GUILTY Australia - 3 dead after eating wild mushrooms, Leongatha, Victoria, Aug 2023 *Arrest* #18

[MrJ]

I'm really annoyed that in general just because Erin is a woman that there are people who want to treat her differently. The jury got it right, she murdered three innocent people who she admits had never done anything to her. If it were a man who did this it would be equally as abhorrent.

 

[LinasK]

I'm really annoyed that in general just because Erin is a woman that there are people who want to treat her differently. The jury got it right, she murdered three innocent people who she admits had never done anything to her. If it were a man who did this it would be equally as abhorrent.

I could be wrong, but I think the majority of poisoners are women. It's a very Passive-Aggressive way to kill someone. The poisoner will claim- I didn't kill them, they chose to ingest whatever food or drink I provided. It's extremely sneaky and underhanded. The victim has no idea until it's too late. Women kill all the time, they just don't get as much publicity as men. Candice DeLong has a TV series on it called "Deadly Women". There was NO misogyny in the ER doctor's comments. Erin is a proven female killer.

 

[mamamama9873]

I am surprised the doctor didn’t testify what he has now said - that Erin was in the same room as Ian and Heather while in hospital but disinterested in them. A huge red flag right there.

Was this evidence not admissible either?

 

[JBowie]

Me too. I hope they keep her away from the prison kitchen.

I think that's a given.

 

[LinasK]

Erin MIGHT have gotten away with the accidental defense if: 1) she wasn't caught on CCTV footage dumping evidence and resetting phones in police custody- yeah she panicked- because she WAS guilty, 2) if there was an actual Asian grocer that she could have identified that sold Death Cap mushrooms, 3)there was any evidence that she'd previously foraged, or 4) feigning any remorse for having served the meal or concern for her sick and dying relatives nearby in the hospital. Lies upon lies upon lies. Yet everyone was mistaken or lied except Erin...

 

[LinasK]

I think that's a given.

You'd think so, yet we keep hearing reports now of her sickening other inmates by tampering with their food.

 

[JBowie]

You'd think so, yet we keep hearing reports now of her sickening other inmates by tampering with their food.

But as I've mentioned more than once, VIC Justice has scotched that.

Prisoners making up stories about each other is daily behavior.

 

[Montrealaise]

I could be wrong, but I think the majority of poisoners are women. It's a very Passive-Aggressive way to kill someone. The poisoner will claim- I didn't kill them, they chose to ingest whatever food or drink I provided. It's extremely sneaky and underhanded. The victim has no idea until it's too late. Women kill all the time, they just don't get as much publicity as men. Candice DeLong has a TV series on it called "Deadly Women". There was NO misogyny in the ER doctor's comments. Erin is a proven female killer.

Poison is the most common weapon of choice for female murderers. Some male murderers use it, but they usually prefer stabbing or strangulation (both of which require more upper-body strength than most woman have) or shooting (no strength required, but it is messy).

 

[Deleted member 363451]

I am surprised the doctor didn’t testify what he has now said - that Erin was in the same room as Ian and Heather while in hospital but disinterested in them. A huge red flag right there.

Was this evidence not admissible either?

She wasn't in the same room as Heather and Ian, she was in the room next door or close by.

 

[Montrealaise]

You were surprised? He saw Ian and Heather in agony in the hospital and he knew that Erin wasn't telling the truth. She didn't even ask how the others were going and couldn't get out of the hospital quickly enough after Dr Webster spoke to her. Doctors are human as well. No wonder he's angry. Erin Patterson is an evil monster!

What upsets me is that people have actually made formal complaints against the doctor, for notifying the police in the first place that EP might have poisoned the patients he was treating, and then for testifying at EP's trial. The complaints range from accusations of misogyny (?????) to claims that he violated patient confidentiality by telling police what EP had told him. Unbelievable. Would these people have preferred that the doctor remained silent and let EP continue to murder people?

 

[mmatk]

Can you explain why you have doubts that it was deliberate?

I'm not the original recipient of this question, and I'm a new user, so feel free to ignore me if you'd like - but the short answer to this question is that the bare facts presented at trial are consistent with an accidental poisoning rather than a deliberate one.

I'd really like someone to sit me down and explain how it is possible to get to the level of certainty required by a guilty verdict in this case, without resorting to speculation or misrepresenting the evidence. Speculation is definitely an interesting exercise, as is bringing in evidence from outside the trial (eg Simon's allegations of previous illnesses), but I'm far more interested in how a juror could get to beyond reasonable doubt here. As someone who followed every day of the trial closely, I just can't get past how weak the prosecution case was.

To take just one example, the prosecution alleged Erin accessed iNaturalist posts about death cap sightings and then immediately travelled to those locations to harvest them. But no evidence was ever presented to show this, it was just pure speculation. The prosecution showed nothing from Erin's devices to show she saw the posts in question, and the evidence from Matthew Sorrell about the cellphone towers only proved Erin's phone connected to certain towers, not that she travelled to specific locations. A juror could fill in the gaps here to find whatever narrative they want, but they wouldn't be using actual evidence to do so.

 

[Deleted member 363451]

What upsets me is that people have actually made formal complaints against the doctor, for notifying the police in the first place that EP might have poisoned the patients he was treating, and then for testifying at EP's trial. The complaints range from accusations of misogyny (?????) to claims that he violated patient confidentiality by telling police what EP had told him. Unbelievable. Would these people have preferred that the doctor remained silent and let EP continue to murder people?

