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

[Deleted member 363451]

I agree.

Plus, I think it is up to the children to decide how they feel about their mother.

In a moral sense, I think one of the worst offences otherwise well-meaning people can commit is to tell children they had a terrible mother. She gave them life, she ensured they survived. It's nothing to do with other things she may or not have done. It's not a course that other people decide whether she passed or failed, it's a profound existential bond.

JMO

If she gets off, it may be very dangerous for them to be alone in her company.

 

[Yh5r]

A good mother doesn’t put her children though the last few years and let’s not forget Simon’s mysterious illnesses. These children have been hell and back all due to her negligence over that lunch. Regardless of the intent she is to blame.

MOO

100%! A "good mother" would consider her children before serving a poisonous meal to their grandparents (whether legally guilty or not - her duty of care was clearly neglected!!).

 

[Yh5r]

If they were starting from no knowledge of the case I'd agree, but having sat through all the witness evidence in court and making judgments as they go along, and then having it all reiterated by the judge, and hearing arguments, I think they should be more than ready. I think you know by the end of a trial, and there likely aren't more than a handful of issues that people might want to discuss. Unless there are disagreements, but hopefully not...

They want to make sure they do their due diligence and take their jury duty very seriously. The trial went for 8 weeks, the material from it is over 300pages (from memory), the judge's deliberations went for days. It would seem wrong for the jury to come to a verdict too soon given these circumstances but my bet is that they will have it by Saturday.

 

[katydid23]

I think they literally have "keepers" who could report back to the judge. People who accompany the jury everywhere and tell them where they can go, etc. The judge describes some of the rules as "over the top" so I imagine they are very restricted in what they can and cannot do. Perhaps they're even being confined to their hotel rooms.

Yes,I am pretty Sure they are confined after dinner and 'group activities' to their rooms.

In California they all have dinner together and then they are sometimes provided a group activity like card games or mini-golf type things---then they must r4turn to their rooms until breakfast.

But they have a tv in their rooms loaded with shows they can watch---sports, music , films, etc

 

[Detechtive]

100%! A "good mother" would consider her children before serving a poisonous meal to their grandparents (whether legally guilty or not - her duty of care was clearly neglected!!).

A good mother wouldn’t infer her children were incorrect and or lying to save herself, IMO

 

[katydid23]

A good mother wouldn’t infer her children were incorrect and or lying to save herself, IMO

Yes. And if she 'accidentally' poisoned her in-laws, then her own children were in danger as well.

She apparently picked some random unknown type of wild mushrooms near Oak trees, and didn't try to identify or categorise them. And she didn't do her famous 'taste test' to check for safety either.

But she went ahead and put them into her pantry to use for future meals. Her kids could have easily beeb poison victims because of her negligence.

 

[Cedars]

If she gets off, it may be very dangerous for them to be alone in her company.

I see this is triggering many posters.

My point was, whether you judge her a good mother or not is irrevelent.

She is their mother. They are her children. That is a real thing, you cannot cancel it on social media. Your approval or disapproval has nothing to do with it. It just is.

 

[Deleted member 363451]

Yes. And if she 'accidentally' poisoned her in-laws, then her own children were in danger as well.

She apparently picked some random unknown type of wild mushrooms near Oak trees, and didn't try to identify or categorise them. And she didn't do her famous 'taste test' to check for safety either.

But she went ahead and put them into her pantry to use for future meals. Her kids could have easily beeb poison victims because of her negligence.

Yes, she wasn't as careful with her lunch guests as she apparently was with her dog.

 

[drsleuth]

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

The next step after the jury alerts the court it has reached a verdict will be to give parties 15 minutes' notice to return to the courtroom for the result.
As a result, most media and legal representatives are keeping very close to courtroom 4 at Morwell where the verdict will be delivered.
Most interested parties are in the courthouse, but some are waiting at a nearby café and other media are gathering outside.
The jury will hand their verdict to Justice Beale via his tipstaff and then they will be asked to confirm the verdict.
Justice Beale will then thank the jury for their service and the trial will be over.
Daily Mail Australia is on hand to publish the verdict as soon as it is given.

 

[Detechtive]

I see this is triggering many posters.

My point was, whether you judge her a good mother or not is irrevelent.

She is their mother. They are her children. That is a real thing, you cannot cancel it on social media. Your approval or disapproval has nothing to do with it. It just is.

I don’t know if it’s triggering.

Some people absolutely don’t have an innate bond to their offspring.

IMO, as a mother myself, I can’t imagine leaving an infant with my husband while flying back to Perth from the top end of QLD, while he drives. Only to discard him into a caravan park while myself and my baby occupied a 2 bedroom apartment.

Some people aren’t able to connect like the rest of us, and it is my opinion that Erin is one of those. IMO only.

 

[LinasK]

I see this is triggering many posters.

My point was, whether you judge her a good mother or not is irrevelent.

She is their mother. They are her children. That is a real thing, you cannot cancel it on social media. Your approval or disapproval has nothing to do with it. It just is.

