everyone always has good reasons not to murder someone!

The judge is speaking of a compelling reason not to murder the victims. For example, if it was known that the accused was living rent-free in a home owned by the victims, and that she would be out of the home if they died, then the accused would have a compelling reason not to murder the victims.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

For the benefit of our overseas members, the jury will recommence their deliberations at 10.30 am tomorrow, Tuesday 1st
July.

It's now around 6.30 pm Monday 30th June (AEST) Australian Eastern Standard Time.
So a bit over 15 and a half hours from now til court resumes and the jury resumes their deliberations.

 

[Scooby-Doo]

Let's hope we get news soon

There will be a few outcomes; they could land on a guilty, not guilty, or land on a split verdict.

Because of the multiple different charges

But the decision needs to be unanimous, and if they can't all decide, all 12 jury members

Then it could mean the trial would end in a hung jury

When the moment does happen, an email from the Supreme Court will come with a 15-minute warning to get inside

So until that verdict is reached, everyone, including the media, lawyers, and the family members,

are all waiting around, for that moment before they rush inside when the verdict is here

 

[JBowie]

Jury briefly retires to ballot out two members

Justice Beale has completed his charge and briefly retired the jury to ballot out two jurors.

He told them to not make comments during the ballot and said the foreperson cannot be balloted out.

‘Not even goodbye,’ Justice Beale said.

‘There is to be no contact… until after the case is over.’

Justice Beale thanked the two to be balloted and reminded them not to discuss the case until it’s over.

He has previously told the jury its verdict must be unanimous and each member must agree.

He told the jurors they could rely on different pieces of evidence to reach that conclusion.

Once a verdict has been reached they were told to ‘hit a buzzer’ and they would be brought into court.

The foreperson would then be asked to deliver the verdict.

Justice Beale said the verdict would then be confirmed with the jury it can return to court to ask questions.

He said he will discuss the question with the prosecution and defence before addressing the question in court.

The jury was told it will deliberate Monday to Saturday in court in a jury room.

Justice Beale told the jury never to offer him the numbers – that is, how jurors were positioned on the verdict.

He told them again to only discuss the case among themselves.

Justice Beale offered a ‘warm thank you’ to whoever got balloted off and noted he was unsure if they would be ‘relieved or frustrated’ upon learning their fate.

He said all jurors would be offered the chance to get off the jury duty list for 15 years.

[...]

Juror 105 and juror 106 were balloted out then escorted out of the court through the front door.

Erin Patterson mushroom murder trial LIVE updates

Follow Daily Mail Australia's live coverage of accused mushroom chef Erin Patterson's murder trial here.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Lisa4]

I'm not a lawyer, but I think I can help answer this.

Thank you @Detechtive, that's excellent and exactly what I was after.

 

[JBowie]

Interesting VIC study of ...​

​

The effects on balloted-off jurors​

5.43 Balloted-off jurors had a mixture of responses to being balloted off. Based on the Commission’s data, most feel very disappointed and frustrated at not being able to deliberate and return the verdict.

5.44 For example, feelings of disappointment by balloted-off jurors who responded to the VLRC juror survey were expressed in the following way:

I felt as if I had died, having no input to the final decisions.

Extremely disappointed. Dissatisfied that after a large & conscientious investment of time & energy I may as well not have been there. Angry about the time lost & an opportunity missed in my career while away from work.

I felt empty. Having been part of the process from the beginning, and taking my responsibilities seriously, I would have liked to be part of final decision making process.

I had a strong preference to see it through, particularly after a long case. Was disappointed to be balloted off.

5.45 The Juries Commissioner, who has personally debriefed balloted-off jurors, described their reactions as ‘sad and confused at best or incandescent with rage at worst’.

5.46 One regional JCO jury keeper who had observed the balloting off of an additional juror told the Commission that the balloted-off juror had sat on the steps of the courthouse for the entire duration of the jury’s deliberation so that he could still feel like he was a part of the process.

5.47 All the judges the Commission consulted said that in their experience jurors who are balloted off feel terrible, as they have invested significant amounts of time and effort in the trial.

5.48 Some balloted-off jurors described mixed emotions of frustration and relief. For example, a balloted-off juror who responded to the VLRC juror survey said ‘[I felt] relieved and frustrated. I wanted to stay but the trial had run over by 5 weeks and I had commitments at work.’

5.49 Another balloted-off juror who responded to the VLRC juror survey said he was very disappointed, but also added he was ‘content to have borne some civic responsibility while marginally relieved to be absolved of the responsibility of deliberation’.

