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

[Detechtive]

I get your point, but while the legacy of Lindy Chamberlain's case may have influenced broader judicial caution, using her example to contextualise Erin Patterson’s trial risks misleading people into thinking they’re similarly vulnerable to public bias or error, when in reality, the facts and legal footing are completely different. That’s where the problem lies in this perspective. IMO

 

[JBowie]

I'm imagining this scenario: all jurors may feel that she is definitely responsible for the deaths of 3 people but cannot accept that it was accidental and, given that, they are mulling over is it murder or manslaughter.

However, I could be completely wrong and they may well be split 50/50 on everything.

I opined earlier that, given the tech complexity of this case together with the judge's extensive list of do's and don'ts, this could result in a hung jury and therefore a mistrial.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

During my job back when Lindys trial was on,
I was in retail sales and spoke to hundreds of people a day.

I didn't come across even one other person who thought like me that she didn't do it.

Everyone was convinced, right from the first photos of her, looking not like she was expected to look.

Kind of like the way everyone has pounced on Erin Patterson for how she looked.
From the first look at her, even before any evidence was known, she was guilty, you could just take one look and you knew.

Sadly all these years and it seems nothing has changed.

 

[Detechtive]

I'm imagining this scenario: all jurors may feel that she is definitely responsible for the deaths of 3 people but cannot accept that it was accidental and, given that, they are mulling over is it murder or manslaughter.

However, I could be completely wrong and they may well be split 50/50 on everything.

I opined earlier that, given the tech complexity of this case together with the judges extensive list of do's and don'ts, this could result in a hung jury and therefore a mistrial.

It might simply be a complex case with a lot of evidence to work through. The length of deliberations doesn’t necessarily suggest anything beyond that, IMO.

 

[JBowie]

During my job back when Lindys trial was on,
I was in retail sales and spoke to hundreds of people a day.

I didn't come across even one other person who thought like me that she didn't do it.

Everyone was convinced, right from the first photos of her, looking not like she was expected to look.

Kind of like the way everyone has pounced on Erin Patterson for how she looked.
From the first look at her, even before any evidence was known, she was guilty, you could just take one look and you knew.

Sadly all these years and it seems nothing has changed.

Frankly, there are so many differences between the two cases as regards the actions of the accused and the evidence laid by the prosecution that I cannot put both on the same level at all.

The media, especially those categorized as tabloids, will beat up any major story. That's what they have done since they were invented. Screaming headlines sell newspapers/subscriptions.

And yes, crowds do cheer executions.

 

[Detechtive]

Can see what you are saying - but bias is only in the eye of the beholder - and bias can be via the media or peer pressure. Instead of leaving it soley up to the jury to decide. I don’t know how old you were during the Lindy Chamberlain trial - I was fairly active (with work) and saw people in heated discussions - condemning her. People even using her religion to say that the name of her baby meant sacrifice. People believed this with a passion - the jury later disclosed they felt “pushed” to find Lindy guilty……if we now remove Lindy’s name and replace it with Erin…maybe Erin has learning difficulties, maybe Erin put the mushrooms in the wrong plastic container maybe maybe maybe … we don’t know - the decision is fully up to the Jury - and the jury are more than likely taking their time as they want to satisfy every doubt they have - to either find her guilt or innocent - thank God we aren’t on the jury - as it would be a lot to live with

I see what you're saying, but bias isn't just subjective. It becomes a problem when it overrides facts. Erin's case involves hard evidence - toxicology, confirmed deaths, a dumped dehydrator, deleted messages, and shifting accounts.

The jury’s doing the right thing by taking their time, however comparing this to Lindy risks confusing prejudice with proof, and they’re world's apart. IMO

 

[katydid23]

I think in this case they can give their verdict on Saturday. Judge Beale made those days/hours and if the jury had made a decision on Saturday, it wouldn't make sense to keep them there until Monday. Stranger things have happened, though. MOO.

Do you have a source re reading the verdict on a Saturday?

Here is the post I saw in the prior thread---copy/pasted it:

• Yesterday at 3:00 PM

Heard on the radio last night that while the jury can keep deliberating this afternoon and Saturday, the verdict can only be handed down during the usual times the court is in session. So if we haven't heard anything by 1.15pm today, we'll have to wait until next week.

 

[SarahSherlock]

During my job back when Lindys trial was on,
I was in retail sales and spoke to hundreds of people a day.

I didn't come across even one other person who thought like me that she didn't do it.

Everyone was convinced, right from the first photos of her, looking not like she was expected to look.

Kind of like the way everyone has pounced on Erin Patterson for how she looked.
From the first look at her, even before any evidence was known, she was guilty, you could just take one look and you knew.

Sadly all these years and it seems nothing has changed.

Agree as it was a very full on time.

 

[katydid23]

Here is the post I saw in the prior thread---copy/pasted it:

• Yesterday at 3:00 PM

Heard on the radio last night that while the jury can keep deliberating this afternoon and Saturday, the verdict can only be handed down during the usual times the court is in session. So if we haven't heard anything by 1.15pm today, we'll have to wait until next week.

