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

[SouthAussie]

...... 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

Not every doubt, but every reasonable doubt. There is a difference.

It would be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Or not guilty due to reasonable doubt.

imo

 

[MrJ]

The jury will deliberate every Monday to Saturday from 10:30am until 4:15pm until a verdict is reached.They can return to the courtroom with any questions they may have during that process.

Thanks! We shall have to wait and see today

 

[SouthAussie]

Isn't it a half day, I forget what the hours for deliberation are today. Can someone please remind me?

"Should they not reach a verdict on Friday, the jury may continue its deliberations into Saturday. However, they have discretion about how long they sit for on that day."

Erin Patterson mushroom trial: Jury fails to reach verdict on day five

Follow Daily Mail Australia's live coverage of accused mushroom chef Erin Patterson's murder trial here.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Saturday 10.09 am.
Almost time for todays deliberations to begin.

 

[Clusso]

Saturday 10.09 am.
Almost time for todays deliberations to begin.

Just a couple of questions from a new skeuth...
Do you know where Erin is being remanded? Is she travelling each day from Dame Phyllis Frost Centre each day?
Has her sister Ceinwen been supporting her? She says the Patterson / Wilkinson families is all she's got and she loves them... what about her sister?

 

[Detechtive]

RSBM.

Hmm, this comment had me curious. So, I went back to thread #1. The very first time EP appeared in public in the carport interview.

Post in thread 'Australia - 3 dead after eating wild mushrooms, Leongatha, Victoria, Aug 2023'

Aug 7, 2023

Cook of deadly suspected mushroom meal denies foul play

A woman at the centre of a deadly suspected mushroom poisoning of four people has spoken of her devastation and denied any wrongdoing.

www.perthnow.com.au

• TootsieFootsie

• 

I went through about 50 pages of posts, and I can't find a single one that commented about her looks. Now, I was skimming so it's possible I missed one or two, but that certainly wasn't the general tenor of the thread. In fact, I would say that in the beginning there wasn't a whole lot of consensus as to her culpability. It was mostly just confusion about what could have possibly happened. There were some comments about whether she was really crying or not in that interview, but that's not the same thing.

Maybe the conversation was different on Facebook or Twitter/X, I'm not a regular user of those platforms so I can't say. But I think it's unfair to tar WS users by saying they pre-judged her on the way she looked.

I think it was the mention of Erin being obese. Tootsie disagrees she’s obese. Even though it’s a literal fact.

I think there’s a lot of persecution complex around this case. Poor Erin.

What about poor Don, Heather, Ian, Gail, Simon.

 

[SouthAussie]

Just a couple of questions from a new skeuth...
Do you know where Erin is being remanded? Is she travelling each day from Dame Phyllis Frost Centre each day?

I think most likely Erin has been held at Morwell Community Corrections Service during the trial.

"While not a traditional jail, it provides services for individuals on probation or in community-based programs, as well as holding individuals in custody when court is in session."

Morwell CCS | Corrections Victoria

Morwell CCS location and contact details.

www.corrections.vic.gov.au

 

[HoneyBunOne]

Man, even when there's nothing active happening this thread still travels at lightening speed.

I have a question for us all.

In your opinion, based on what you know of murder cases, or just your gut feeling, if all jurors agreed on a verdict right from the start (guilty or not guilty), how long would the deliberations take, given the huge amount of evidence to go through? It's not like they can all walk into a room, do a show of hands and make a decision on the spot. Given the long and intense wrap up by the judge, and being told to give everything the weight it deserved, they would need to go over all pieces of evidence to ensure all jurors understand what was presented. Bear in mind they only deliberate 4 1/2 hours per day, 6 days a week.

As for me? I have no clue. I've never followed a murder trial this intently, with this much evidence to go through. However, I don't think I'm surprised a verdict has not been found by now, given the short windows of deliberation.

 

[Detechtive]

Man, even when there's nothing active happening this thread still travels at lightening speed.

I have a question for us all.

In your opinion, based on what you know of murder cases, or just your gut feeling, if all jurors agreed on a verdict right from the start (guilty or not guilty), how long would the deliberations take, given the huge amount of evidence to go through? It's not like they can all walk into a room, do a show of hands and make a decision on the spot. Given the long and intense wrap up by the judge, and being told to give everything the weight it deserved, they would need to go over all pieces of evidence to ensure all jurors understand what was presented. Bear in mind they only deliberate 4 1/2 hours per day, 6 days a week.

