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

[ch_13]

A question to any Australian legal scholars...

Does Australia have something like the Allen charge?

Allen charges (also referred to as dynamite, nitroglycerin, shotgun, or third-degree charges) refer to jury instructions given to a hung jury urging them to agree on a verdict. Allen charges are controversial as some claim they overly pressure parts of the jury to change their opinions and cave to peer pressure, especially minority opinions.

Allen charge

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Scooby-Doo]

July 30

Don and Gail ring Simon, complaining of serious illness. They travel via ambulance to Dandenong Hospital.

Simon picks up Heather and Ian, taking them to Korumburra Hospital, then Leongatha Hospital.

Erin allegedly tells one of her children she feels unwell, and spends the day running errands with

her children before serving them a meal she says is leftovers from the lunch.

Ms Patterson told a Supreme Court jury in Morwell that she fed her children leftovers from the beef

Wellington lunch the following night

But had scraped the mushroom paste off the meat



August 1

Heather and Ian arrive at Austin Hospital.

Despite escalating medical treatment, Donald, Gail and Heather continue to deteriorate.

Erin is assessed by a doctor at Monash, who says she appears clinically well and all her vital signs are within normal limits. She is discharged from hospital about 1pm.

The Department of Health interviews Erin about the lunch.

She says she bought dried mushrooms from an Asian grocer in Melbourne's southeast


But she had already scraped off the mushroom paste, BEFORE the hospital realised it was death cap mushroom poisoning.

How could she not know? It could have been the meat, not the scraped-off mushrooms, that made everyone sick?


She needs to explain this. How did she know it was the mushrooms before the hospital did?



She had no problem before, hiding powdered mushrooms in her children's brownies, muffins, etc,

as the children didn't like them, and she wanted them to get the extra nutrients.

(Even though she wasn't worried about them eating rubbishy cakes )

But then scraped the mushroom paste off the leftover lunch meat

Why would you feed your children a meal in the first place that made you sick and that landed your family members in the hospital?

It doesn't make sense..!

Accused killer Patterson fed children leftovers despite illness, court told

Erin Patterson has told a Supreme Court jury that she fed her children the leftovers of a deadly beef Wellington lunch despite experiencing diarrhoea after eating it.

www.abc.net.au

 

[lisasimpson2010]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>
That is deeply illogical.

The fact that she put deadly mushrooms in the food is not disputed.

Even if there was no question of it being intentional, even if the situation (hypothetically) was obviously an accident, even if she'd never been arrested or charged, the majority of people would not eat a meal cooked by a person whose cooking had previously killed three people.

You don't have to believe a person committed pre-planned murder to want to avoid their cooking. I can name three otherwise absolutely lovely people whose cooking I'd never touch because their food safety standards aren't up to scratch.

<modsnip- quoted post was removed>

 

[Sarahlou]

I hope the verdict comes in tomorrow because in the absence of any news some people on this forum are clearly getting tetchy!

Right! Roll on the verdict.

It would be a shame for this thread to get closed just as the verdict was about to come in.

 

[Bats]

I've always had a problem with the following statement:

"They are not being asked whether they think she did it or might have done it.

They are being asked whether the crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt whether she did it."

That's ^^^ kind of a weird sticking point to me.

If I watch the trial and then I am convinced that the defendant is guilty, then it follows that the Prosecution proved it's case, imo. How else would I come to that conclusion?


I've seen people make that distinction and it seems iffy.

Imo ,If you were convinced of their guilt then the P successfully proved their case.

"You" or "someone" being convinced that a defendant is guilty doesn't really mean the prosecution has proven its case, in my opinion.

You'd really need to know "how" and the "why" you have been convinced in order to know whether the prosecution had proven its case (in your mind).

Where there are "judge only" trials, you get to hear in legal speak, "how" and "why" the judge has been convinced. Having 12 jurors means that ideas on the "how" and "why" did you come to that decision, get bounced around and the proof gets drawn out of the reasoning.

Car salespeople can convince people to buy their cars using various facts and figures but it doesn't prove the cars are any good. It proves they've been able to convince people that they're good.

All my opinion.

 

[Bats]

A question to any Australian legal scholars...

Does Australia have something like the Allen charge?

Allen charges (also referred to as dynamite, nitroglycerin, shotgun, or third-degree charges) refer to jury instructions given to a hung jury urging them to agree on a verdict. Allen charges are controversial as some claim they overly pressure parts of the jury to change their opinions and cave to peer pressure, especially minority opinions.

Allen charge

www.law.cornell.edu

I'm far from being a scholar in any shape or form but I know if the jury tell the judge they can't be unanimous, he'll send them back in after telling them to try harder (in a nice way), at least once and maybe twice.