THIS^^^^ makes sense to me because the usual staff/workers/employees are probably not there on Saturday. And I think they'd need all the bailiffs, court reporters, etc if a Verdict is being read.

 

[Detechtive]

Agree as it was a very full on time.

It was also 40 years ago. The legal system isn’t perfect, but it has evolved, and this isn’t the 1980s anymore.

 

[MrJ]

Frankly, there are so many differences between the two cases as regards the actions of the accused and the evidence laid by the prosecution that I cannot put both on the same level at all.

I agree with this. And honestly I get it to some degree. People would like to think that women aren't alleged perpetrators of violence (poisoning is still violence, just look at the effects on the body). They'd like to believe that a random suburban mum always has pure intentions. But as we've seen with Lori Vallow and what Casey Anthony is alleged to have done but not convicted of, there are exceptions. Erin's actions stand out to me as an attempt to hinder an active investigation IMO, it's really poor behaviour from someone who apparently loved her in-laws. Nothing at all like the Chamberlain case. Anyone is capable of doing something unexpected in the public sense; some are just better at letting things that bother them go. MOO. Men are overwhelmingly the main perpetrators of violence. However, we would be remiss to ignore the fact that women do things like that as well.

 

[potr]

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.

But it HAS happened again and again and again....and not always because it was a woman who the press judged based upon their demeanour, body type, face, perceived beauty....
• Before Lindy but not exonerated til after - John Button who was convicted of one of Eric Edgar Cooke's crime's - took 37 years to get that one fixed;
• Similarly Darryl Beamish...who was imprisoned from 1961 til 1977 - almost executed and not exonerated until 2005.
• Andrew Mallard was convicted and imprisoned from 1995 until 2006 when his conviction was quashed
strangely enough all these just three came from WA
WA was well on the way to doing it again when they were trying to "get" poor Lance Williams for the CSK.

 

[SarahSherlock]

It was also 40 years ago. The legal system isn’t perfect, but it has evolved, and this isn’t the 1980s anymore.

That was the premise of the original comment which you disagreed about and “Lindy is different”. It wasn’t about Lindy but how we have evolved “since” that case and so has our mindset as jurors. It no longer is based on the public or peer persona. That was the original premise of the statement. That it isn’t that era anymore - and what helped change that - was the Lindy trial

 

[SarahSherlock]

But it HAS happened again and again and again....and not always because it was a woman who the press judged based upon their demeanour, body type, face, perceived beauty....
• Before Lindy but not exonerated til after - John Button who was convicted of one of Eric Edgar Cooke's crime's - took 37 years to get that one fixed;
• Similarly Darryl Beamish...who was imprisoned from 1961 til 1977 - almost executed and not exonerated until 2005.
• Andrew Mallard was convicted and imprisoned from 1995 until 2006 when his conviction was quashed
strangely enough all these just three came from WA
WA was well on the way to doing it again when they were trying to "get" poor Lance Williams for the CSK.

Lindy was in the NT - but yes great pick up! I once heard a very learned friend say, “the problem with Australia is not that convicts arrived by boat - but that wardens did”.

 

[MrJ]

Anyway, I'm going to hope that the jurors will be able to come to a unanimous verdict on the weekend. Who knows though

 

[Salah11]

Anyway, I'm going to hope that the jurors will be able to come to a unanimous verdict on the weekend. Who knows though

I am growing more concerned as the days go by.

Hopefully it’s a hung jury if she isn’t found guilty so there is a round 2.

 

[Bats]

THIS^^^^ makes sense to me because the usual staff/workers/employees are probably not there on Saturday. And I think they'd need all the bailiffs, court reporters, etc if a Verdict is being read.

I could be wrong but I'd expect the judge will have notified staff they will be required on Saturdays (during deliberation), as soon as it was decided the jury were to be sequestered.

The jury are at the top of the pecking order. If they have reached a verdict tomorrow, then the court will sit tomorrow. Well at least that’s how i think it will go.

MOO

 

[Bats]

I could be wrong but I'd expect the judge will have notified staff they will be required on Saturdays (during deliberation), as soon as it was decided the jury were to be sequestered.

The jury are at the top of the pecking order. If they have reached a verdict tomorrow, then the court will sit tomorrow. Well at least that’s how i think it will go.

MOO

Replying to my own post...

....adding to the above...if the jury have a question tomorrow, then the full court must assemble.

JMO

 

[SarahSherlock]

Replying to my own post...

....adding to the above...if the jury have a question tomorrow, then the full court must assemble.

JMO

That’s interesting - thank you for that

 

[jesse]

I copied my post over because it was near the end of the last thread and I really want to acknowledge the jurors.


I hope none of the jurors lost their jobs over taking time off work.
I have heard it has happened in the past.

I also hope it hasn't affected their finances too much.
I hope it hasn't affected their personal and family life too much also

Well done to the jurors whatever the verdict.

Are jobs not protected while jurors are on duty?