GUILTY Australia - 3 dead after eating wild mushrooms, Leongatha, Victoria, Aug 2023 *Arrest* #17

[Porky1]

Or she was blatantly lying about the mushrooms on her property and the dog and it was 'slippage'.

I mean, it's not a long bow to draw. She lied about everything else.

IMO

I don’t look at every scenario as a positive for Prosecution.

 

[Detechtive]

The jury is permitted to deliver a verdict on a Saturday. Justice Christopher Beale instructed the jury to deliberate six days a week, from Monday through Saturday, with Sundays off. Deliberations occur during standard court hours, from 10:30 AM to 4:15 PM, but in this case, those hours were extended to Saturdays too. Once a unanimous verdict is reached, the jury can notify the court by pressing a buzzer, prompting an immediate reconvening to announce the decision. This schedule ensures that verdicts can be delivered on any deliberation day, including Saturdays.

Still, we wait… but here’s what happens when the verdict comes - South Gippsland Sentinel Times

IT’S day three of the jury’s deliberations in the Erin Patterson murder trial at Morwell. But by lunchtime on Wednesday, July 2, there’s still no verdict and no questions either from a jury that has spent two nights sequestered in a Latrobe...

www.sgst.com.au

 

[Detechtive]

In Australia you cant lose your job for being on a jury, regardless if how long the case is. There are massive company/corporate fines if that happens.

I was going to say this too. Employers are required to pay employees the difference between their regular earnings and the amount received for jury service for the entire duration of service, regardless of length.

https://www.juriesvictoria.vic.gov.au/employers/employer-work-and-payment-obligations

 

[Detechtive]

My empathy is for the entire family wiped out and suffering the loss of loved ones due to EP's reckless or intentional behaviour. Not jurors. They will be fine. IMO

 

[Detechtive]

I don’t look at every scenario as a positive for Prosecution.

Nor do I. But she's a compulsive liar, clearly, so nothing she says is of any evidentiary value. IMO

 

[SarahSherlock]

Thank you! I wanted to acknowledge your post. I hope their jobs are safe.

I once saw a Mgr treat a loyal long term colleague poorly by forcing him to use annual leave, his discretion, not policy, when they had longer breaks as the Judge has often done with this case. Sadly, my colleague resigned as a result.

I don’t look at every scenario as a positive for Prosecution.

There is a large gap between being a liar and a killer. She can’t be judged on the lies but on being proved she deliberated set out to kill each person. There perhaps is a tiny bit of doubt - which is causing this to take longer than anticipated. No one wants another Lindy Chamberlain.

 

[Detechtive]

This is nothing like Lindy Chamberlain. That poor woman is a victim of losing her infant from a random attack by a dingo. She isn't the chef who led 3 people to death and one to serious permanent harm.

Nothing alike. IMO

 

[SarahSherlock]

This is nothing like Lindy Chamberlain. That poor woman is a victim of losing her infant from a random attack by a dingo. She isn't the chef who led 3 people to death and one to serious permanent harm.

Nothing alike. IMO

During “that” time, Lindy Chamberlain was convicted via media and public perception. Jurors were very quick to find Lindy Chamberlain guilty. (I didn’t mention the crime being similar-you read that into the narrative) So - again I say, it is a good thing that the Jurors are taking their time. As no one wants another “outcome” like Lindy Chamberlain.

 

[Susjay]

It's so dramatic - 'FAILED to reach a verdict'. I think one of two things is happening: 1) they have mostly decided but want to be thorough and check they haven't missed anything; 2) they're negotiating with the one or two holdouts and understanding what their thinking is and helping persuade them to the majority conensus.

Yes, and, “failed to reach a verdict” is inappropriate. Rather, the jury “has not yet reached a verdict”. The jury has not failed. It is still deliberating.

 

[SarahSherlock]

Yes, and, “failed to reach a verdict” in inappropriate. Rather, the jury “has not yet reached a verdict”. The jury has not failed. It is still deliberating.

 

[Susjay]

It's so dramatic - 'FAILED to reach a verdict'. I think one of two things is happening: 1) they have mostly decided but want to be thorough and check they haven't missed anything; 2) they're negotiating with the one or two holdouts and understanding what their thinking is and helping persuade them to the majority conensus.

It is Channel 7. It has to be dramatic!

 

[SarahSherlock]

Yes, and, “failed to reach a verdict” in inappropriate. Rather, the jury “has not yet reached a verdict”. The jury has not failed. It is still deliberating.

Yes, and, “failed to reach a verdict” in inappropriate. Rather, the jury “has not yet reached a verdict”. The jury has not failed. It is still deliberating.

Yes I think you are spot on.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Erin Patterson has not yet been convicted.
Just saying.

