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

[Jake18]

Yes, but he was saying his father was always trying to hurt his mother's feelings, etc. His issues with his father were partially because of things his mother told him.

EP also said her son didn't like to go to his Dad's because his Dad was always too tired, etc. But maybe that was because of his mysterious gastric issue, which eventually were traced back to EP?

I think some of the prior issues with his Dad might have worked themselves out over time and new circumstances.

A genuinely good mother would be able to appreciate that her son’s wellbeing and development into a man would be enhanced by having a positive relationship with his father.

Instead, Erin’s son’s opinion of his father - being mean to his mum, hurting her feelings - very likely came from Erin herself.

 

[potr]

I don’t know Law in Australia so if she is found not guilty can the family still do a civil case?

I mean she has admitted she lied and perverted the course of justice so surely there should be repercussions!

the thing is - the "family" would then be possibly robbing not only EP but also SP's children of money due to them and their future, not only that various members of the same family owe EP large sums of money. I think it would cause incredible ructions and disharmony in the family if that were to happen and harm the "next" generation so much...I hope that does not happen.

 

[BreakingNews]

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

I get what you are saying. However if she is found not guilty, the case should be closed. The law states she is presumed innocent. That means she should not be persued as guilty. It's the reverse of the Murdock case. He was declared guilty of killing Peter Falconio, but the pub test has him not guilty. It's all about the law. Not what we might think personally.

 

[BreakingNews]

A genuinely good mother would be able to appreciate that her son’s wellbeing and development into a man would be enhanced by having a positive relationship with his father.

Instead, Erin’s son’s opinion of his father - being mean to his mum, hurting her feelings - very likely came from Erin herself.

You have no proof of that. Kids see things.

 

[katydid23]

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?

It is reckless because it is reckless to pick wild food that can be deadly and not check to see if it is SAFE to eat.

She knew that Death Caps exist in the woods but she picked mushrooms, by Oak trees, that had the same color and physical characteristics as Death Caps, and she never checked to make sure they were safe.

After failing to identify them or double check them, she dehydrated them and put them in her pantry. That is negligent. And because it resulted in 3 deaths, it is CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT, imo.

 

[katydid23]

Yes, I am serious.

"Inadvertently" - without intention; accidentally.

"Can recklessness be accidental?"
No, recklessness cannot be accidental in the legal sense. Recklessness implies a conscious disregard for a known risk.

"No, recklessness cannot be accidental in the legal sense. Recklessness implies a conscious disregard for a known risk."


A conscious disregard for a known risk?

Did EP know that Death Caps were a known risk? YES, she did.

Did she DISREGARD that known risk, by picking wild mushrooms, and disregarding the need to identify if they were safe to eat?

Did she disregard the need to make certain they were safe to eat before she served them to others?

YES, she disregarded the need to check for safety before serving wild mushrooms she had picked.

THat^^ is the very definition of 'reckless'-----a conscious disregard for a known risk.

She consciously chose to ignore the known risk of foraging, and did not identify what type of mushrooms she picked, before serving them to others.

 

[CityKid]

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 was on a jury where that happened. I was in the majority (guilty) at first. We eventually came to a unanimous not-guilty verdict. To characterize this as the result of bullying or undue pressure, or the giving up of one's values, is IMO a wrong to look at it.

 

[Jake18]

You have no proof of that. Kids see things.

Objectively, though, Simon came across as the more emotionally mature of the two. He even shielded his own mother from the worst of Erin’s text onslaughts, didn’t he?

 

[CityKid]

I don't think of any jurors as being obstinate.

IMO they are entitled to hold whatever opinion they've arrived at, the same as any other jurors.

What if their opinion is contradicted by the facts?
edited an incorrect word

 

[potr]

What if their opinion is contraindicated by the facts?

 

[CityKid]

do you mean contradicted?

Yes! I was using the word-prediction feature and I won't ever again! Thanks. And I corrected my post.

 

[Monstradamus]

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

It's reckless to forage them in the first place, if you allegedly don't know what you're foraging, imo. I'm 100% certain I don't have dried foraged unknown mushrooms in my pantry that my kids could accidentally access.

