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

[Kemug]

Hopefully thinking deeply about the case without the distraction of other people and the court process.

Or taking the longest afternoon nap ever!

 

[Spectrix]

Respectfully, she does not have to prove her innocence.

Where exactly is this "innocence" you speak of?

 

[HoneyBunOne]

Question for you experienced sleuthers: At what point do the jury get a tap on the shoulder and told they need to wrap things up and come to a decision? This can't drag on forever. Is it on a case by case basis, based on how much evidence there is? When do you think that will happen in this case?

 

[Monstradamus]

Question for you experienced sleuthers: At what point do the jury get a tap on the shoulder and told they need to wrap things up and come to a decision? This can't drag on forever. Is it on a case by case basis, based on how much evidence there is? When do you think that will happen in this case?

As long as they require. Hopefully not weeks

The Erin Patterson jury has been sequestered. Here's what's happening

After more than two months of witness testimony, evidence and arguments, 12 people will decide the fate of accused murderer Erin Patterson.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Monstradamus]

I don’t want to defend her, but I don’t think she said she shat in the bag.

The story was she used tissues to wipe and they went in the bag.

It still would have stunk in the car and there is no way the son could ever remove that scenario from his brain.

Symbolically, there would be a pile of poo where she went, because that is what the story is.

IMO.

Weird that she didn't leave the degradable tissues behind. And gross that she didn't wash her hands in the 9 seconds in the servo toilet.

MOO

 

[drsleuth]

Question for you experienced sleuthers: At what point do the jury get a tap on the shoulder and told they need to wrap things up and come to a decision? This can't drag on forever. Is it on a case by case basis, based on how much evidence there is? When do you think that will happen in this case?

I'm not sure, but another case I followed the jury were out for over 2 weeks, they asked no questions & came back with a guilty verdict. I think the trial was about 8 weeks long.

They've only be out a week.

 

[Salah11]

Weird that she didn't leave the degradable tissues behind. And gross that she didn't wash her hands in the 9 seconds in the servo toilet.

MOO

It’s fine. Don’t worry about dear old Erin. She has a remarkable immune system.

Poopy hands were no challenge when she was already surviving Death Cap Mushrooms with little to no effect.

IMO

 

[Spectrix]

Question for you experienced sleuthers: At what point do the jury get a tap on the shoulder and told they need to wrap things up and come to a decision? This can't drag on forever. Is it on a case by case basis, based on how much evidence there is? When do you think that will happen in this case?

There's no set time limit as such, it's up to the judge to decide when they need to step in and issue further instructions (such as suggesting that a minority reconsider their stance if possible).

 

[HoneyBunOne]

As long as they require. Hopefully not weeks

The Erin Patterson jury has been sequestered. Here's what's happening

After more than two months of witness testimony, evidence and arguments, 12 people will decide the fate of accused murderer Erin Patterson.

www.abc.net.au

Oh wow. Thanks for responding. 14 days is the record so far in Australia, and I believe we're at 6 days now.

Google Search

 

[Hercule Holmes]

Where exactly is this "innocence" you speak of?

I know you’re kind of joking, but for us lay people (that form juries), it is a fair question.

You have cases like Easey St. where they wanted to DNA test 127 people. So there is a need to prove WHO did it.

Cases like this one and Greg Lynn, there is no doubt who did it. It is using the largely circumstantial evidence to determine deliberate or accidental.

So for me, there is a swing (whether legally acceptable) back to the defence to show that their side has plausibility.

 

[Spectrix]

I know you’re kind of joking, but for us lay people (that form juries), it is a fair question.

You have cases like Easey St. where they wanted to DNA test 127 people. So there is a need to prove WHO did it.

Cases like this one and Greg Lynn, there is no doubt who did it. It is using the largely circumstantial evidence to determine deliberate or accidental.

So for me, there is a swing (whether legally acceptable) back to the defence to show that their side has plausibility.

Yeah that's right. Aside from the circumstantial evidence, the defendant was caught out in a complex web of lies and her defence was mostly to try to cover those lies with more lies. The prosecution did a marvellous job of proving many of those to be false as well.

In this particular case, the concept of starting the trial with any sense of innocence is kind of a moot point, although it appears that the defence may at least have introduced some doubt, given how long deliberations have been going.

 

[Detechtive]

Oh wow. Thanks for responding. 14 days is the record so far in Australia, and I believe we're at 6 days now.

Google Search

I just found this..

The longest jury deliberation on record occurred in a 1992 civil case in Long Beach, California, where the jury deliberated for four and a half months before reaching a verdict.

Thank goodness ours are usually more swift. IMO

 

[Spectrix]

I just found this..

The longest jury deliberation on record occurred in a 1992 civil case in Long Beach, California, where the jury deliberated for four and a half months before reaching a verdict.

Wowsers. What was the verdict in the end?

 

[JBowie]

it appears that the defence may at least have introduced some doubt, given how long deliberations have been going.

I'm willing to bet that they are arguing over motive. Although motive is not legally required, the 'why' question underlies the way people come to judgment IMO.

 

[Spectrix]

The longest jury deliberation on record occurred in a 1992 civil case in Long Beach, California, where the jury deliberated for four and a half months before reaching a verdict.

I found some more information -

Case Overview

Shirley and Jason McClure, a mother and son duo, filed a lawsuit against the City of Long Beach, alleging that city officials violated the U.S. Fair Housing Act. They claimed that the city conspired to prevent them from opening a chain of residential homes for Alzheimer's patients, effectively engaging in discriminatory practices.

Trial and Deliberation Timeline

• The case took an astonishing 11.5 years to reach the courtroom.
• Once in court, the trial spanned six months of testimony
• The jury deliberated for four and a half months, setting a Guinness World Record for the longest jury deliberation.

Verdict and Damages

After the extensive deliberation, the jury awarded the McClures a total of $22.5 million in damages:

 

[potr]

"Erin says she now believes foraged mushrooms may have made their way into the lunch due to a mistake about the contents of a tupperware container in her pantry"

Yes, the mushrooms made their own way into the lunch....

interesting Lucy Letby language...... "they came home with me" relating to the handover sheets.

 

[Serononin]

interesting Lucy Letby language...... "they came home with me" relating to the handover sheets.

LL and EP both really did themselves zero favours by deciding to take the stand IMO

 

[HoneyBunOne]

I just found this..

The longest jury deliberation on record occurred in a 1992 civil case in Long Beach, California, where the jury deliberated for four and a half months before reaching a verdict.

Thank goodness ours are usually more swift. IMO

Yes, I came across that too. Madness!

 

[Salah11]

For the thread -

What are people’s thoughts on if she gets found not guilty should she be charged with perverting the course of justice?

Surely there has to be some ramifications to killing 3 people and nearly a fourth. She has admitted she lied and hid evidence, so that’s not in dispute either.

So where do people stand on this?

 

[Porky1]

Provided the mushrooms used to make a beef Wellington are not toxic, the problem isn't the mushrooms, it's the onions in the duxelles.

Apart from the amounts of salt and sugar, etc. , alliums like onions and garlic are one of the big reasons you shouldn't feed your pet leftovers. They're in everything, hiding under innocuous sounding labels like 'dehydrated vegetables' in ingredients lists.

MOO

Well before we could google everything, my understanding was that mushrooms were bad for dogs. Until recently, I didn’t bother to check if that was revised. I can’t imagine my dogs would enjoy them and I’ll continue to thrown them out.