As for me? I have no clue. I've never followed a murder trial this intently, with this much evidence to go through. However, I don't think I'm surprised a verdict has not been found by now, given the short windows of deliberation.

There’s really no way to predict this. They might have all agreed she was guilty but then had to go through the evidence to ensure they considered reasonable doubt.

Unlike us, they haven’t had the opportunity to tease out the reason for weeks or months because they’ve been forbidden to discuss it, so there’s a lot of discussion to be had. IMO

 

[Scooby-Doo]

Erin Patterson trial: Alleged mushroom killer admits she would have fed meal to ex-partner if he turned up​

Simon's poisonous beef wellington was found in the rubbish bin, with her half safe one

Accused mushroom killer cook Erin Patterson admitted lying to police and conceded she would have fed her ex-partner a sixth beef Wellington meal had he turned up for the lethal lunch.


She told the court she lied to police about owning and using a food dehydrator, an appliance crucial to the case. As her ex-partner’s family were dying in hospital, she told police she had never owned or used a dehydrator, something she says she “lied about” due to a “stupid knee-jerk reaction” from being “scared”.

It is the same Sunbeam food dehydrator police recovered from a tip. Ms Patterson admitted, after leaving hospital in August 2023, to buying an e-waste bag, placing the food dehydrator it it and dumping the evidence at a tip.

The mother of two previously told the court how she would conduct “experiments” in her dehydrator. She said sometimes after drying mushrooms, she would put them into her Thermomix, reduce them to dust and sprinkle it in foods to feed to her children. This was something she recalled doing on multiple occasions, hiding mushrooms in “spaghetti, lasagne, stew (and) brownies”.

The prosecution, however, alleged Ms Patterson was conducting her “experiments” to perfect the process of drying mushrooms and had been calculating the “fatal dose” needed to kill her lunch guests.

“I suggest that you were weighing these death cap mushrooms so that you could calculate the weight required for the administration of a fatal dose,” lead prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC said. “Agree or disagree?” she asked.

“Disagree,” Ms Patterson replied.

The court was shown an image of mushrooms on the shelves of her food dehydrator, which was placed on a set of scales. Metadata showed the image was last modified on May 4, 2023.

Redirect Notice

 

[Detechtive]

However the judge has not yet put this on the table, nor has he even mentioned it. So at this stage, manslaughter is not an issue.

I believe it is automatically an option in Victoria, unless the judge specifically excludes it. IMO

 

[Scuffy35]

Man, even when there's nothing active happening this thread still travels at lightening speed.

I have a question for us all.

In your opinion, based on what you know of murder cases, or just your gut feeling, if all jurors agreed on a verdict right from the start (guilty or not guilty), how long would the deliberations take, given the huge amount of evidence to go through? It's not like they can all walk into a room, do a show of hands and make a decision on the spot. Given the long and intense wrap up by the judge, and being told to give everything the weight it deserved, they would need to go over all pieces of evidence to ensure all jurors understand what was presented. Bear in mind they only deliberate 4 1/2 hours per day, 6 days a week.

As for me? I have no clue. I've never followed a murder trial this intently, with this much evidence to go through. However, I don't think I'm surprised a verdict has not been found by now, given the short windows of deliberation.

I think a minimum of a week. Each of the defence and prosecution took a few days that were each highlighting the areas more important to their side of the case. The judge also took a week to go through it all. I believe they have two document folders to go through, one for the judges charge/directions and the other is the chronology.

This is not even mentioning the mountains of transcripts from all the testimony so far. They may be going over specific transcripts as the different topics of evidence is discussed.

 

[tmar]

Let’s hope today is the day that Simon and his family get justice. I can not begin to imagine the agony as days pass without a verdict.

Many here, not being family, want justice for the deaths of these innocent people.
So, imagine how family are feeling, waiting so long after the horrid meal, for an answer.

 

[Bats]

Man, even when there's nothing active happening this thread still travels at lightening speed.

I have a question for us all.