5.50 A balloted-off juror the Commission spoke with over the phone also described her feelings as ‘mixed’. On the one hand, she had spent three weeks thinking about the case, so she felt that it had been a waste of time. On the other hand, she felt relieved that she did not have the responsibility for making a decision that could send a person to jail.

5.51 The Juries Commissioner’s submission states that ‘a smaller number [of balloted-off jurors] are genuinely relieved’.

The effects on the remaining jury​

5.52 The VLRC juror survey asked remaining jury members how they felt about a jury member being balloted off.

5.53 The dominant theme of the comments was that remaining jury members felt sorry for the balloted-off juror or jurors and considered that their time had been wasted. For example, remaining jury members described feeling:

Clearly sorry for the jury member. Having had to sit through approximately four weeks of a court proceeding and then not being able to be involved in the deliberation is bordering on being cruel.

Dismay that these people had attended court for a period of many weeks, investing their time and concentration, only to be dismissed. They were denied the opportunity to have input into the deliberation process, which apart from determining the innocence or guilt of the accused, provides a forum for discussion and debriefing for the members of the jury panel.

Disappointed for them to have gone so far and not completed the process of a juror.

5.54 A number of remaining jury members also commented on the loss of the balloted-off members’ input into deliberations:

One of these jury members was pivotal in a lot of the organisation and information gathering and sharing. It felt like we lost two supporters at a time of the journey we needed everyone around.

[D]isappointed in losing contributors to earlier discussion.

5.55 Another theme arising from the comments of remaining jurors was the effect of the ballot on the dynamic of the jury. For example:

The immediate removal of the evicted jurors, while understandable, was a bit of a wrench. We had been supporting one another through a fairly emotional experience so it was difficult to have the two jurors removed.

It added a great deal more stress to everyone in that jury.

I felt somewhat disappointed as you do form a relationship with all the jurors.

5.56 A number of judges the Commission consulted expressed concern about the impact of the ballot on the remaining jury at a crucial time when the jury needed to concentrate. These judges considered that the ballot, and the timing of the ballot, had a destabilising effect on the remaining jury and distracted them from deliberations. The ballot was described by one judge as a bad start to a tense process.

5.57 Recognising that a particular individual may be central to the jury’s deliberations, one judge consulted by the Commission said that if balloting remains, he may adopt the practice of advising the jury during the course of the trial that they can nominate a new foreperson if they wish to avoid the possibility of a particular person being balloted off.

5.58 The comments of a few remaining jury members indicate that they accepted the balloting off process and were not particularly upset about it. For example:

I was foreman, so was not in the mix. So unaffected.

As we were informed of the process at the start I did not have any feelings.

We were forewarned by the judge that this would happen.

5. Additional jurors - Victorian Law Reform Commission

Introduction 5.1 The terms of reference ask the Commission to give consideration to section 48 of the Juries Act 2000 (Vic) (Juries Act) and whether it is necessary or desirable for the jury to be reduced to 12 (or six for civil trials) before the jury retires to consider its verdict. The...

www.lawreform.vic.gov.au

 

[musicaljoke]

oh my goodness you are right. i missed that he was apparently "quoting" the defence this time. I am sorry. However, isn't it interesting that he has no problem quoting the defence on spurious claims without commenting, providing caution or outright instructing the jury to ignore this so called "evidence" as there is no corroboration like he was so quick to do regarding the prosecution's claims of dc poison seeping into the actual meat? There were other examples today where he just went straight to NOT quoting defence or prosecution. But I put it to you, the use of some quotes with his own push back versus others without is unevenly handed.

I am an absolute lover of judges. I want them to lead the courtroom! I want the Jury to feel supported and guided by them. I know that so many of them love the law and love learning the law. I want THAT kind of judge.

I believe it was important for the judge to clarify that the test results showed the presence of the deadly mushrooms in the sample provided, but that the results did not indicate whether or not the poison permeated the meat. Reading back over the evidence, the question of whether or not the poison permeated the meat was not asked or answered.

If the poison did not permeate the meat, then the accused could have removed the pastry and mushrooms, even perhaps cut away the outer layer of meat, and fed the leftovers to her kids. If she did that, it might explain why the meat she said she served her kids was cut in pieces and why they didn't get sick. It would also suggest that she knew that the outer mushroom and pastry layers had to be removed because they were toxic.

But it probably doesn't matter in the end, because the kids said they had different meat.

I don't see any bias in the judge's comments about that issue, just necessary clarification about an important detail.

