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

[Deleted member 363451]

The female FBI profiler on this show is so good.

It was so interesting to hear the profiler talking about the power play with Erin and Simon's relatives.

 

[iamshadow21]

The female FBI profiler on this show is so good.

She was a NSW cop for over two decades, started in uniform and went from there. Very impressive resume and qualifications.

About — Kris Illingsworth

Kris works collaboratively to enhance the safety and security of affected persons and workplaces experiencing incidents of stalking, harassment, threatening behaviour, extortion, and risk of harm from persons of concern.

www.krisillingsworth.com

 

[MrJ]

would’ve been nice if this was updated to mention the cancer lie

 

[Deleted member 363451]

She was a NSW cop for over two decades, started in uniform and went from there. Very impressive resume and qualifications.

About — Kris Illingsworth

Kris works collaboratively to enhance the safety and security of affected persons and workplaces experiencing incidents of stalking, harassment, threatening behaviour, extortion, and risk of harm from persons of concern.

www.krisillingsworth.com

Yes, she's sharp as a tack!

 

[iamshadow21]

would’ve been nice if this was updated to mention the cancer lie

There you go, they just did.

 

[MrJ]

‘this is a woman who clearly loves her children’

does she though?

 

[iamshadow21]

‘this is a woman who clearly loves her children’

does she though?

She blew up their lives completely without a second thought. She had plenty of time plotting and planning this. She had time to consider the impact her actions would have on them. What losing most of their close relatives would have on them. And she did it anyway, because her spiteful need for revenge for perceived betrayal mattered more than her kids being safe and happy, surrounded by loved ones.

I'm sure she thought that she was all they needed.

MOO

 

[MrJ]

She blew up their lives completely without a second thought. She had plenty of time plotting and planning this. She had time to consider the impact her actions would have on them. What losing most of their close relatives would have on them. And she did it anyway, because her spiteful need for revenge for perceived betrayal mattered more than her kids being safe and happy, surrounded by lived ones.

I'm sure she thought that she was all they needed.

MOO

Exactly. Her children are just extensions of herself in her mind IMO. She doesn’t care about their feelings and considerations. Evil IMO

 

[MrJ]

Not too bad, but since it was filmed obviously before the verdict was announced I think a later documentary series would do a better job

 

[Deleted member 363451]

Exactly. Her children are just extensions of herself in her mind IMO. She doesn’t care about their feelings and considerations. Evil IMO

That's how narcissists view their children.

 

[Rocket333]

So hard to comprehend how she thought she’d get away with it. Planned the act with so much attention to detail, but not the aftermath. At the end of the day you can fool the guests, you can fool the press, you can fool yourself, but you can’t fool forensic toxicology. Bet she gets served up lots of weird jailhouse beef felon-ton.

<modsnip: Image removed due to no link to source>

 

[iamshadow21]

Not too bad, but since it was filmed obviously before the verdict was announced I think a later documentary series would do a better job

Yeah, these early efforts, whatever the network, never seem as satisfying.

MOO

 

[katydid23]

I appreciate the point you are making but I agree with the principle of previous records being withheld until the sentencing stage (if proven guilty).

For fairness, each case must be tried on its merits based on the evidence.

Without that rule, anyone could be fitted-up for a crime (as police have been known to do) and all the prosecution would have to do is continually refer to past convictions to persuade the jury that the current charges are just another round of criminality from this person. Meanwhile, the real perpetrator gets away with the crime.

In theory I agree with you. Each case should be tried on its own merit.

But there is one major drawback I've seen with that.

How many times have we come across child molestation, assault cases or date rape cases where the defendant has been arrested multiple times already for similar crimes?

And each time, for some reason, "he said-she said"--not enough evidence, or lawyer gets the charges lessened to a mild misdemeanour, etc, --- so the perp walks away every time, with a slap on the wrist.

I have seen it a lot. And in a recent local case I know about, a man was accused of pulling a little neighbour girl's pants down. Her 9 yr old word against his. The guy was found not guilty.

