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

[drsleuth]

Does anyone care to speculated on the sentence she will receive? I expect she will receive a life sentence with no parole for 25 years. Her crime is really horrendous, possibly one of the worst murders in Australia. It was clearly premeditated and time consuming, detailed plans were laid in place. She invited her victims to her own home and to their death.

"Come into my parlor," said the spider to the fly.

I'm expecting LWOP, or greater than 35 yrs. This was premeditated murder of 3 people & attempted murder of another.

 

[Monstradamus]

I suggest that Erin had secreted her main phone on her body. They legally could not search her person IMO

Erin was the last witness. The prosecutor could not call rebuttal witnesses.

IMO Erin could say whatever she liked & she did, knowing the above.

Erin taking the stand was a big mistake as the jury got to see the real Erin IMO

Agree. Don't really want to think about where that phone was hidden

 

[JBowie]

(Borse Ristevski - Manslaughter of his wife, Karen) was increased from 9 years to 13 years through the Court of Appeal, after the DPP challenged the sentence.

Should have been increased to 30 years, IMO.

 

[mmatk]

I'm reaching out to those here who believe she is or may be innocent - I would genuinely welcome hearing your perspective, on the basis that you are here genuinely seeking to understand.

If you're open to continuing on this basis, could you please share what the key things are that give you doubt about her guilt? I'm not here to argue or attack or even persuade - I’m just asking from a place of genuine interest and a desire for mature, respectful conversation.

I understand that people can see the same situation in very different ways, and I want to understand how you've come to your conclusions. All I ask is that we keep the conversation civil and rooted in a mutual willingness to listen and consider.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

PS I have been hopeful throughout the past weeks that someone would be willing to engage.
I trust all participators can "play nice" so that we can at least hear from "the other side". I don't discuss this much in real life and haven't come across anyone who feels this way, hence my keen desire to understand from those here who do.

<modsnip>

As I said, I don't have a strong opinion on whether Erin actually murdered anyone. It's essentially unknowable. What has struck me though is the lack of evidence against her. For me, it's enough to create reasonable doubt.

Prior to the trial I was actually on the side of guilt. It's such a compelling story when you zoom out - 5 people have lunch and they all get really sick except the cook. But in a trial, you can't just rely on narrative, you have to focus on each individual action and introduce evidence to prove them. I thought the prosecution was going to be able to do that, but apparently they couldn't.

10 weeks of trial, and the prosecution was never able to point to any real motive, never able to show any evidence regarding intent, never able to conclusively disprove Erin's version of the story. All they could do was show a few flimsy items (eg two messages venting on facebook, vague cellphone pings) and ask the jury to draw inferences from there.

Inferring stuff is fine, but when your entire case depends on it,. The reason why this case is so interesting is that it's completely based on needing to prove intent. It's not disputed that Erin killed people, it's only disputed that she did so with intent. But the prosecution had very little direct evidence that spoke to intent. Usually, when circumstantial evidence is presented a jury is asked to make inferences to fill in gaps between direct evidence, but in this case there was basically no direct evidence to rest on and the jury was essentially asked to completely infer intent. I don't think that's enough to clear the bar of the highest possible legal standard.

If you were to ask me to make a positive case for Erin's innocence, I'm not sure I can do it without making the same errors as the prosecution (i.e. relying on baseless speculation). But of course defendants don't need to make a case for their innocence.

I suppose the best I can do is point out that Erin's story of an accidental poisoning seems to fit the facts better than the prosecution narrative of Erin as a smart, calculating murderer. If Erin had actually wanted to murder people, she would have immediately told the police she used foraged mushrooms and tried to play the whole thing off as a mistake. She certainly wouldn't have bought a dehydrator with her own card and then posted photos of it. Sure, sometimes people do stupid things, but the prosecution argument wasn't that Erin was a bumbling idiot who had a go at poisoning people, it was that she was a cold blooded killer who spent over a year planning this. Just doesn't make sense to me.

And that's without getting into the lack of motive. Nobody has been able to give a convincing reason why she would want to murder people. There's a couple of facebook messages, but that's not sufficient to override the rest of the evidence showing she had a good relationship with her in-laws. And why kill Heather and Ian too?

 

[Two SCents]

DBM

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

Some posts referencing possible prior incidents have been removed.

Since the Guilty verdict, we don't have to worry about sub judice right now (unless there is an appeal), BUT ...

Regardless of sub judice, Judge Beale has issued a Suppression Order with regard to discussing / publicizing allegations about prior incidents of possible poisoning.

