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

[Scuffy35]

the general advice is: only discuss the things the jury have been told in court. ...

But if we are giving our opinion on these things, we are implying a guilt or innocence, hence having an opinion based discussion is difficult, or maybe even impossible, with this rule from Australian law.

 

[JBowie]

He killed 10 people unintentionally and negligently.

Negligently understates it. Given the evidence of his long addiction to overdosing on Tramadol and the massive grief he caused, IMO his grossly negligent employer should be in the cell alongside him, also for 32 years.

 

[Ellery84]

But if we are giving our opinion on these things, we are implying a guilt or innocence, hence having an opinion based discussion is difficult with this rule from Australian law.

Sub judice will be lifted pretty soon - not long to go.

IMO

 

[Susjay]

I wonder how close that relationship really is

I would say there’s no honour among thieves - if you get my gist.

 

[Susjay]

There probably is, but I don't think they want to distract with bringing in what happened to Simon in the past, sadly.

I think when you add the phone data to other parts of the puzzle, as Dr Rogers says, it fits together. When parts of the puzzle speak to each other - well you get a picture. I think the picture tells a compelling story.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

The real issue is that they are missing that one big irrefutable piece of evidence that makes a case a slam dunk.

They have a lot, but much of it, eg the cell phone data pings, isn’t robust enough to fully withstand the defence picking holes in it — which Mandy did a great job of IMO.

I wonder if there are pieces of evidence, such as relating to her alleged poisoning of SP, that could be brought in a retrial to swing the balance.

I myself find I’m stuck in a middle limbo land right now of feeling personally convinced she did it, but not entirely convinced the prosecution have proven it beyond reasonable doubt.

Absolutely.

When I consider the reasons I would find most convincing that she did it, I don't think the jury will be necessarily looking at them the same way.

With a tragedy like this, the person responsible needs to be given a significant benefit of the doubt to be believed that they are innocent. Tragedies and accidents do happen, no matter how bizarre, and I would hope that I would've earned that benefit as somebody who has literally never done anything.

I don't find EPs story in itself that implausible as a scenario. Somebody absolutely could accidentally add in DC mushrooms and then in a panic make terrible choices. Coincidences can and do happen, and on their own are not proof. Obviously, to believe them you'd have to give that person significant benefit of the doubt.

Where that absolutely ended for me personally, was with Simon's mystery illness. That it far too beyond the realms of normal levels of coincidence that her story can be given benefit of the doubt. When you factor in the mountain of lies that have since followed, there really is an element of why would you believe anything this person says. It also makes you look at other coincidences more sceptically like the purchasing of the dehydrator.

Evidence wise, the part I find most convincing is the medical evidence: the lack of significant illness, liver damage and how it has been established on here that throwing up etc would have had very little effect on lessening the symptoms.

These two main points are not as available to the jury. They shouldn't know about Simon, and the defence has left it a very real possibility that she could have avoided significant illness.

Without these two pillars, I think if I was on that jury I'd be finding it harder to get past reasonable doubt. Maybe I still would, but it would be harder that's for sure.

 

[jesse]

My feeling is that the whole prosecution case was to prove intent. Her lies were the main focus of the trial.

IMO, the prosecution can't really focus on the intent but also that it may have been a careless accident (manslaughter) at the same time.

Right, they can't focus on it but why isn't it an option for the jury? They could say, well, we can't all agree on intent, but we can agree (because it's not on dispute) that she did put DC mushrooms in the meals.

 

[jesse]

So why did Erin lie about that and say she served them 'scraped off' leftovers?

Because she wanted to establish that she had *no idea* there were toxins in the meal. Of course not, I fed them to my children!

But she didn't.

 

[jesse]

I don't think that "causing grievous bodily harm with intent" has been proven. Maybe the intention was to cause some short term illness and discomfort. The lesser offence of "recklessly causing grievous bodily harm" would then apply, but she hasn't been charged with this. Without establishing motive it is difficult in this case to prove intent. If Erin had anticipated death or serious injury she would have known to expect a police investigation and would have taken advance steps to dispose of crucial evidence such as phones and the dehydrator.

Imo, she's too intelligent and too much of a "researcher" to not have been fully aware of what she was doing.

 

[jesse]

I don't remember saying that about Erin's defence advising her not to mention the scraped off left overs. It might have been Jesse?

I don't think it was me who said that. I have no idea what the defense would have told her about it.

I do remember that EP was asked about it on the stand and couldn't recall telling the kids that they were "lunch leftovers". She said she told them they were just "leftovers".

But the kids said they were told it was lunch leftovers, so she either told them that or that's the way they received it.

 

[jesse]

There must have been another purchase of meat in order to have some for the children's dinner.

She bought 10 filets. We know that because there are receipts.

 

[musicaljoke]

She bought 10 filets. We know that because there are receipts.

Thank you Jesse, I missed that detail. Thank you for clarifying it.

 

[Puzzles]

I don’t think innocent people tell lie after lie after lie. If I was on the jury, I would not take very long to reach my verdict.

In spite of explanations she is not on trial for lying, and admonishments not to consider her lies prove her guilt of murdering her "loved ones", your statement of "I don’t think innocent people tell lie after lie after lie." is irrefutable. (imo)

 

[Spectrix]

When mushrooms are cooked they release juices---Death Caps release toxic juices. Raw beef is very porous. If mushrooms are on top of raw beef, and they are in an oven cooking together, doesn't it seem likely that those toxic juices are going to infiltrate that beef?

To add to katy's point, it wasn't just deathcap mushrooms, but powdered deathcap mushrooms. If Erin had actually scraped any mushrooms off, it would have been the button mushrooms (the only type of mushroom flesh that was visible in the leftovers according to the Mycologist).

The notion that Erin or her kids could avoid being poisoned by a tainted wellington just because the non poisonous button mushrooms were scraped off is ridiculous. Especially since the information came from Erin herself, who repeatedly lied to family members, to health officials, to child protective services, to the police, and to the court.

For those that still see truth in this story, ask yourself this:
Would you be happy to eat the meat out of a leftover wellington that was crammed full of powdered deathcaps and cooked in the oven?
It's okay, you can scrape the button mushrooms off the top first.

.

 

[CityKid]

That was a big shocker; that Erin essentially called her kids liars. “Mistaken” is close enough. So not one but both kids told the forensic interviewers they saw plates that never existed, were told not to attend the lunch due to “adult” conversation being planned, and several other flawed memories? They’re not toddlers who can’t remember events.

Then to compound the lies/flawed memories of Ian, Simon and various medical professionals and health department officials makes one wonder how all these people can even function if their recollections are so weak.

Nah…

But then also believe what the kids said when the daughter said EP used the toilet 10 times? Doesn't make sense. Unless the daughter were monitoring EP, she would have only come up with a specific number if it's what EP told her. MOO

 

[CityKid]

Also, EP is a wealthy woman. Her children can eat well. Why on earth would she be scraping bits of food off other people's meals for them to eat pieces and scraps? Doesn't add up.

JMO MOO

Especially when she testified that she bought five 2-packs of steaks and would have had enough plain, non-Wellingtoned, non-scraped steaks to make for the children.

 

[Deleted member 363451]

I don't think it was me who said that. I have no idea what the defense would have told her about it.

I do remember that EP was asked about it on the stand and couldn't recall telling the kids that they were "lunch leftovers". She said she told them they were just "leftovers".

But the kids said they were told it was lunch leftovers, so she either told them that or that's the way they received it.

Sorry, it turns out it was me afterall.

 

[MrJ]

Good morning. I do hope that there will be a verdict announced today

 

[Salah11]

Good morning. I do hope that there will be a verdict announced today

Same fingers crossed

 

[MrJ]

But at the same time I know that the jury has to be as thorough as they can. However I don't think they want to be sequestered over the weekend. I hope Ian, Simon and the family are holding up as best as they can.

And of course the children. Hope they are being looked after and supported during this time