Australia - 3 dead after eating wild mushrooms, Leongatha, Victoria, Aug 2023 #8 *Arrest*

[Bats]

Greg Lynn's story was plausible. Unlikely, but plausible.

We haven't heard Erin Patterson's police interview yet, but I think she's going to have a tough time explaining how she accidentally attended these two exact locations that death caps had been reported growing, accidentally picked them, and then accidentally fed them to her inlaws.

Edit - I'm also keen to hear how she accidentally cured herself of ovarian cancer of the elbow.

The thing with your question, "how is she going to explain how she accidentally picked death cap mushrooms and fed them to her guests" , is that it is not what the jury is being asked.

That's not for her to explain.

 

[al66pine]

I think he's got his measurements wrong. 15cm diameter is more a bread and butter plate size.

@iamshadow21 Yes, more like a B&B plate.
Somewhere in ~ past 25 posts, MSM said the son said they were dinner plates.

I don't trust doing math in my head, so ---

Google Search

15 cm = 5.90551 in.

An infographic shows differing dinner plate sizes over the decades, making the point that bigger plate sizes (purportedly) correspond to increasing obesity:
1960's .......8 1/2 "
1980s.........10"
2000s ........ 11"
2010s..........12"
We might bear in mind ^ is from a co's insta page trumpeting:
"Gastric Sleeve Surgery is a Transformative Weight Loss Procedure"

https://www.instagram.com/360sleeve/p/CO_NYGChZMG/

Following this line of reasoning re plate sizes prompts me to wonder if Erin used plates from decades ago, say, dinnerware inherited from her mother or gr'mother, or a antique set she bought, but this ^ could be baloney.

Like you posted, @iamshadow21, possible that the son incorrectly estimated plate size.
jmo

 

[TootsieFootsie]

If Erin's plate was smaller it may have been a trick some people on a diet use, to make them feel they've had a fuller meal.

 

[Ellery84]

It seems to me that her thoughts did not align very well with reality as it was.

Lets say that her original plan involved poisoning all five lunch guests at once. Did she think they'd all just die and no questions would be asked?

No, I think she was just going to give it a go and wait and see how long it took for the guests to die.

And look, she still may get away with it unless the prosecution can prove intent, IMO.

I say this, as it appears that she was not at all prepared for the barrage of questions by the health authorities - hence the panic, disposing of the dehydrator, hiding of iPads and USB drives, getting rid of her primary phone and SIM.

I don’t think she was prepared for the deployment or the technology dog(s) by Victoria Police.

Let's also consider what she'd do if her original plan had panned out as she expected, would she have stopped, or might she have targeted the rest of the extended family as well?

JMO

Her pattern I think was to start with poisoning Simon, and then she became bolder and more diabolical.

I think when she moved the kids to a new school without her husband’s permission, that was her first step to divorcing Simon’s whole family from hers and the kids’ lives forever.

I believe that if she’s ever allowed out in the community, I think she’ll come for Ian and Simon.

 

[Detechtive]

There were a few times I’ve wondered about Simon, the refusal to split the surgery costs was a red flag for me, referring back to the child support discussion. Those costs aren’t covered by child support. I sensed some petty games and Erin’s frustration, for some, they can be never ending.

The son dropped home after the movies while the daughter stayed, I also wondered whether the son was stepping back, it seems he was aware and perhaps was starting to resent Simon.

Simon is the victim, he lost his parents and Aunt… but I felt he embellished the positive statements about Erin on his first day, to win the jury over, the second day was closer to his natural behaviour and less complementary. A practicing Christian is not enough to put him in the Mr Nice Guy category.

Left field I know but I wonder whether there was any initial investigation to determine whether she could have been setup. He sounds like he had access to the house. He knew she used ground mushrooms.

Victim blaming? Simon is a victim of alleged family annihilation. The most extreme form of domestic violence.

If my ex partner had all of the assets, didn’t work and applied for child support when I was paying the medical bills and school fees, I would most certainly not be paying other costs.

If Erin's plate was smaller it may have been a trick some people on a diet use, to make them feel they've had a fuller meal.

Another stretch.

 

[Cliff Hardy]

There only needs to be 1 juror out of 12 who doesn't think she's guilty for her to remain innocent.

I know it's pedantic, but do you 'remain innocent' or are you 'not guilty?'

 

[Cliff Hardy]

We haven't heard Erin Patterson's police interview yet, but I think she's going to have a tough time explaining how she accidentally attended these two exact locations that death caps had been reported growing.

Being a keen mushroom cook, surely she went to those locations to see exactly what the poison mushrooms looked like in the wild? Thus ensuring that she would be able to readily identify them whenever she went foraging.

Or not!

 

[TootsieFootsie]

In cases where the majority of the public believes someone is not guilty and the verdict turns out to be not guilty, they are more than happy then to proclaim that person innocent.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Erin Patterson triple-murder trial concludes its second week​

The trial, which began on April 29, is expected to run for several more weeks.

A girl's police interview brings 'truth' into focus in mushroom murder trial

The second week of the Erin Patterson murder trial has seen a cavalcade of crucial witnesses, including the daughter of the accused killer.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Cliff Hardy]

In cases where the majority of the public believes someone is not guilty and the verdict turns out to be not guilty, they are more than happy then to proclaim that person innocent.

On that basis, should EP be found not guilty, do you think the public will consider her innocent?

 

[Scooby-Doo]

On that basis, should EP be found not guilty, do you think the public will consider her innocent?

