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

[Bats]

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?

Thanks to you @MrJ and all the other people who have been posting the MSM updates.
Never missed a beat!

 

[Kemug]

I wonder how Poor Mr Wilkinson and Simon are feeling after all this time?

The nerves would be setting in

I hope Ian and Simon have a holiday planned for when this is all over, and have lots of brochures to pore over.

 

[Bats]

I wonder if we will get a verdict by tomorrow? What do you all think?

I don't know if there is statistics on this but here's how I would expect things to roll tomorrow morning.

The first thing I expect they'll do is go around the table. "What do you think? Guilty or not guilty?"
If its unanimous straight away then I don't think they'll hang on that for too long. Latest mid afternoon verdict. If there's no verdict tomorrow then there's differences of opinion...and that could take a while to work through. Many scenarios if that happens.

JMO

 

[Salah11]

I hope Ian and Simon have a holiday planned for when this is all over, and have lots of brochures to pore over.

I was just going to say it’s the right time for the them all to go on holiday as it’s summer holidays but they are the reverse so it’s likely winter where they are.

 

[Kemug]

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.

Drat, that's nowhere near enough time for me to drive down from Sydney!

 

[owlmama]

Does anyone know what the judge, lawyers etc do while the jury are deliberating? Are they just sitting around drinking endless cups of coffee? Working on their next case? Are they waiting in the court room or elsewhere? What about EP -does she just sit and wait in jail?

 

[Kemug]

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

Her buddies must be planning a Welcome Home party!

 

[Kemug]

I don't know if there is statistics on this but here's how I would expect things to roll tomorrow morning.
The first thing I expect they'll do is go around the table. "What do you think? Guilty or not guilty?"
If its unanimous straight away then I don't think they'll hang on that for too long. Latest mid afternoon verdict. If there's no verdict tomorrow then there's differences of opinion...and that could take a while to work through. Many scenarios if that happens.

JMO

If the jury have a unanimous verdict that quickly, whichever way it goes, would they not wait at least an hour or so longer? For appearances, so that it doesn't seem that they hardly bothered to discuss it? And if they returned a verdict extremely quickly, would that possibly be grounds for appeal?

 

[Kemug]

I was just going to say it’s the right time for the them all to go on holiday as it’s summer holidays but they are the reverse so it’s likely winter where they are.

It is indeed, haven't you seen the photos of them all waiting to get in, all wrapped up in coats and other woollies, in the fog?

 

[Bats]

If the jury have a unanimous verdict that quickly, whichever way it goes, would they not wait at least an hour or so longer? For appearances, so that it doesn't seem that they hardly bothered to discuss it? Or if they returned a verdict extremely quickly, would that possibly be grounds for appeal?

Yes, for sure. They'd still do their due diligence. I'd expect it would take a few hours to dot their "i"s and cross their "t"s.
But if they're all on the same page right from the get go then I doubt they'd prolong that past a day.

MOO

 

[Tweet57]

Just curious…During the duration of the trial, did EP travel from and back to jail each day?

 

[musicaljoke]

If they find EP had good reasons not to kill someone?! Well of course she didn't have any good reason to kill them - hasn't the man been paying attention?!2

I am confident that the jury would be able to discern the judge's instructions here. Please remember, that the jury decides their verdict based on the totality of the evidence.

 

[Kittybunny]

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?

Thank you Mr. J for your contributions! It is exciting indeed to get to the end of the trial!

I will be surprised if we get a verdict before Friday, honestly. Between the judge’s War and Peace length instructions and EP’s litany of lies, there is A LOT to sort through.

Thank you also to everyone for the great perspectives and opinions, even those I disagree with, haha.

And I’m hoping for jury wisdom, discernment, and common sense as they deliberate, and that the verdict is just, whatever it is.

Strength and peace too to the surviving members of the victim's families, particularly Simon and Ian. Survivors guilt can be a real burden.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

<modsnip: quoted post was removed>

This might make me look like I'm talking about everybody, but I'm actually notorious in my job for being somebody who avoids conflict. If people start talking about other people, I remove myself from the situation. I also don't openly swear in the way EP did.

However, in every workplace, friendship group, family dynamics I've ever been in there have been many many people talking negatively about others behind their back. This is even people they like and are friends with.

The Facebook messages I saw were a bit crasser than you're average but I thought represented a potentially understandable family frustration. Saying she was done with the family, is the sort of hyperbolic thing people say all the time when they're upset.

They absolutely did demonstrate two different sides of their relationship (and an obvious lack of real religious faith), but again I can relate somewhat. My in-laws are the sort of people you couldn't have an open disagreement with and often because of religion.

They could be a motive for murder, I'm not saying that, and if she is guilty there has to be one that isn't strikingly obvious. I'm arguing that if I was a juror, and I was talking about reasonable doubt etc, I wouldn't think it was a very persuasive motive.

Of course the prosecution don't need to prove a motive, but I think it's naive to think it won't be a consideration when looking at reasonable doubt.

