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

[ch_13]

And at 16, the son would be old enough to have input into the decision. It has been quoted here that he didn't like to spend much time with his father.

The conflict between the son and father would have been in 2023. How the son feels today, in 2025, is another matter. Two years is an eon at that age.

Plus, in 2023 the children were living with Erin and listening to what Erin was telling them about their dad. I assume for the last two years they've been living with Simon. Considering everything that has happened in the interim, the son may very well have reassessed what he previously thought to be true.

 

[Detechtive]

Yes, 18 is the legal age. But at 16 kids get a say in these situations. He can't be forced to live with his dad if he does not want to. So many 16 yo's living on the streets because of this type of situation.

Sure, but he doesn't really have much of a choice now his mother is incarcerated and his grandparents (who he preferred) are deceased. IMO

 

[ch_13]

I doubt it.

Unless you have inside knowledge, I don't see how you can possibly have any insight into what the son thinks and feels today. As I said above, two years is an eon in the life of a teenager.

 

[MrJ]

I won't be surprised if we get a verdict on Monday or even Tuesday with the volume of evidence and Justice Beale's directions. I think there will be a few holdouts still or maybe they're still being as thorough as possible

 

[Tortoise]

I think if they have to retry this case (if there is a hung jury) the prosecution would be able to bring back to the table the dropped attempted murder charge against Simon. Because she's admitted in this trial that the sixth patty was for Simon. Ultimately I think that would help with establishing a motive, if she's guilty.

MOO

Just to say, I have no opinion on whether there will be a hung jury. I looked back to the case I followed of the McStay family murders, where the jury was out for nine days and came back with a unanimous verdict.

 

[Jake18]

Really? He’s in very formative years, one where he questions his sense of self and he learns that his mother has told a court that he, her son, has been “mistaken” on on a number of points?

Sorry: a reply to to Tootsie who doesn’t think her son’s relationship with his mother will have changed

 

[Tortoise]

I think the longer the deliberations go on the more chance there is of them reaching a unanimous verdict, because I think they would have sent a note by now if there was intransigence in the jury room. IMO

 

[MrJ]

I think the longer the deliberations go on the more chance there is of them reaching a unanimous verdict, because I think they would have sent a note by now if there was intransigence in the jury room. IMO

I like this line of thinking, that's certainly possible. Surely by early next week we'll hear from them

 

[Jake18]

Unless you have inside knowledge, I don't see how you can possibly have any insight into what the son thinks and feels today. As I said above, two years is an eon in the life of a teenager.

And it must be so incredibly confusing for her son.

He was clearly close to Erin and most likely unreservedly took her side, because the option of thinking your mother poisoned your relatives is incomprehensible.

But then, in court, your mother says you’re mistaken about some details and can’t remember others (like the bush poo). She says it wasn’t you on the CCTV at subway and you know it was.

Her son may both question himself and his memory, which would be hugely discombobulating, but also be processing the possibility that his mother has lied, and if she lied about some things, what else is she lying about? Add in grief about dead grandparents and the usual teen challenges and there is a lot to deal with.

 

[Kemug]

One thing is for sure, the jury are no longer "12 strangers"! I won't say there may be budding romances or lifelong friendships being formed but they are definitely no longer strangers. Even in my own short jury experience of 4 days, we learnt a lot about each other, and there was some contact afterwards. So IMO, strangers no longer!

 

[MaxDecimus13]

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.

Whilst this is of course true, it depends on your conviction, your personality as well as group dynamics.

There have been many studies into social pressure, and what it can do. I remember one where they had something like 12 people and they were asked to look at a dot on a wall and say whether they thought it was moving. It wasn't, but 11 people were actors who were told to say it was moving. Inevitably, the 12th person almost always agreed. They're not necessarily lying, that many people being certain can make you seriously doubt yourself.

I doubt there are many people who deeply feel somebody is innocent but say they're guilty because of group pressure. I suspect it's more a case that they end up convincing themselves that the others are correct and therefore change their mind - they suppress their doubts to themselves so to speak.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

According to EP.

I think the son did say in his police interview that he had issues with his father?