It absolutely beggars belief!

 

[JBowie]

What upsets me is that people have actually made formal complaints against the doctor, for notifying the police in the first place that EP might have poisoned the patients he was treating, and then for testifying at EP's trial. The complaints range from accusations of misogyny (?????) to claims that he violated patient confidentiality by telling police what EP had told him. Unbelievable. Would these people have preferred that the doctor remained silent and let EP continue to murder people?

Clearly, morons abound.

 

[Sarahlou]

What upsets me is that people have actually made formal complaints against the doctor, for notifying the police in the first place that EP might have poisoned the patients he was treating, and then for testifying at EP's trial. The complaints range from accusations of misogyny (?????) to claims that he violated patient confidentiality by telling police what EP had told him. Unbelievable. Would these people have preferred that the doctor remained silent and let EP continue to murder people?

Clearly so. There's some very peculiar/unhinged people about. That's nothing new, we just hear about them more now.

 

[LadyL]

For what it is worth, I think Erin did what she did because she could & was so arrogant that she thought that she would get away with it & nobody would dare question her.

I can't stand her.

probably because she's been getting away with these types of crimes her entire life JMO

 

[Deleted member 363451]

I'm not the original recipient of this question, and I'm a new user, so feel free to ignore me if you'd like - but the short answer to this question is that the bare facts presented at trial are consistent with an accidental poisoning rather than a deliberate one.

I'd really like someone to sit me down and explain how it is possible to get to the level of certainty required by a guilty verdict in this case, without resorting to speculation or misrepresenting the evidence. Speculation is definitely an interesting exercise, as is bringing in evidence from outside the trial (eg Simon's allegations of previous illnesses), but I'm far more interested in how a juror could get to beyond reasonable doubt here. As someone who followed every day of the trial closely, I just can't get past how weak the prosecution case was.

To take just one example, the prosecution alleged Erin accessed iNaturalist posts about death cap sightings and then immediately travelled to those locations to harvest them. But no evidence was ever presented to show this, it was just pure speculation. The prosecution showed nothing from Erin's devices to show she saw the posts in question, and the evidence from Matthew Sorrell about the cellphone towers only proved Erin's phone connected to certain towers, not that she travelled to specific locations. A juror could fill in the gaps here to find whatever narrative they want, but they wouldn't be using actual evidence to do so.

The jury took their time to deliberate the evidence. You can't just pick one incident in isolation regarding how they came to the guilty verdict and I'm not going to list every anomaly here regarding Erin's behaviours.

Ask yourself why Erin Patterson is still alive after she claims that she ate the same meal as her victims and don't give me that nonsense about her purging on a cake and vomiting it up.

I have faith in the 12 jurors who were in court every day and heard all of the evidence and then took time to deliberate.

 

[LadyL]

What upsets me is that people have actually made formal complaints against the doctor, for notifying the police in the first place that EP might have poisoned the patients he was treating, and then for testifying at EP's trial. The complaints range from accusations of misogyny (?????) to claims that he violated patient confidentiality by telling police what EP had told him. Unbelievable. Would these people have preferred that the doctor remained silent and let EP continue to murder people?

he's a freaking hero full stop.

 

[Bekind89]

I'm not the original recipient of this question, and I'm a new user, so feel free to ignore me if you'd like - but the short answer to this question is that the bare facts presented at trial are consistent with an accidental poisoning rather than a deliberate one.

I'd really like someone to sit me down and explain how it is possible to get to the level of certainty required by a guilty verdict in this case, without resorting to speculation or misrepresenting the evidence. Speculation is definitely an interesting exercise, as is bringing in evidence from outside the trial (eg Simon's allegations of previous illnesses), but I'm far more interested in how a juror could get to beyond reasonable doubt here. As someone who followed every day of the trial closely, I just can't get past how weak the prosecution case was.

To take just one example, the prosecution alleged Erin accessed iNaturalist posts about death cap sightings and then immediately travelled to those locations to harvest them. But no evidence was ever presented to show this, it was just pure speculation. The prosecution showed nothing from Erin's devices to show she saw the posts in question, and the evidence from Matthew Sorrell about the cellphone towers only proved Erin's phone connected to certain towers, not that she travelled to specific locations. A juror could fill in the gaps here to find whatever narrative they want, but they wouldn't be using actual evidence to do so.

Yes, there was factual evidence, lots of it and all of it very damning to EP.
Enough for the jury to determine guilt beyond a REASONABLE doubt, not all doubt.
But you already know that, don't you? Sigh.

 

[MrJ]

I'd really like someone to sit me down and explain how it is possible to get to the level of certainty required by a guilty verdict in this case, without resorting to speculation or misrepresenting the evidence. Speculation is definitely an interesting exercise, as is bringing in evidence from outside the trial (eg Simon's allegations of previous illnesses), but I'm far more interested in how a juror could get to beyond reasonable doubt here. As someone who followed every day of the trial closely, I just can't get past how weak the prosecution case was.

If EP hadn’t factory reset her phone and the police were unable to find the other phone I think there would be much more evidence that points to her guilt.

 

[Bekind89]

It absolutely beggars belief!

It's exhausting and tbh, it seems to me that it's an attempt to cause doubt in the justice system. Jmo.