Whether she is convicted or not, IMO she is a danger to her children. Simon should be awarded sole custody, or if not, then Child Protective Services should step in to intervene so that she's never again able to give them anything to eat or drink. She CANNOT be trusted to provide for their meals.

 

[Ellery84]

I see this is triggering many posters.

My point was, whether you judge her a good mother or not is irrevelent.

She is their mother. They are her children. That is a real thing, you cannot cancel it on social media. Your approval or disapproval has nothing to do with it. It just is.

I’m not triggered. We are in a crime chat about a triple murder.

Are you in the right space on the internet?

 

[Ellery84]

It's not a course that other people decide whether she passed or failed, it's a profound existential bond.

That’s heartening right there.

It’s going to really be hard to maintain that existential bond if mum serves life in jail, or maybe it won’t. Maybe her offspring will visit her in the prison?

And also, child safety could care less about the existential bond that was formed in the womb. They’re more about ensuring the safety and survival of the children - and I mean that for all children in Victoria - not just Erin’s children.

IMO

 

[Yh5r]

I’m not triggered. We are in a crime chat about a triple murder.

Are you in the right space on the internet?

I agree. Fact is, Erin neglected her duty of care regardless of whether she is found guilty of murder. Who's to say she wouldn't be as careless with the food provided to her children?!

 

[LinasK]

I agree. Fact is, Erin neglected her duty of care regardless of whether she is found guilty of murder. Who's to say she wouldn't be as careless with the food provided to her children?!

I agree. Fact is, Erin neglected her duty of care regardless of whether she is found guilty of murder. Who's to say she wouldn't be as careless with the food provided to her children?

The very fact that she had Death Cap mushrooms in her pantry, that her children could have accessed, whether she realized they were DC's or not is negligence. What 14 year old boy doesn't forage the pantry looking for snacks???

 

[Deleted member 363451]

Whether she is convicted or not, IMO she is a danger to her children. Simon should be awarded sole custody, or if not, then Child Protective Services should step in to intervene so that she's never again able to give them anything to eat or drink. She CANNOT be trusted to provide for their meals.

 

[Deleted member 363451]

I see this is triggering many posters.

My point was, whether you judge her a good mother or not is irrevelent.

She is their mother. They are her children. That is a real thing, you cannot cancel it on social media. Your approval or disapproval has nothing to do with it. It just is.

I am not arguing that she is their mother, nor am I trying to cancel the fact.

The point is, even if she is acquitted doesn't mean that she's innocent. It just means that the jury thought there was reasonable doubt.

It would not be in the best interests of her children to ever be unsupervised in her company.

 

[Tortoise]

Here's an interesting thought.

Under the law, if two (or more) people conspired to kill a person, as long as they committed an overt act pursuant to the agreement, they can be charged with conspiracy to murder, even if the plan to murder turns out to have been impossible. So if someone agreed with another to poison an intended victim, and invited them to the poisoned meal, or if they deliberately added poison to a meal, but the intended victim didn't show up for the meal, they have still committed conspiracy to murder.

However, it appears to me that if a person acts alone, and not in conspiracy with another, and does the same thing, invites and/or prepares a poisoned lunch, there is no equivalent crime to charge them with.

I'm wondering if the criteria for attempted murder would be met.

11.1-C Conduct must go beyond mere preparation to commit an offence before it can amount to an attempt​

Common law requires conduct proximate to the completed offence before liability is imposed for attempt. The common law requirement of proximity in attempts is the subject of continuing and unresolved contention. A variety of “tests” have been proposed by courts and commentators to determine when preparation ends and the criminal attempt begins.274 Chapter 2 abandons all these attempts to state a test and poses the issue in stark terms. The question is simply: Was the conduct of the defendant “more than merely preparatory”?275 The question requires a conclusion of fact to be drawn in the light of all the circumstances of the case. The South Australian Supreme Court decision in O’Connor v Killian276 anticipates the Code provision and provides an example of its application to the offence of attempt to obtain by false pretences. There is common law authority that the question whether the defendant has gone beyond mere preparation must be judged on the facts as the defendant perceived them.277 So, for example, a person who imports a bag of oregano in the belief that it is cannabis is guilty of an attempt to commit the offence of importing a prohibited substance: compare “impossibility”, below 11.1-E. Though nowhere near commission of the offence in reality, the would-be smuggler has passed well beyond mere preparation in their own mistaken conception of the facts.

https://www.ag.gov.au/crime/publications/commonwealth-criminal-code-guide-practitioners-draft/part-24-extensions-criminal-liability/division-11/111-attempt

(The law for conspiracy is on the same page under a different drop-down heading)


In the present case, I'm wondering if a charge of attempted murder against Simon might have made a motive more obvious. IMO

 

[HoneyBunOne]

The very fact that she had Death Cap mushrooms in her pantry, that her children could have accessed, whether she realized they were DC's or not is negligence. What 14 year old boy doesn't forage the pantry looking for snacks???

I'd guess she had a secret little stash somewhere other than the pantry, if she is guilty of course.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Almost 5pm, no verdict.
Maybe tomorrow.