 

[Tortoise]

She is (was) too smart to have planned for the finger of blame (even accidental) to have been pointed at her IF everything went as planned. It didn't, because Simon didn't come and the others didn't die before being able to speak to authorities.

There was another part to the plan IMO which we may never know. I've mentioned mushroom gravy brought by a guest. Someone else mentioned fruit salad. You've mentioned 4 avid foragers. It isn't relevant to the verdict, but people are not fully understanding her personality, if they think she was happy for her name to be dragged through the mud for the past 2 years.

RSBM

With the caveat 'if she is guilty' -

I like this thinking. Yes, it doesn't appear as if she had a plan, when one only considers what actually transpired, because this wasn't the plan. The plan fell apart when Simon didn't come, one guest survived, and the others didn't die before being able to describe what she served.

I think that is why she carefully selected a recipe (no children at the lunch to observe) to be able to say everyone was served from the same dish at the table. No one would know she had served individual portions.

I say try to think about the situation had the guests all died without speaking - it can't be the Wellington because I ate the same dish, I'm not sick and I gave the leftovers to my children and they aren't sick. Hence it's fine to put scraps in the bin, and keep the dehydrator because no one will suspect she used dried mushrooms for the Wellington, her receipt shows she bought and used fresh mushrooms. It must be something the guests brought with them that I didn't eat. I'd go with the cake and some kind of contamination (or salmonella in eggs?) because it seems she didn't share it with anyone after the lunch and she might have either eaten it all or disposed of it to prevent testing.

But then comes the confusion for EP about what to do after finding out the guests are alive and talking and being subjected to tests. How much detail have they given? Should she now present as sick or not? Hedge her bets - a little bit sick? If EP isn't sick it wasn't the Wellington so the original plan is very hard to detach from, and there is no back up plan for this eventuality, so initially show confusion about the death cap talk and don't cooperate with requests to stay for treatment and requests to bring in the children because it must have been something else. But then will the testing of the guests reveal the death caps? She starts to think about needing to admit to using dried mushrooms because button mushrooms from Woollies won't fit the bill. I think it's all revealed in the slow response to developments and vague answers about shops and listening out for what they know and the late dash to dump the dehydrator.

If guilty as alleged.
JMO

 

[tmar]

We have been here for 10 weeks: not long to go.
After the verdict, the discussion will continue, wondering 'WHY" the decision.
So, we are here for much longer.......

 

[Kemug]

Her cut knuckle could be anything - scrubbing the oven, scrubbing the dehydrator, scrubbing oven trays, (very Lady Macbeth!) or gardening - just household jobs and oops abraded knuckles.

Didn't know she did any.

 

[303gmf]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1939564819939754146

That’s just crazy!!

 

[MrJ]

Rather exciting to be on a verdict watch thread for the first time, thank you all for your contributions as we wait for the next chapter of EP's trial. I've really learned a lot from you all! I wonder if we will get a verdict by tomorrow? What do you all think?

 

[Salah11]

That’s just crazy!!

I read stuff like this and it just makes me hope that Simon and Ian Wilkinson have so much support around them.

 

[Sarahlou]

Rather exciting to be on a verdict watch thread for the first time, thank you all for your contributions as we wait for the next chapter of EP's trial. I've really learned a lot from you all! I wonder if we will get a verdict by tomorrow? What do you all think?

I don't think it will be that soon. But the quicker it is the more certain I'll be that it's a guilty verdict.

 

[Kemug]

Just now
Instructions about reaching a verdict
By Jesse Thompson

The judge turns now to the final part of his directions, which relate to arriving at a verdict.

Justice Beale directs the jury that its verdict must be unanimous in relation to each charge.

He tells the jury that this does not mean they must all reach their verdict the same way.

"No matter how you reach your verdict, you must all agree," he says.

Once jury members have reached a unanimous verdict, they will push a buzzer and return to court.

The members will be sequestered as they deliberate Monday to Saturday, but they will not get to go home on Sunday.

I wonder what the court will do with them if it goes till Sunday. Lock them up all day watching Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse? Form them into an orchestra? Have a talent contest? Bring out the jigsaw puzzles? Surely not a cooking competition!

 

[browneyes]

That’s just crazy!!

Isn’t she in jail? That looks tacky. IMO

 

[Salah11]

I think we will have a verdict by Friday at the latest.

It’s not a complicated case at all, and she admits she poisoned them just she denies intent. But when you then consider all the other factors, I believe justice will prevail here.