In your opinion, based on what you know of murder cases, or just your gut feeling, if all jurors agreed on a verdict right from the start (guilty or not guilty), how long would the deliberations take, given the huge amount of evidence to go through? It's not like they can all walk into a room, do a show of hands and make a decision on the spot. Given the long and intense wrap up by the judge, and being told to give everything the weight it deserved, they would need to go over all pieces of evidence to ensure all jurors understand what was presented. Bear in mind they only deliberate 4 1/2 hours per day, 6 days a week.

As for me? I have no clue. I've never followed a murder trial this intently, with this much evidence to go through. However, I don't think I'm surprised a verdict has not been found by now, given the short windows of deliberation.

Just my opinion and from my experience of being a juror in a murder trial.

The one requirement of the jury is to make a unanimous decision. If they can't do that then they've failed. So, it is important that very early on they all know where each other is at in terms of who thinks what. Some may still be undecided. Very quickly, if not straight away they would realise its important to know where each other is at because otherwise they are just wasting time. They've all been sitting there for 10 weeks or so, so would be pretty keen to get to the business.

To answer your question about if all jurors agreed right from the start, my feeling is that they would definitely still be going through the requirements of the charge (if guilty) or the judge's directions but certainly wouldn't need to take too long going through everything. They don't need to talk themselves out of the decision but definitely need to do some checking to make sure they've clearly made the right decision.

It there are disagreements, then they'll be going over the points of contention, and that could take a while!

The fewer jurors that are against the majority, the more the pressure will build on those people or that person. Though, from my experience, considering what they've all been through, they'll all be very supportive of each other, even if there is stubbornness within the group. They've been through the trenches together and need to get out in tact.

It is an enormous mental burden for jurors and I can imagine this case will have taken its toll an a few of them already.

All my opinion

 

[TootsieFootsie]

If there are any so called hold outs, maybe they think they would be going against their principles if they just gave up and voted with the majority.

If I was in that position I don't think I'd like myself very much for voting for something that was not my true opinion.

This is someone's life you have in your hands.

 

[Bats]

If there are any so called hold outs, maybe they think they would be going against their principles if they just gave up and voted with the majority.

If I was in that position I don't think I'd like myself very much for voting for something that was not my true opinion.

This is someone's life you have in your hands.

Yes, in that regard, it's a real test of patience for each of them. From my experience, its a matter of listing the reasons why and going through each of them.

I think everyone has principles and certainly don't enjoy going against them, however, its a matter of working through the problems methodically, which they will do.

At the end of the day, a jury decision is closer to a mathematical problem than one of dealing with principles, in my opinion.

 

[Monstradamus]

Just a couple of questions from a new skeuth...
Do you know where Erin is being remanded? Is she travelling each day from Dame Phyllis Frost Centre each day?
Has her sister Ceinwen been supporting her? She says the Patterson / Wilkinson families is all she's got and she loves them... what about her sister?

She stays in a cell in Morwell during the week, and heads back to her holiday home at Dame Phyllis Frost in Melbourne on the weekends. But not this weekend
I believe her sister is taking a long break, far, far away atm.
MOO

 

[TootsieFootsie]

For me the trial would be personal if I felt pressured to vote against my true beliefs.

I really doubt that I could abandon my true opinion, even if it made it easier to get to a verdict.
No I couldn't do it.

 

[HoneyBunOne]

If there are any so called hold outs, maybe they think they would be going against their principles if they just gave up and voted with the majority.

If I was in that position I don't think I'd like myself very much for voting for something that was not my true opinion.

This is someone's life you have in your hands.

I agree. I find it horrifying that the 12 jurors can have differing opinions on guilt and the minority get guided, pressured, whatever you want to call it, to come around to the others way of thinking. This seems a lot like herd mentality, and when someone's life is on the line, it beggars belief.

 

[australianwebsleuth]

I agree. I find it horrifying that the 12 jurors can have differing opinions on guilt and the minority get guided, pressured, whatever you want to call it, to come around to the others way of thinking. This seems a lot like herd mentality, and when someone's life is on the line, it beggars belief.

In hung juries, ultimately, the difference between innocence or guilt comes down to the personality of the people in the room. Having pushovers makes a verdict more likely. Having obstinate jurors makes a verdict less likely.