 

[Monstradamus]

I'll respond to this and try to refrain from taking the bait from everyone else making sarcastic comments. It's nice to see at least one person is willing to engage in good faith.

As I said, I don't have a strong opinion on whether Erin actually murdered anyone. It's essentially unknowable. What has struck me though is the lack of evidence against her. For me, it's enough to create reasonable doubt.

Prior to the trial I was actually on the side of guilt. It's such a compelling story when you zoom out - 5 people have lunch and they all get really sick except the cook. But in a trial, you can't just rely on narrative, you have to focus on each individual action and introduce evidence to prove them. I thought the prosecution was going to be able to do that, but apparently they couldn't.

10 weeks of trial, and the prosecution was never able to point to any real motive, never able to show any evidence regarding intent, never able to conclusively disprove Erin's version of the story. All they could do was show a few flimsy items (eg two messages venting on facebook, vague cellphone pings) and ask the jury to draw inferences from there.

Inferring stuff is fine, but when your entire case depends on it,. The reason why this case is so interesting is that it's completely based on needing to prove intent. It's not disputed that Erin killed people, it's only disputed that she did so with intent. But the prosecution had very little direct evidence that spoke to intent. Usually, when circumstantial evidence is presented a jury is asked to make inferences to fill in gaps between direct evidence, but in this case there was basically no direct evidence to rest on and the jury was essentially asked to completely infer intent. I don't think that's enough to clear the bar of the highest possible legal standard.

If you were to ask me to make a positive case for Erin's innocence, I'm not sure I can do it without making the same errors as the prosecution (i.e. relying on baseless speculation). But of course defendants don't need to make a case for their innocence.

I suppose the best I can do is point out that Erin's story of an accidental poisoning seems to fit the facts better than the prosecution narrative of Erin as a smart, calculating murderer. If Erin had actually wanted to murder people, she would have immediately told the police she used foraged mushrooms and tried to play the whole thing off as a mistake. She certainly wouldn't have bought a dehydrator with her own card and then posted photos of it. Sure, sometimes people do stupid things, but the prosecution argument wasn't that Erin was a bumbling idiot who had a go at poisoning people, it was that she was a cold blooded killer who spent over a year planning this. Just doesn't make sense to me.

And that's without getting into the lack of motive. Nobody has been able to give a convincing reason why she would want to murder people. There's a couple of facebook messages, but that's not sufficient to override the rest of the evidence showing she had a good relationship with her in-laws. And why kill Heather and Ian too?

Thanks for your post, @mmatk.
Motive doesn't need to be proven in any Murder case.
I believe the evidence as a whole against EP is damning. Juries are allowed to use common sense where there is circumstantial evidence to join the dots, so to speak.
If this was just a terrible accident, why didn't she fess up at the start? "Oh, I'm so sorry, maybe foraged mushrooms ended up in lunch, I foraged them but didn't know what they were."
She didn't. Kept quiet and lied about the source of the mushrooms in the lunch, delaying critical treatment for her lunch guests. I believe she lied to conceal the real truth. Erin didn't admit to foraging mushrooms until she gave Evidence at the trial, nearly 2 years after the lunch. Why? To try and save her own skin, imo.
Anyway, that's my thoughts on the subject.
In the end, it didn't matter that she had one of the best Defense Attorneys that money could buy, because not even he could sway the Jury (who saw and heard a lot more in Court than was reported by Media).
All MOO of course.

 

[Yh5r]

What do you all think would have been on Erin's phone/ sim card that she discarded?
Police still retrieved the dehydrated mushroom photos, inaturalist look ups, messages and photos shared with her Facebook friends. What more incriminating evidence would the phone have held?

 

[Monstradamus]

What do you all think would have been on Erin's phone/ sim card that she discarded?
Police still retrieved the dehydrated mushroom photos, inaturalist look ups, messages and photos shared with her Facebook friends. What more incriminating evidence would the phone have held?

Something a lot more damning than what was on her many other devices, imo.

 

[Jake18]

What do you all think would have been on Erin's phone/ sim card that she discarded?
Police still retrieved the dehydrated mushroom photos, inaturalist look ups, messages and photos shared with her Facebook friends. What more incriminating evidence would the phone have held?

Dose calculations, maybe scientific papers estimating the toxic dose of death caps, more pictures of the mushrooms in various stages of preparation from whole mushrooms to powder.

 

[Yh5r]

Something a lot more damning than what was on her many other devices, imo.

Can't think of what it would have been

 

[mmatk]

Motive doesn't need to be proven in any Murder case.
I believe the evidence as a whole against EP is damning. