Australia - 3 dead after eating wild mushrooms, Leongatha, Victoria, Aug 2023 #7 *Arrest*

[TootsieFootsie]

New episode of Mushroom Case Daily

14 minute video

Patterson no longer charged with trying to kill husband - ABC listen

Erin Patterson's jury has been picked and the judge has explained how some of the original attempted murder charges have been dropped.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Salah11]

New episode of Mushroom Case Daily

14 minute video

Patterson no longer charged with trying to kill husband - ABC listen

Erin Patterson's jury has been picked and the judge has explained how some of the original attempted murder charges have been dropped.

www.abc.net.au

Oh wow the charges against her husband have been dropped. That’s crazy

 

[JBowie]

With the charges about SP dropped, the prosecution won't be able to use any "ramping up" theory. Which is what I personally thought about those earlier alleged incidents and then the later deaths and near-death.

The deaths and the near-death will have to stand on their own.

imo

Dropped with or without prejudice I wonder. Without prejudice would allow the prosecution to press them again should a not guilty verdict be returned in the "main" case.

 

[Bats]

It's very hard to put something out of your mind - guaranteed to keep said thing popping up regularly.

That's probably true for an individual but as they are all working together to form a single conclusion, it shouldn't be too hard for them to focus on only the information they are allowed to consider.

 

[Kemug]

Dropped with or without prejudice I wonder. Without prejudice would allow the prosecution to press them again should a not guilty verdict be returned in the "main" case.

But if she is found guilty of the 3 murder cases (plus the 1 who nearly died), then could she be tried for the possible attempted murder (3×) of her husband? Surely if she is found to be a murderer, then it is much more likely that she did attempt to murder her husband?

 

[JBowie]

But if she is found guilty of the 3 murder cases (plus the 1 who nearly died), then could she be tried for the possible attempted murder (3×) of her husband? Surely if she is found to be a murderer, then it is much more likely that she did attempt to murder her husband?

Note that I said should a not guilty verdict be returned in the "main" case.

I think the prosecution would be well satisfied with a guilty verdict in that case and leave it there as the sentence would likely be a lengthy one.

 

[Salah11]

It will be very interesting to hear what they have on her and hopefully we hear after the trial why they dropped the charges on the husband.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

I don't think they had the evidence needed for the charges they dropped.
And if they didn't have the evidence needed, maybe it could have possibly been because she didn't do it.

As for the other charges, I guess we'll see what actual evidence they have.

She either is innocent or guilty. That's for the court to decide.

Whatever the verdict I hope it's correct.

 

[SouthAussie]

It will be very interesting to hear what they have on her and hopefully we hear after the trial why they dropped the charges on the husband.

My opinion only - if the police couldn't directly connect the alleged previous attempts against her husband with the 3 deaths and near-death in the current trial, I think Colin Mandy SC would have fought long and hard to have these charges excluded as prejudicial.

@JBowie raised a good point ... were the charges dropped with or without prejudice?

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Erin Patterson no longer accused of attempting to kill husband as mushroom murders trial begins

Victorian supreme court judge tells jury that charges relating to Simon Patterson have been dropped

www.theguardian.com

A court transcript of the jury empanelment, released by the court on Tuesday night, shows that the evidence in the case is that Simon was also invited to the lunch on 29 July 2023.

 

[JBowie]

New episode of Mushroom Case Daily

14 minute video

Patterson no longer charged with trying to kill husband - ABC listen

Erin Patterson's jury has been picked and the judge has explained how some of the original attempted murder charges have been dropped.

www.abc.net.au

Interesting to learn from this podcast that the jury will be sequestered (kept in isolation) while they consider their verdict.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

It will be very interesting to hear what they have on her and hopefully we hear after the trial why they dropped the charges on the husband.

IANAL but always thought raising the charges re the husband was ludicrous and grasping. By which I mean, even if EP is found guilty on all counts re the deceased relatives from her lunch, there would still be zero evidence that she poisoned her ex husband on previous occasions.

Unless of course there is literal evidence (for example retained pathology samples and other forms of proof) in which case that should be surely tried separately as ex was not present on the day of the incident relating to these deaths and did not digest the food prepared in this case.

JMO MOO

 

[katydid23]

With the charges about SP dropped, the prosecution won't be able to use any "ramping up" theory. Which is what I personally thought about those earlier alleged incidents and then the later deaths and near-death.

The deaths and the near-death will have to stand on their own.

imo

I think that's going to be a problem for the prosecution. If the jury could hear about her previously trying to poison her husband, it follows more logically that she might continue on that trajectory and plan a poisonous lunch menu, for him and his family.