But then it came out that he had been arrested several times for very similar actions. But has never been found guilty of the actual original charges. So in each trial his defense is able to stay " my client is 42 years old, no record of ever assaulting a young child---why would he suddenly do something like this now? It must be a mistake or misunderstanding"


The jury is not going to easily accept that some neighbour is going to pull down the pants of a little girl playing with his kid on a play date. Why would he do something so dumb? All we have is the child's word for it.

SO MAYBE----just maybe, if someone is accused multiple times by multiple different people of the SAME CRIMES, maybe then it can be admissible that this seems to be a pattern?

Like, if one young man is accused of date rape by drugging females MULTIPLE times, but it is always their word against his----maybe at a certain point that becomes admissible because it is a pattern of arrest that is recorded and documented?

 

[Tortoise]

I appreciate the point you are making but I agree with the principle of previous records being withheld until the sentencing stage (if proven guilty).

For fairness, each case must be tried on its merits based on the evidence.

Without that rule, anyone could be fitted-up for a crime (as police have been known to do) and all the prosecution would have to do is continually refer to past convictions to persuade the jury that the current charges are just another round of criminality from this person. Meanwhile, the real perpetrator gets away with the crime.

It's the opposite that I am advocating for. Not that the prosecution should use past evidence to shore up their case, but that the defence should not be allowed to argue 'no history, exemplary character' etc, when facts or serious allegations with evidence are known to the court. It shouldn't be allowable argument from either side, IMO.

 

[Monstradamus]

That's how narcissists view their children.

Exactly. The children are just narcissistic supply to the parent and are made to believe they are responsible for that parent's happiness, imo.

 

[JBowie]

In theory I agree with you. Each case should be tried on its own merit.

But there is one major drawback I've seen with that.

How many times have we come across child molestation, assault cases or date rape cases where the defendant has been arrested multiple times already for similar crimes?

And each time, for some reason, "he said-she said"--not enough evidence, or lawyer gets the charges lessened to a mild misdemeanour, etc, --- so the perp walks away every time, with a slap on the wrist.

I have seen it a lot. And in a recent local case I know about, a man was accused of pulling a little neighbour girl's pants down. Her 9 yr old word against his. The guy was found not guilty.

But then it came out that he had been arrested several times for very similar actions. But has never been found guilty of the actual original charges. So in each trial his defense is able to stay " my client is 42 years old, no record of ever assaulting a young child---why would he suddenly do something like this now? It must be a mistake or misunderstanding"


The jury is not going to easily accept that some neighbour is going to pull down the pants of a little girl playing with his kid on a play date. Why would he do something so dumb? All we have is the child's word for it.

SO MAYBE----just maybe, if someone is accused multiple times by multiple different people of the SAME CRIMES, maybe then it can be admissible that this seems to be a pattern?

Like, if one young man is accused of date rape by drugging females MULTIPLE times, but it is always their word against his----maybe at a certain point that becomes admissible because it is a pattern of arrest that is recorded and documented?

On YouTube I have at least one case in the USA where the accused's criminal record (or part thereof) was allowed to be admitted, but I don't recall the circumstances. The prosecution asked the judge for it to be allowed and he mulled over it for a while and then agreed.

 

[Old Soul]

BBM:
Don was so convinced that Erin had sabotaged the lunch, he turned up at hospital carrying a container filled with his own vomit, saying it ought to be handed to police 'because he presumed this could be significant evidence because he thought it could be a deliberate poisoning'.

That, we can now reveal, was the context in which the homicide squad first began investigating Erin Patterson.

From Daily Mail UK

The shocking secret about mushroom killer Erin Patterson

In the end, Erin Trudi Patterson's fate was sealed by her lies. She lied about deliberately picking death cap mushrooms. She lied about buying and using a Sunbeam food dehydrator...

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Old Soul]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

Yes, and Simon’s parents had survived a presumably non-poisoned lunch cooked by Erin earlier that month or the previous month(?) shepherd’s pie.

 

[JBowie]

Yes, and Simon’s parents had survived a presumably non-poisoned lunch cooked by Erin earlier that month or the previous month(?) shepherd’s pie.

I'm thinking that lunch event was staged to offset any misgivings that anyone might have had, ahead of the 'main event'.

 

[CityKid]

The cream pants again! So we saw them Sunday, Monday, and now Wednesday? All that time she had diarrhea, right??

#Brave