 

[Lisa4]

I think the longer the deliberations go on the more chance there is of them reaching a unanimous verdict, because I think they would have sent a note by now if there was intransigence in the jury room. IMO

Agree.
AFAIK this is their one and only chance to discuss any of it - EVER!

With that in mind, I am wondering if we may well be waiting till mid-late week to hear.

And good for them, I hope the process is as cathartic as it needs to be for them.

 

[musicaljoke]

Whilst this is of course true, it depends on your conviction, your personality as well as group dynamics.

There have been many studies into social pressure, and what it can do. I remember one where they had something like 12 people and they were asked to look at a dot on a wall and say whether they thought it was moving. It wasn't, but 11 people were actors who were told to say it was moving. Inevitably, the 12th person almost always agreed. They're not necessarily lying, that many people being certain can make you seriously doubt yourself.

I doubt there are many people who deeply feel somebody is innocent but say they're guilty because of group pressure. I suspect it's more a case that they end up convincing themselves that the others are correct and therefore change their mind - they suppress their doubts to themselves so to speak.

I would hope they achieve a consensus, not by social pressure, but by examining and discussing the evidence. It's helpful to hear another person's perspective. Another person might put more weight on certain points, perhaps missing key points that are interconnected which someone else can bring to mind.

I wouldn't put much meaning behind the fact that they are taking a while to come to a decision. Our little Beautification Committee of seven people took two years to decide where to plant some new trees.

Committees are often very slow to reach an agreement.

 

[Jake18]

I think the son did say in his police interview that he had issues with his father?

He said that his dad wasn’t always very nice to his mum, that he “knew” that. And that he didn’t do much with his dad so he preferred to have weekends with his mum.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

I think the longer the deliberations go on the more chance there is of them reaching a unanimous verdict, because I think they would have sent a note by now if there was intransigence in the jury room. IMO

How common are notes to the judge? Personally, if you'd have told me on Monday that we'd have heard nothing by Saturday I would have presumed at some point there would at lease have been a judge's note. That's just my perspective, maybe they're not that common?

If they are then I think you make a very good point. I think we're at the point where if there was a stalemate we'd have heard something by now.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

He said that his dad wasn’t always very nice to his mum, that he “knew” that. And that he didn’t do much with his dad so he preferred to have weekends with his mum.

And of course he spends all his time with his mum. It wouldn't be the first example in history where one parent has turned a child against their other parent.

I can also imagine that being a dad with limited rights can't always be easy for everybody. The child has his whole life and everything he wants at home, and it could be hard to recreate that maybe.

 

[Lisa4]

Dbm

 

[Tortoise]

How common are notes to the judge? Personally, if you'd have told me on Monday that we'd have heard nothing by Saturday I would have presumed at some point there would at lease have been a judge's note. That's just my perspective, maybe they're not that common?

If they are then I think you make a very good point. I think we're at the point where if there was a stalemate we'd have heard something by now.

Notes are sent every time a jury is hung and there is no hope of reaching a unanimous verdict. If they happen early-ish in the deliberations the judge will usually send them back out with an instruction to continue and to try a bit longer, in my experience of following a lot of cases.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

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

I've always said that the reason I know about this trial in the first place from the UK, is because of this bizarre statistical anomaly. At this time we knew pretty much nothing else but that the cook of a mushroom meal had survived and the rest were dead or in serious trouble.

I've always been interested in statistics, and I tried to look at this if it was a complete accident. What would be the odds of one specific person not getting ill and all the others get seriously ill? If each individual has an 80% chance of getting ill, the odds of one person not getting ill and all the others doing so is around 8%. So essentially this exact scenario would have an 8% chance of happening if it was completely randomised.

I'm going to seriously qualify this statement, because I actually don't believe in trying to work out odds for extremely complicated events. I'm referring only to the original anomaly that led to it being world-wide news. It's not a case that there was an 8% chance, but if you add on the chance of making individual beef wellingtons, the chance of accidentally foraging mushrooms, the chance of not realising she'd put them in etc it's a 0.000001% chance. That's a different thing.

I'll also say that I didn't include the kids because I've always thought guilty or innocent that the kids were not fed from the same meal. If she is innocent, she invented it to make it look like she wasn't the only one who didn't get ill IMO.