My empathy is with everyone connected to the case.

Plus my respect for the jury for taking their responsibility seriously.

I don't recall saying I had sympathy for the jurors, just respect for how they're going about the deliberations.

 

[Detechtive]

During “that” time, Lindy Chamberlain was convicted via media and public perception. Jurors were very quick to find Lindy Chamberlain guilty. (I didn’t mention the crime being similar-you read that into the narrative) So - again I say, it is a good thing that the Jurors are taking their time. As no one wants another “outcome” like Lindy Chamberlain.

It really does a disservice to Lindy Chamberlain, and to the history of wrongful convictions in Australia to compare her case to Erin Patterson’s. Lindy was the victim of a gross miscarriage of justice: she was vilified in the media, judged for her religion and demeanour, and convicted on flawed forensic evidence with no real motive or opportunity. She lost her baby and then her freedom, only to be exonerated years later when the truth finally emerged.

Erin Patterson’s case, on the other hand, involves multiple confirmed deaths from death cap mushroom poisoning in a meal she served, allegations of inconsistent statements, intentional deception, concealed evidence (including a dumped dehydrator), and evidence/digital tampering. It’s a murder trial based on strong forensic and circumstantial evidence, not public hysteria.

To keep drawing parallels between the two isn’t just inaccurate, it’s a form of historical erasure. It undermines the real injustice Lindy endured and confuses two vastly different situations. IMO

 

[SarahSherlock]

I’m guessing most the people in this thread are Australians - is there anyone working on a Missing person case or a cold case (in Australia) which they would welcome fresh eyes on? If so can you put up a link for me to join.

 

[Bats]

It is Channel 7. It has to be dramatic!

Channel 7 - The media outlet that thought it would be a good idea to include horoscopes in their news coverage.

 

[SarahSherlock]

It really does a disservice to Lindy Chamberlain, and to the history of wrongful convictions in Australia to compare her case to Erin Patterson’s. Lindy was the victim of a gross miscarriage of justice: she was vilified in the media, judged for her religion and demeanour, and convicted on flawed forensic evidence with no real motive or opportunity. She lost her baby and then her freedom, only to be exonerated years later when the truth finally emerged.

Erin Patterson’s case, on the other hand, involves multiple confirmed deaths from death cap mushroom poisoning in a meal she served, allegations of inconsistent statements, intentional deception, concealed evidence (including a dumped dehydrator), and evidence/digital tampering. It’s a murder trial based on strong forensic and circumstantial evidence, not public hysteria.

To keep drawing parallels between the two isn’t just inaccurate, it’s a form of historical erasure. It undermines the real injustice Lindy endured and confuses two vastly different situations. IMO

Yes I think we are going to have to agree to disagree - as you have decided to take it on a different route - instead of understanding and appreciating that lawyers and the judicial system noticed a very strong change - which is the affect (with an a not an e) based on the Lindy Chamberlain trial and jury being quick to deem guilty. As “most” Australians do not want to see an innocent person found guilty again - if they can help it. Perhaps I should have omitted her name so the premise wouldn’t be lost.

 

[Detechtive]

Yes I think we are going to have to agree to disagree - as you have decided to take it on a different route - instead of understanding and appreciating that lawyers and the judicial system noticed a very strong change - which is the affect (with an a not an e) based on the Lindy Chamberlain trial and jury being quick to deem guilty. As “most” Australians do not want to see an innocent person found guilty again - if they can help it. Perhaps I should have omitted her name so the premise wouldn’t be lost.

Honestly, the only real similarity between the two cases is that both women have XX chromosomes. That’s where the comparison ends. One was targeted for who she was. Lindy never lied or tried to obstruct justice, Erin has - extensively. The other is on trial for what she’s alleged to have done. Comparing them because they’re both women only distracts from the actual evidence, and does a disservice to both cases. IMO

 

[SarahSherlock]

Honestly, the only real similarity between the two cases is that both women have XX chromosomes. That’s where the comparison ends. One was targeted for who she was. Lindy never lied or tried to obstruct justice, Erin has - extensively. The other is on trial for what she’s alleged to have done. Comparing them because they’re both women only distracts from the actual evidence, and does a disservice to both cases. IMO

It wasn’t about the “person” it was about how it changed the view of jurors and how they now deliberate.

 

[MrJ]

The difference is that Lindy was exonerated due to compelling evidence and was gracious the whole time. Erin disparaged her family and estranged husband in Facebook group chats, seemingly showed no care when her relatives were in hospital, and tried to hide evidence of any potential wrongdoing. Plus, Lindy is a Christian and never felt the need to make her conversion all about herself. IMO. Anyway that's all I want to say about this