 

[Salah11]

I'm far from being a scholar in any shape or form but I know if the jury tell the judge they can't be unanimous, he'll send them back in after telling them to try harder (in a nice way), at least once and maybe twice.

Yep I had this in the U.K. and my case wasn’t anywhere near as serious as this one. One person was completely unreasonable and no matter what wouldn’t agree so in the end after the judge realized that was the case he said as long as the majority of us agreed he would accept that verdict so 11/1 was our vote on guilty. But we was sent back for a day to argue and hit our head against a brick wall first.

 

[Montrealaise]

July 30

Don and Gail ring Simon, complaining of serious illness. They travel via ambulance to Dandenong Hospital.

Simon picks up Heather and Ian, taking them to Korumburra Hospital, then Leongatha Hospital.

Erin allegedly tells one of her children she feels unwell, and spends the day running errands with

her children before serving them a meal she says is leftovers from the lunch.

Ms Patterson told a Supreme Court jury in Morwell that she fed her children leftovers from the beef

Wellington lunch the following night

But had scraped the mushroom paste off the meat



August 1

Heather and Ian arrive at Austin Hospital.

Despite escalating medical treatment, Donald, Gail and Heather continue to deteriorate.

Erin is assessed by a doctor at Monash, who says she appears clinically well and all her vital signs are within normal limits. She is discharged from hospital about 1pm.

The Department of Health interviews Erin about the lunch.

She says she bought dried mushrooms from an Asian grocer in Melbourne's southeast


But she had already scraped off the mushroom paste, BEFORE the hospital realised it was death cap mushroom poisoning.

How could she not know? It could have been the meat, not the scraped-off mushrooms, that made everyone sick?


She needs to explain this. How did she know it was the mushrooms before the hospital did?



She had no problem before, hiding powdered mushrooms in her children's brownies, muffins, etc,

as the children didn't like them, and she wanted them to get the extra nutrients.

(Even though she wasn't worried about them eating rubbishy cakes )

But then scraped the mushroom paste off the leftover lunch meat

Why would you feed your children a meal in the first place that made you sick and that landed your family members in the hospital?

It doesn't make sense..!

Accused killer Patterson fed children leftovers despite illness, court told

Erin Patterson has told a Supreme Court jury that she fed her children the leftovers of a deadly beef Wellington lunch despite experiencing diarrhoea after eating it.

www.abc.net.au

How did she know it was the mushrooms before the hospital did?

That's an excellent point, and I'm not sure whether the prosecutor raised that at any point.

 

[musicaljoke]

I posted some specific examples upthread somewhere, with exact quotes and links.

But just from memory now, there were two 'prosecution' arguments the judge said had to be rejected by the jury.

One argument was that 'the leftover scraped off meat would have been toxic' to the kids. Judge B said that was speculation with no proof offered.

But I pinpointed two places in the trial where the P did offer expert evidence.

One of the doctors testified specifically that her children needed to be examined 'because the meat that she scraped could still be toxic.'

And the fungi expert testified that the Death Caps are dangerous because their poisons are released through fluids when cooking.[And we know the death caps were cooked on top of the beef.]

So the Judge instructed the jury to reject that argument by the P because 'it was speculation' on their part. But the Judge ignored the testimony by the Fungi expert and the Emergency Doctor who both testified to factual evidence that the leftover meat could/would be toxic.

There was another argument they told the jury to reject too but I have to go back upthread to find it.

The lab tested a sample of the meat and found the toxins present. However, the experts did not address the question of whether or not the meat would be permeated because they hadn't been asked that specific detail. It was possible that the toxins were just on the outside of the meat.

Yes, if one ate the leftover meat they would be poisoned due to the known presence of toxins on the outside. However, if the server cut off the outer layer before serving, would toxins still be present? Saying that there would still be toxins is speculative because there was no evidence presented to support that assumption.

So the judge was actually correct to point that out. The comment was regarding the presence of toxins within the meat, vs on the surface of the meat.

I am curious how knowing that bit of info is significant in the events that transpired. I don't see that it is either helpful nor unhelpful for the defence.

 

[Spectrix]

That is why I was surprised that manslaughter wasn't on the table (yet). As is, the jury are looking at murder or accident. imoo.

I found that interesting too being that I would have thought that if, for whatever reason, the jury felt the murder charge was not proven (likely because intent wasn't proven), the only other possibility is accidental poisoning.

Even without intent, Erin's actions caused the death of three, both by foraging wild mushrooms in the first place and by not disclosing to the guests / hospital that the mushrooms were foraged.

