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

[Bats]

It would be part way through lunch break now.
1.24 pm

Did some searching but couldn't find if they're going through til 4.15 or not.

I think @SouthAussie mentioned earlier that its up to them what time they finish today.

I can't imagine them not wanting to get on with it though.

 

[SarahSherlock]

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

Fully agree and well said

 

[Susjay]

BBM
It's a good question, but I'd argue how could someone accidently kill 3, almost 4, potentially 5 (if Simon came) and not get incredibly ill herself, or her children or dog who ate remnants of the meal?

One is very hard to imagine, the other is a miracle. MOO

It’s the reason there is so much interest in this case. The prosecution is arguing a heinous act took place. We know such heinous crimes occur. No doubt about it. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t mess with the head and pickle the brain.

 

[Porky1]

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.

Iam glad but it doesn’t stop them forcing employees to use thier annual leave for the court breaks.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

I think @SouthAussie mentioned earlier that its up to them what time they finish today.

Yes I know, I posted that earlier too.
But we don't know for sure what they have decided.

 

[SarahSherlock]

Iam glad but it doesn’t stop them forcing employees to use thier annual leave for the court breaks.

Sorry that happens as it’s very wrong.

 

[Bats]

I agree. I meant one side swaying the other, regardless of which side held the numbers.


I'm sure there's lots of people that probably should not be on juries, but they were picked regardless. It's not like they volunteered.

When I said opinion, I meant based off the information given, not just a reckless thought or feeling. This case has a lot of circumstantial evidence and it's not clear cut. Therefore, jurors are going to potentially have different opinions on whether X,Y and Z equates to guilt or not. Some jurors may feel she's just the unluckiest woman to ever live, yet others may see all the layers of evidence/testimonies/expert opinions/lies and decide she is guilty.

Keep in mind, the number one priority for the jury is to be unanimous.

I can't speak for this jury but in ours there was a lot of appreciation and respect for everyone's individual opinion even if they were different to most. After all, it is the verdict of the jury, not a vote of the individuals, in the end.

Being in a jury definitely feels like you are working as a team, not as individuals. Even though you may have individual opinions.

 

[MIG214222]

I am glad but it doesn’t stop them forcing employees to use their annual leave for the court breaks.

Hi @Porky1,
The law does tho:
"Leave
An employee’s jury service must not be deducted from their annual leave, sick leave, or any other form of leave entitlement."
Resource: Juries Victoria, Employer Information Handbook

MO s

 

[Porky1]

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

<modsnip: personalizing>

She could have panicked and made some very poor decisions under the intense spotlight. Who knows!

 

[Detechtive]

Iam glad but it doesn’t stop them forcing employees to use thier annual leave for the court breaks.

Have you got a link for that? It's simply not true.

 

[BreakingNews]

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.

Luckily I have never found that. It's not about pressuring anyone. If the law is followed to a T, it takes away any personal beliefs. Did the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt. Take into account what the judge tells you. S/he knows the law and advises you. We asked the judge once to clarify beyond reasonable doubt vs just doubts. Helped us make a decision.

The only time I have had problems in a jury was when one or 2 people just said guilty without following the law. Took days for them to see it wasn't about their personal opinion, it was about the law and what was presented to us.

 

[BreakingNews]

There's nothing to say that the minority can't guide the majority to a verdict.

I can definitely imagine that happening and possibly not uncommon.

I have been one of 3 in the minority on a jury once. We ended up with the other 9 on our side. Luckily there were several charges, some we agreed guilty, some not. So it didn't matter much.

 

[MrJ]

Personal attacks would be ep calling Simon a deadbeat, the family as a lost cause, and so on. It could be one off statements or it could be imo views that intensified over time. It is not a personal attack to call ep a liar as she has proven she has told lies. It is not a personal attack to be suspicious of her actions. It is not a personal attack to question things. Her weight has very little to do with things beyond the fact she had self esteem issues. Nothing more

 

[Susjay]

Personal attacks would be ep calling Simon a deadbeat, the family as a lost cause, and so on. It could be one off statements or it could be imo views that intensified over time. It is not a personal attack to call ep a liar as she has proven she has told lies. It is not a personal attack to be suspicious of her actions. It is not a personal attack to question things. Her weight has very little to do with things beyond the fact she had self esteem issues. Nothing more

Also saying Simon was controlling or coercive? Doesn’t really fit?

 

[Kemug]

'...they were served in a Mutton Stew by a Mr Cornelius Patterson who claimed it was a tragedy as he loved the boy.'

Poor little chap.

 

[Detechtive]

People are complex. EP may have had both altruistic AND self-serving impulses. We can't know for sure, and shouldn't have to know in order to evaluate the evidence.

I don't think people are complex. IMO there was no altruism in anything Erin did. Because of her 'bumbling faux histrionic' interviews and obvious mistakes she made post-meal, I think a lot of people have concluded that Erin is stupid or naive, or they retro-justify why someone who made so many mistakes couldn't have reasonably planned this all out - but that's because she didn't anticipate discontinuing to be the puppet master in the family because that is a position she had always held. I don't believe she had the capacity to understand people and their intelligence or empathy because she thinks she is the smartest person to have ever lived, and or she is personality disordered - that hubris blinds people to the human condition, and as a result, how they will react. IMO. I see this in cases where ASPD / Narcissists don't anticipate the human response, because they don't have one themselves.

For example; the Murdaugh case in USA. I think Murdaugh didn't anticipate that his hold on the community and society came completely undone when someone is in the throws of the most devastating human emotional loss they could experience - the death of their child (Malory). At that point, the family had nothing else to lose and social heirachy was no longer a high priority. And that lack of understanding eventually led to his total unravelling, IMO

IMO only.

 

[Kemug]

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.

It's not vengeance that most of us (I think) want, it's justice. As you said. Three wonderful people have died before their time, they would have done so much more good in the rest of their lives, plus being there for their families and for each other. They shouldn't be just swept away with an oops! and forgotten.

 

[tmar]

I guess, no verdict today.
Now. we'll go into next week.

 

[Monstradamus]

It's not vengeance that most of us (I think) want, it's justice. As you said. Three wonderful people have died before their time, they would have done so much more good in the rest of their lives, plus being there for their families and for each other. They shouldn't be just swept away with an oops! and forgotten.

Exactly @Kemug. Justice for Don, Gail, Heather, Ian, Simon and their family and friends. We can't lose sight of the finish line. Everyone is entitled to voice their own opinions about this terrible accidental and / or intentional tragedy. Looks like the Jury is done for the week.

 

[SouthAussie]

Not much in the news today, just the Australian commenting that today is 45 days since the trial began.



The jury in the mushrooms murder trial is deliberating on Saturday, five days after retiring to reach a verdict in the case.

The seven men and five women were meeting after retiring at 1.01pm on Monday, with Saturday marking the 45th day since the trial began.

It is not unusual for lengthy deliberations but the jury will need to come to a unanimous agreement over whether or not Erin Trudi Patterson, 50, of Leongatha, is guilty of murdering Don and Gail Patterson, 70, of Korumburra, and Gail’s sister Heather Wilkinson, 66, of Korumburra.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/jury-charged-with-delivering-the-verdict-on-erin-patterson-to-deliberate-on-saturday/news-story/4abfbbf22f66dc0347b472419292a443?amp