I feel very sorry for her children, they will never be the same

 

[Bats]

I know it's pedantic, but do you 'remain innocent' or are you 'not guilty?'

Haha that's a good question @Cliff Hardy

Well, the way I see it is that when an 'accused' enters a trial they are presumed innocent.

If they are found 'not guilty' (even if 11 jurors think the accused is guilty), then they walk away innocent.

Being 'innocent' of a crime means you haven't been found 'guilty' of a crime. At the end of the day it's just law terminology really isn't it.

Do i think Greg Lynn is innocent of murdering Russell Hill - no. But the fact is, he has been found to be innocent of that crime in "law".

MOO

Side note: the jury's decision is a collective one and really shouldn't be thought of as individuals making their individual minds up.

 

[browneyes]

I think she’s guilty.

 

[Ellery84]

I feel very sorry for her children, they will never be the same

So do I, but the one positive is that they’re still alive, and I presume the child safety department has wrapped resources around them and their carer(s).

I’d Erin gets convicted then she’s a mass murderer - and if she were not to be in jail, if she remained free in the community, how long would it be before she started messing with putting powdered mushrooms in the children’s food without their consent?

Oh hang on, she had already begun to put dried out ground up mushrooms in brownies for them and done taste tests on them, right?

Isn’t that what one of her online friends stated in their evidence?

 

[Scooby-Doo]

On that basis, should EP be found not guilty, do you think the public will consider her innocent?

It would be similar to the Lindy Chamberlain case. If that did happen

 

[JLZ]

Its already been brought up that the jury sometimes can't hear well, which I think is somewhat concerning

They'll get a transcript, but if the jury can't hear, what if the recording device is missing some of the sound as well?

I know of one case where the transcript recorded that the jury found the accused guilty, although the accused and his barrister and the magistrate all thought they heard the verdict "not guilty".

 

[katydid23]

@JBowie - the defence can say nothing for the whole trial. Sometimes that happens! All they would probably want to do in their closing argument is say "...yadda, yadda, yadda...and this is why you should find the defendent innocent", but they actually don't even need to do that if they don't see it necessary.

The onus is wholly on the prosecution.

You, or the jury, don't need to be impressed with the defence's efforts. It's not their job to prove anything or impress anyone.

At the end, you will need to be impressed with the prosecution at how they've made you beyond doubt the accused is guilty ...and currently, she is presumed to be innocent.

Theoretically, you are correct. The defense does not have the burden to 'prove' anything.

And that is especially true when the prosecution is floundering and not able to set forth their case convincingly.

However, when the prosecution has some clear and convincing evidence that is being built brick by brick, that does put some pressure on the defense team to try and nullify and rebut the most important pieces of evidence.

They have tried to do that with some things ----like making the jury question whether EP really did say she actually had cancer rather than she just said she might have it and is being tested etc.

And they tried to deny that there are actually 4 large grey plates so that accusation of one small bright orange plate might be inaccurate?

Also they set out to show that the defendant DID have some symptoms of food poisoning, like gastro problems and dizziness, that next day.

It will be interesting to see how they deal with the disturbing fact that she did nothing to help the doctors when the lunch guests got severely ill and needed an antidote.

 

[Eloise]

They'll get a transcript, but if the jury can't hear, what if the recording device is missing some of the sound as well?

I know of one case where the transcript recorded that the jury found the accused guilty, although the accused and his barrister and the magistrate all thought they heard the verdict "not guilty".

Yeah. I hope that this was rectified and dealt with, and we just didn't get any follow up in the media because it was 'too boring'. Would really be a great shame for there to be a mistrial or something because of a technical flaw in the court set up.

 

[Ellery84]

Theoretically, you are correct. The defense does not have the burden to 'prove' anything.

…..

It will be interesting to see how they deal with the disturbing fact that she did nothing to help the doctors when the lunch guests got severely ill and needed an antidote.

It is highly incriminating. The testimony of all medical, EMT and toxicology witnesses has been very compelling, I think, and has lead me more toward a perception of guilt on the part of the individual accused.

These witnesses are also so impartial, and have no relationship with any of the patients, so they come across to me as particularly important objective witnesses, with no skin in the game.

 

[Detechtive]

No, I think she was just going to give it a go and wait and see how long it took for the guests to die.

And look, she still may get away with it unless the prosecution can prove intent, IMO.



I don’t think she was prepared for the deployment or the technology dog(s) by Victoria Police.


Her pattern I think was to start with poisoning Simon, and then she became bolder and more diabolical.

I think when she moved the kids to a new school without her husband’s permission, that was her first step to divorcing Simon’s whole family from hers and the kids’ lives forever.

I believe that if she’s ever allowed out in the community, I think she’ll come for Ian and Simon.

You used an interesting phrase there "her first step to divorcing Simon's whole family from hers and the kids lives forever"

Except a normal "divorce" would have cost her a lot of her hoarded wealth.

Under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), inheritance is not automatically "excluded" from the property pool in divorce or de facto separation proceedings. It can be included and divided depending on the circumstances.

1.​

• Before the relationship: May be treated as an initial contribution by that party but can still be considered part of the pool.
• During the relationship: Often treated as a joint asset, especially if both benefited from it.
• After separation: May be quarantined or treated as a financial resource, but not guaranteed.

2.​

• If used to buy a home, pay off debt, or benefit both parties, it’s often treated as part of the pool.
• If kept separate, not mixed with joint assets, and not relied upon by both parties, it may be excluded.

That looks like motive, to me. JMO.