But now, without that, and with him cancelling his lunch visit, what's the impetus of her feeding a deadly meal to his family?

 

[Salah11]

I think that's going to be a problem for the prosecution. If the jury could hear about her previously trying to poison her husband, it follows more logically that she might continue on that trajectory and plan a poisonous lunch menu, for him and his family.

But now, without that, and with him cancelling his lunch visit, what's the impetus of her feeding a deadly meal to his family?

Yes, we need a motive for why she decided to poison 4 people and if it wasn’t about her ex-husband, what had these people done to upset her so massively?

I am assuming we are in for some bombshells.

IMO

 

[JBowie]

But now, without that, and with him cancelling his lunch visit, what's the impetus of her feeding a deadly meal to his family?

The timing of that cancellation will be important. He may have cancelled at the last minute in which case cancelling the entire prepared meal for those present would have been awkward, to say the least.

Speculation: In that circumstance, maybe she thought that they (including her) will 'just' get sick and she could blame food poisoning for it.

If I follow that line of thought, then the fact that so many actually died sort of suggests that she accidentally overdosed them. Hmmm.

The Prosecution will have to come up with a motive, or motives. That's going to be very interesting to hear.

 

[Salah11]

The timing of that cancellation will be important. He may have cancelled at the last minute in which case cancelling the entire prepared meal for those present would have been awkward, to say the least.

Speculation: In that circumstance, maybe she thought that they (including her) will 'just' get sick and she could blame food poisoning for it.

If I follow that line of thought, then the fact that so many actually died sort of suggests that she accidentally overdosed them. Hmmm.

She had a Labrador, so it would have been easier enough to say the dog got up on the counter and ate lunch.

If she was genuinely intending to poison her husband, and he cancelled, and she still went ahead with the lunch, I hope she gets the harshest punishment. I believe she had an issue with his entire family and had reached breaking point.

IMO

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Yes, we need a motive for why she decided to poison 4 people and if it wasn’t about her ex-husband, what had these people done to upset her so massively?

I am assuming we are in for some bombshells.

IMO

JMO but, if guilty, I think she probably hoped to make everyone either only slightly poorly in a way that wouldn't be so dramatic and remain undetected -or- had an idea that this type of poison would cause long slow acting organ failure over coming months and years to the point where again it would remain likely undetected (elderly people dying of complex causes over time).

Either that or, if guilty, maybe she went it to 'F everyone' mode and decided to wipe the whole lot of them out and tot heck with the consequences. Sometimes, I do get the impression that's what some murderers do - a sort of homicidal / suicidal state. Then they still go into cover up mode and try to evade detection, maybe as something shifts after the fact. Just speculation.

Will be interesting to see what info is put to the court and what scrutiny of electronic devices etc has turned up. JMO MOO

 

[MsMarple]

JMO perhaps control issues regarding the children was one factor that infuriated Erin? She doesn’t strike me as taking criticism, constructive or not, in the same spirit it was dispensed.

Just a thought and MOO. It’s about 4 am Wednesday in Morwell, right?

 

[katydid23]

JMO perhaps control issues regarding the children was one factor that infuriated Erin? She doesn’t strike me as taking criticism, constructive or not, in the same spirit it was dispensed.

Just a thought and MOO. It’s about 4 am Wednesday in Morwell, right?

I do wonder about that as well----did she feel that her in-laws were interfering with her parental decisions? I remember earlier reports about the in-laws discussing with their son, their disappointment about the grandchildren not attending church services, etc. And they hoped he would start pushing for that to happen.

Especially after they saw those drawings on the kitchen wall.

I also wondered if maybe she wanted to move the children to a new city, and start fresh---and may have felt she would be hindered by the family?

 

[SouthAussie]

I do wonder about that as well----did she feel that her in-laws were interfering with her parental decisions? I remember earlier reports about the in-laws discussing with their son, their disappointment about the grandchildren not attending church services, etc. And they hoped he would start pushing for that to happen.

Especially after they saw those drawings on the kitchen wall.

I also wondered if maybe she wanted to move the children to a new city, and start fresh---and may have felt she would be hindered by the family?

Yes, I remember earlier reports that the lunch was about some kind of reconciliation. And then that changed to she had a 'good relationship' with the family.

It could be that the police knew about some kind of trouble between them, but then changed what they were saying to the media because they were in pursuit of a fair trial. Probably asked SP to be quiet also.

imo