 

[seasideForest]

Foragers I know are very outdoorsy and in shape for hiking

I'm a bit of a forager actually (not mushrooms I hasten to add) and tho I'm somewhat outdoorsy, I'm not in shape really.

<modsnip>

MOO

 

[Detechtive]

Thank you Mr. J for your contributions! It is exciting indeed to get to the end of the trial!

I will be surprised if we get a verdict before Friday, honestly. Between the judge’s War and Peace length instructions and EP’s litany of lies, there is A LOT to sort through.

Thank you also to everyone for the great perspectives and opinions, even those I disagree with, haha.

And I’m hoping for jury wisdom, discernment, and common sense as they deliberate, and that the verdict is just, whatever it is.

Strength and peace too to the surviving members of the victim's families, particularly Simon and Ian. Survivors guilt can be a real burden.

War and peace epic for sure! I don't recall another jury charge this long, ever, in the history of mankind!

I personally feel it's really incorrect that 95% of ppl (here) would speak in the vile way EP did about people who had only ever showed her kindness/that she liked.

Based on my own life experience, I feel that that type of behaviour would be very rare.

And [eta: as far as those msgs are concerned re motive], well, maybe most here would tend to agree with that.

So there you have it.

@Lisa4 I agree with you totally. I don't know anyone who would speak like that about anyone (other than say, towards a mistress of a cheating spouse in the throws of devastation and anger, maybe), let alone their very kind and supportive in-laws who literally volunteered in Africa to teach underprivileged children English. Calling them "lost causes" etc for simply not siding with her against their own child is extreme unhinged behaviour, IMO.

 

[BreakingNews]

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!

When I was sequestered in a hotel, all the phones, TVs and radios were cut off. We had 2 people to a room and could not go out the door. So no contact with the rest of the group. However for us, we were only in the room late at night and escorted by security to breakfast. We were not told to prepare for this. So we had to write a list of what we needed from home and police went to retrieve it. One woman living alone even got the cops to feed her cat. Thankfully for us, it was only one night

 

[MaxDecimus13]

Rsbm.

And, she says she wants "nothing to do" with her in-laws. So why invite them over to her house for lunch? If she really wanted to talk about her cancer gastric bypass liposuction, that could have been a five minute phone conversation. No need for a fancy meal.

Personally, I believe the Facebook messages display Erin's real feelings. And everything else was just an act.

I disagree about the tone, but fair enough.

As for the 'nothing to do' part, as I insinuated in the original reply it is something that is often said in the heat of the moment that is more of a hissy fit than anything. It's more akin to a 'I'm never speaking to you again!' sort of childishness.

 

[Detechtive]

I disagree about the tone, but fair enough.

As for the 'nothing to do' part, as I insinuated in the original reply it is something that is often said in the heat of the moment that is more of a hissy fit than anything. It's more akin to a 'I'm never speaking to you again!' sort of childishness.

Are you forgetting that this woman is 50 years old? She isn't a hormonal teen.

 

[Megnut]

Thanks for this.

This might make me look like I'm talking about everybody, but I'm actually notorious in my job for being somebody who avoids conflict. If people start talking about other people, I remove myself from the situation. I also don't openly swear in the way EP did.

However, in every workplace, friendship group, family dynamics I've ever been in there have been many many people talking negatively about others behind their back. This is even people they like and are friends with.

The Facebook messages I saw were a bit crasser than you're average but I thought represented a potentially understandable family frustration. Saying she was done with the family, is the sort of hyperbolic thing people say all the time when they're upset.

They absolutely did demonstrate two different sides of their relationship (and an obvious lack of real religious faith), but again I can relate somewhat. My in-laws are the sort of people you couldn't have an open disagreement with and often because of religion.

They could be a motive for murder, I'm not saying that, and if she is guilty there has to be one that isn't strikingly obvious. I'm arguing that if I was a juror, and I was talking about reasonable doubt etc, I wouldn't think it was a very persuasive motive.

Of course the prosecution don't need to prove a motive, but I think it's naive to think it won't be a consideration when looking at reasonable doubt.

It's hard to wrestle with what constitutes motive for other people. I've been a driver for 40 years, been honked at, cut off, lost a last second parking place, refused at a merge and I haven't even one time followed someone home in a rage. But any of those, and otfen less, set some people off. IME passive aggressives have a particular finesse for NOT getting mad, they get even. It's still a motive regardless of how unreasonable or inane. Mad people blow up their own lives to get even every day. Senseless but they still do it.

The prosecution didn't provide a singular motive because it's anyone but EP's guess, if she intentionally poisoned her extended family, potentially estranged. The defense, however, filled in all kinds of reasons to counter motive, none of which was really supported, but it's out there.

The judge's admonition to the jury, as I understand it, is that they should take those elements under consideration. Weigh it like everything else.

They have a lot to sort through. I'm glad I'm not them.

JMO