 

[Monstradamus]

I am going to make an observance - which may or may not be accurate - but its just from what I have read:
• It appears that EP is unable to "stick" to any one thing for a period of time. I have tried to note the timeline of basic life events that i can find in her adult life.
c. 1994 - 1998? after school - study? (is this the accounting there is report of studying?)
c. 1999 - 2002 air traffic controller studied for 14 months to work only for 22 months total.
c. 2002 - 2004 unaccounted for
<modsnip>
c. 2004 - at least 2005 ? working as "admin officer" with RSPCA when meets SP
c. 2007 marry and presumably live in Korumburra SP is working but maybe not EP - she says when they got married "SP gave notice at his job" nothing about her giving notice.
2007 - tour Australia.
2007 arrive in WA buy home outright using some of inheritance from Erin's grandmother
c. 2007 - 2009 - living and SP working in Perth. EP applied to university (does not say if she attended). Has son
2009 leaves SP and son in FNQ and flies "home" to Perth leaving them to drive home. Separation after - EP in a house, SP in a caravan park for 3 months.
2011 - ? EP (at least) and it appears SP and son are in Pemberton (she calls it "the middle of nowhere) - several hours SE from Perth in "Karri timber country" where she opens a second hand bookshop - she did that "for quite a while"
2013 - return to Victoria and stayed with don and gail
2014 Has daughter
2015 formal separation - note at least 2 other temporary separations between 2009 and 2015 and at least 2 reconciliations after 2015
2015 - 2020? EP lives in at least 2 houses in Korumburra at least one of which she owned and lets SP have.
2019 EP's mother dies - while she is still receiving instalments from her grandmother's estate (until 2023) she receives enough to buy and build her new house at leongatha
(my comment as an Architect - bland, boring and basically an ill constructed project home with little whimsy, delight or individualism - what a waste - but of course she thought she could design it soooooo much better).
2020? moves to new house
2022 major ructions with SP evolve.
2023 applies to study nursing then defers.

now it appears to me that her life is not very stable. She is constantly moving, when she was single it appears she moved from possibly one profession to another and sometimes did not even stay at a job as long as she studied for it. She appears to have attempted studying at least two times - is this an excuse for not working?

I am just going to say that to me this appears as someone who cannot maintain relationships, has an everchanging point of view of what they want to be, and needs something - anything to happen frequently in order to bolster themselves, thus jumping from one thing to another.

and then i look at this:

• A persistent pattern of unstable relationships, self-image, and emotions (ie, emotional dysregulation) and pronounced impulsivity (of which epitomises what has been happening since at least 1999)

This persistent pattern is shown by ≥ 5 of the following and i look at these and I (me i stress my opinion) think they are or have been present just by the timeline and by the testimony self reported or otherwise - well at least the underlined ones are completely obvious to me:

• Desperate efforts to avoid abandonment (actual or imagined)
• Unstable, intense relationships that alternate between idealizing and devaluing the other person (she loves SP but he is a deadbeat...D and G are wonderful but lost causes)
• An unstable self-image or sense of self (what does she want to do or be?)
• Impulsivity in ≥ 2 areas that could harm themselves (eg, unsafe sex, binge eating, reckless driving) (self reported and the 2004 episode)
• Repeated suicidal behavior and/or gestures or threats or self-mutilation
• Rapid changes in mood, lasting usually only a few hours and rarely more than a few days (says the arguments only last a few days then its back to normal)
• Persistent feelings of emptiness
• Inappropriately intense anger or problems controlling anger (using highly expletive and finality type language during her text talk with fb friends - OTT)
• Temporary paranoid thoughts or severe dissociative symptoms triggered by stress

and then also in my opinion this can apply
A persistent pattern of excessive emotionality and attention seeking
featuring at least 5 of exhibited by early adulthood

• Discomfort when they are not the center of attention
• Interaction with others that is inappropriately sexually seductive or provocative
• Rapidly shifting and shallow expression of emotions
• Consistent use of physical appearance to call attention to themselves
• Speech that is extremely impressionistic and vague
• Self-dramatization, theatricality, and exaggerated expression of emotion
• Suggestibility (easily influenced by others or situations)
• Interpretation of relationships as more intimate than they are

anyway - all highly speculative and my own musings about the possibilities of the "motives" of this alleged crime.

