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

[Porky1]

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

She appeared to be a good mother and put her children first. We don’t know what her kids think.

 

[potr]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

what is "the big three"?

 

[Salah11]

She appeared to be a good mother and put her children first. We don’t know what her kids think.

Putting her children first is highly subjective. As facing a life time in jail is hardly putting her children first. Plus all the emotional damage she has caused and the list goes on. She certainly won’t be winning any awards for mother of the year.

<modsnip - sub judice>

Its safe to say she is awful human being regardless of guilt.

 

[potr]

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

yes it does

 

[Lisa4]

Yes, I believe he said they "never do anything on the weekends" when they stayed with SP.

Maybe the below explains why.

"I was in an induced coma for 16 days through which I had three emergency operations

My family were asked to come and say goodbye to me twice, as I was not expected to live."

He was in intensive care for 21 days before starting to recover.

Mushroom case: She tried to kill her husband four times, police say - South Gippsland Sentinel Times

AS WELL laying three murder charges against Erin Patterson, 49, of Leongatha, police have also charged Ms Patterson with attempting to murder her husband Simon, the father of her two children. They claim Ms Paterson tried to poison her husband on...

www.sgst.com.au

 

[Porky1]

yes it does

Which state? This occurred in NSW 5-10 yrs ago. Perhaps there is more protection now. I hope so

 

[SarahSherlock]

I was considering the same as you Max with the probabilities; then I went down the path of her intelligence - an interview with one of her peers expressed EPs very high intelligence and that she worked in a very high pressure job - with air traffic control. This was in the early 2000s.
And I know Max that you like disecting things too - so I put on a piece of paper the negatives and positives of her intelligence of likely guilt or likely innocence - feel free to add more

Intelligence - Likely Guilty and in brackets (likely innocence)

Would have known which mushrooms and where to find them
(Would have known it would look suss with all being poisoned at the same time)

Craves attention as her lies are mostly attention seeking - which she admits
(Would fear being hated or alone - so why not plan better if intelligent)

People she was distanced with were effected
(So why do it in her own home)

Etc…would love to see other people’s thoughts <modsnip: rude>

 

[potr]

Which state? This occurred in NSW 5-10 yrs ago. Perhaps there is more protection now. I hope so

and now calling you out on that one:

What employers and employees need to know

Your obligations to release employees called for jury service including paying wages and salary, not forcing leave and penalties for breaching these obligations.

courts.nsw.gov.au

"
As per the provisions outlined in the Jury Act 1977- external sitelaunch and the Jury Amendment Act 2010- external sitelaunch, employers cannot:

• force employees to take own leave, such as recreation or sick leave, while doing jury service (This includes the day they go to court for a jury summons)
• dismiss, injure or alter their employee's position for doing jury service
• ask employees to work on any day that they are serving as jurors
• ask employees to do additional hours or work to make up for time that they missed as a result of jury service

An employer who contravenes any of these laws, can be fined $22,000 (corporation) or $5,500 (individual) under Section 69 of the Jury Act 1977."

<modsnip>

 

[potr]

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

and there is definitely research to affirm your thinking - and not only that the longer they deliberate the "safer" the verdict (in hindsight)

 

[BreakingNews]

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.

And notes are sent to the judge to help clarify a point in law.

 

[Tortoise]

And notes are sent to the judge to help clarify a point in law.

Of course, and also to clarify matters with regard to evidence, but I presumed, perhaps wrongly, that the OP was specifically referring to notes about not being able to reach agreement.

 

[SarahSherlock]

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.

One thought I had is that perhaps she didn’t like mushrooms (but soon shot that thought down - as why cook with them) or maybe she made other ones if her kids don’t like them (but I haven’t heard that anywhere)

 

[Bats]

Aside from dehydrating and leaving Death Cap mushrooms in her Pantry. That's a bit reckless, don't you think?

It was her testimony. She "accidentally" foraged DCs, she dehydrated them, powdered them and put them in a Tupperware container. Then fed them to her lunch guests.

How is it "reckless" if she didn't know at the time? That's her testimony isn't it?

 

[Warshawski]

I think it hangs what is “reasonable” in the context of doubt, and that could be tricky to navigate

This imo is the crux of jury trials / decisions.
The jury composition of 12 people dates way back in tradition - if I recall correctly it was some ancient King who modelled the proceedings after Jesus and his 12 apostles.

As an individual, each member has their own interpretation of what is ‘reasonable’, be it ‘ reasonable behaviour’ or ‘reasonable doubt’.
It is up to each person to make their own judgement, which hopefully will be a unanimous one.