Without intent, I think the only possibility for prosecution in Erin's case would have been Involuntary Manslaughter:

Involuntary manslaughter, also recognised under common law and sometimes termed negligent manslaughter, presents a distinct legal category. It entails an unlawful killing without the intent to cause harm or death, typically due to recklessness or negligence on the part of the accused.

To establish guilt in a case of involuntary manslaughter, the prosecution must demonstrate:

• The accused owed a duty of care to the victim(s).
• The accused breached this duty through criminal negligence or an unlawful, dangerous act.
• The breach was conscious and voluntary.
• The breach directly caused the victim’s death.

It carries a maximum sentence of 25 years.
That seems more appropriate than walking free, at least.

.

 

[Lisa4]

How did she know it was the mushrooms before the hospital did?

That's an excellent point, and I'm not sure whether the prosecutor raised that at any point.

I think her story was that she scraped them off because the kids didn't like mushrooms, not because she knew they were bad?

 

[Lisa4]

Yep I had this in the U.K. and my case wasn’t anywhere near as serious as this one. One person was completely unreasonable and no matter what wouldn’t agree so in the end after the judge realized that was the case he said as long as the majority of us agreed he would accept that verdict so 11/1 was our vote on guilty. But we was sent back for a day to argue and hit our head against a brick wall first.

Very interesting. Not a murder trial?

 

[Kittybunny]

Not really. I know someone in court who is hearing the jury charge. The judge is being quite objective in his jury charge, but the MSM who are interested in click-bait headlines, are not quoting verbatim.

I suppose a loose example might be: The media reporting "Judge Beale said that you should find Erin not guilty if you have any doubt" (paraphrasing)
In reality: Reasonable doubt is not "any doubt" - It has to be explained away by reason. What was actually said by judge Beale was much more legal and more precise, in the strict definition of the law in regards to reasonable doubt.

He is a seasoned judge. There is no chance he is going to sway any way. I have faith in the justice system and especially in a highly educated and seasoned judge like Judge Beale.

Thank you for this! I was quite discouraged by what I was reading about the instructions. You have given me hope that justice will be served.

 

[Lisa4]

Not really. I know someone in court who is hearing the jury charge. The judge is being quite objective in his jury charge, but the MSM who are interested in click-bait headlines, are not quoting verbatim.

I meant to say thanks for this too. Had suspected that might be the case but good to have it confirmed.

 

[Lisa4]

That is why I was surprised that manslaughter wasn't on the table (yet). As is, the jury are looking at murder or accident. imoo.

Same, I have puzzled on this one as well.

It is unprecedented in Australia in modern times for a born-and-bred Aussie to serve foraged mushrooms to others. I would say that must be because we all know from an early age (even if only a vague idea) that there's a huge risk.

Any cases that have involved the cook sharing them have been immigrants.

The cooks died too. So there hasn't been anyone left to even consider whether they be put on trial for murder or manslaughter.

 

[jesse]

I’d rather wait for the jury to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to lock EP away for 20+ years. Proving a deliberate vs an accidental act is harder than it looks and I personally don’t think the prosecution's case was as strong as expected, there were holes imho.

I certainly don’t think she’s incompetent and I find your character assassination a little rude at this time.

In Australia, she is still innocent until proven guilty

I think the point is that Erin has admitted to several things that are not in the hands of the jury to decide.

She has admitted to foraging and picking death cap mushrooms.

She has admitted to putting them in a meal she served to four people.

Those are facts not in dispute.

So, in a best case scenario where she's found not guilty, it would still be perfectly reasonable to say she's extremely careless.

 

[Monstradamus]

Considering how much Erin claimed to love mushrooms, isn’t it strange that for the months that those mushrooms sat in the pantry she was never tempted to try them?

Just another odd consistency in her story.

Just waiting for the right moment, I guess. Had to get all of her ducks in a row. The perfect plan. Until it wasn't.
MOO

 

[Scooby-Doo]

How did she know it was the mushrooms before the hospital did?

That's an excellent point, and I'm not sure whether the prosecutor raised that at any point.

No, she didn't. which would have been a good in Dr Roger cross Examination

 

[Scooby-Doo]

Just waiting for the right moment, I guess. Had to get all of her ducks in a row. The perfect plan. Until it wasn't.
MOO

She only told the people at the lunch about the cancer diagnosis. She could have gotten away with that lie if Ian Wilkinson had died


I think she panicked because the hospital figured out very quickly that there were death cap mushrooms in the meal.

She didn’t expect that.

 

[Montrealaise]

No, she didn't. which would have been a good in Dr Roger cross Examination

A missed opportunity for Dr. Roger, who otherwise conducted an excellent cross-examination.