Great post, @potr. Informative observations, imo.

 

[Bats]

"No, recklessness cannot be accidental in the legal sense. Recklessness implies a conscious disregard for a known risk."


A conscious disregard for a known risk? CORRECT, THAT'S WHAT THE MEANING IS.

Did EP know that Death Caps were a known risk? YES, she did. CORRECT.

Did she DISREGARD that known risk, by picking wild mushrooms, NO EVIDENCE TO SAY SHE CONCIOUSLY DISREGARDED THE RISK

and disregarding the need to identify if they were safe to eat?
.THE MUSHROOM EXPERT SAID THEY CAN BE DIFFICULT TO IDENTIFY

Did she disregard the need to make certain they were safe to eat before she served them to others?
SHE THOUGHT SHE HAD PUT STORE BOUGHT MUSHROOMS IN THE DISH, NOT FORAGED ONES. THAT IS HER TESTIMONY

YES, she disregarded the need to check for safety before serving wild mushrooms she had picked. THAT IS NOT HER TESTIMONY. TO HER KNOWLEDGE SHE WAS USING STORE BOUGHT MUSHROOMS

She consciously chose to ignore the known risk of foraging, ALLEGEDLY. AND THAT WOULD RETURN A NOT GUILTY VERDICT AS THE IMPLICATION IS THAT IT WAS RECKLESS AND THAT THEY WERE NOT DELIBERATELY SOUGHT OUT

and did not identify what type of mushrooms she picked, before serving them to others.AGAIN, THAT IS NOT HER TESTIMONY AND AGAIN, THE JURY SHOULD REACH A NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN THAT CASE

 

[Hercule Holmes]

No, the defense admits that she did dehydrate Death Caps and they were in Tupperware in her pantry. Not allegedly but admittedly.

This part is interesting to me. The defence has gone with her version of 'Tupperware in her pantry', but I have serious doubts that's where they actually were. It just sounds better than hiding them more deviously.

Of course the prosecution can't prove otherwise, but would she really have left them accessible to the kids? Remember, the son said he had never seen the dehydrator. For the plan to work as she foresaw, the less the kids knew about anything mushroom-related, the better.

For safety, as well as the other obvious reason, I think they were well and truly hidden away from any risk of being seen, let alone accidentally consumed. Probably in a cabinet in the shed or garage, along with the dehydrator?

The defence are happy to admit to 'Tupperware in her pantry', because it sounds like what a normal, innocent person would do IMO.

 

[Procrastinator]

This part is interesting to me. The defence has gone with her version of 'Tupperware in her pantry', but I have serious doubts that's where they actually were. It just sounds better than hiding them more deviously.

Of course the prosecution can't prove otherwise, but would she really have left them accessible to the kids? Remember, the son said he had never seen the dehydrator. For the plan to work as she foresaw, the less the kids knew about anything mushroom-related, the better.

For safety, as well as the other obvious reason, I think they were well and truly hidden away from any risk of being seen, let alone accidentally consumed. Probably in a cabinet in the shed or garage, along with the dehydrator?

The defence are happy to admit to 'Tupperware in her pantry', because it sounds like what a normal, innocent person would do IMO.

Is there an explanation how the dried DC mushrooms then turned to powder?

 

[Monstradamus]

Is there an explanation how the dried DC mushrooms then turned to powder?

I don't there is. A mortar and pestle (whilst more work) is a cheaper and easier item to get rid of post powdering. Maybe a cheap blender, only used once and dumped? If a Thermomix was used, could all of the parts be scrubbed wearing gloves, then run through the dishwasher to avoid contamination?
MOO

 

[Hercule Holmes]

Is there an explanation how the dried DC mushrooms then turned to powder?

I think the term used was "blitzed", but no specific means identified?

 

[MrJ]

If it were all accidental then there was no need to time and time again lie to authorities - healthcare staff, police, etc, about not foraging and not using a dehydrator. There is only a very short timeline where I could accept the panic explanation. To continue the falsehoods doesn’t point to panic IMO

 

[imstilla.grandma]

*videos are only available to watch within New Zealand due to rights issues.

TVNZ+

www.tvnz.co.nz