And I do think this format swings way in favour of the Accused, given the Prosecution needs to convince 12 people of Guilt, where the Defence only needs 1 person to believe that ‘reasonable doubt’ exists as to whether the accused is guilty.
( imo it’s important to note that being found Not Guilty is not a find for the accused being Innocent )

MOO

 

[ch_13]

How is it "reckless" if she didn't know at the time? That's her testimony isn't it?

Even if she thought she hadn't picked a death cap, she was surely aware poisonous mushrooms exist and that that there are many different types, right?

So, it's incredibly reckless to
1 - Pick mushrooms when you're not 100% sure of their identity
2 - Mix them up with other, store-bought mushrooms
3 - Inadvertently serve them to people

Even if you believe this story, these are all risky actions. Safe food handling is not difficult. If someone can't manage basic food hygiene standards, they should never be allowed to cook for another person.

 

[Salah11]

When I read back over some of her evidence it’s just one lie after another

Erin Patterson felt 'scared', 'responsible' after questions over lunch

Erin Patterson has detailed to a jury how foraged mushrooms may have ended up in a beef Wellington dish that killed three relatives and made another seriously ill.

www.abc.net.au

The following day Ms Patterson said she drove her son to Tyabb for a flying lesson and had to pull over near some bushland to go to the toilet.

"I went off into the bush and went to the toilet ... I had diarrhoea," she said.

"I cleaned myself up a bit with tissues and put them in a dog poo bag ... and we hit the road again."

Also this doesn’t ring true ( not that it ever did) but something that strikes me as strange.

We have all been teenagers and I think it’s safe to say the majority of teenagers if your mum went and pooed herself in the bush wouldn’t let you live in down. Just imagine the ribbing when she got back to the car and yet there was none of that. This is a teenage boy we are talking about here.

It just doesn’t ring true IMO

 

[SarahSherlock]

Even if she thought she hadn't picked a death cap, she was surely aware poisonous mushrooms exist and that that there are many different types, right?

So, it's incredibly reckless to
1 - Pick mushrooms when you're not 100% sure of their identity
2 - Mix them up with other, store-bought mushrooms
3 - Inadvertently serve them to people

Even if you believe this story, these are all incredibly reckless actions. Safe food handling is not difficult. If someone can't manage basic food hygiene standards, they should never be allowed to cook for another person.

it’s been stated by several sources that she is highly intelligent - she was also at one stage involved in nursing classes; which I think would negate her being ‘reckless’ with health.

 

[MsMarple]

Even if she thought she hadn't picked a death cap, she was surely aware poisonous mushrooms exist and that that there are many different types, right?

So, it's incredibly reckless to
1 - Pick mushrooms when you're not 100% sure of their identity
2 - Mix them up with other, store-bought mushrooms
3 - Inadvertently serve them to people

Even if you believe this story, these are all risky actions. Safe food handling is not difficult. If someone can't manage basic food hygiene standards, they should never be allowed to cook for another person.

Amen to that! Cross contamination isn’t just about improper handling of raw chicken, it applies to all aspects of cooking. And that includes labeling and dating non commercial pantry items prepared by the cook. Hygiene 101.

 

[SarahSherlock]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed> what is "the big three"?

In legal proceedings, establishing guilt requires proving three key elements: actus reus, mens rea, and causation. Actus reus refers to the physical act or conduct that constitutes the crime.Mens rea is the mental state of the defendant, meaning they possessed the intent or knowledge to commit the crime. Finally, causation links the actus reus to the harm caused (tried to put a link in for you but it kept taking me back to the legal site)

 

[Bats]

Even if she thought she hadn't picked a death cap, she was surely aware poisonous mushrooms exist and that that there are many different types, right?

So, it's incredibly reckless to
1 - Pick mushrooms when you're not 100% sure of their identity
2 - Mix them up with other, store-bought mushrooms
3 - Inadvertently serve them to people

Even if you believe this story, these are all risky actions. Safe food handling is not difficult. If someone can't manage basic food hygiene standards, they should never be allowed to cook for another person.

To be fair, I was asking the question because @Monstradamus had insinuated Erin knew she had DC mushrooms in her pantry and was therefore "reckless".

@Porky1 then replied, but isn't that "alleged"?

@Monstradamus replied, but that's her testimony, that she accidentally foraged dc mushrooms....

So my reply was to understand how can it be reckless if her testimony is that she didn't know they were dc mushrooms?

The subject of whether people who forage mushrooms must be reckless if they have limited knowledge of what they are foraging is a separate one. The word "naive" comes to mind.

But whilst you have asked.... how can it be "reckless" when as you say, you "inadvertently" serve them to people?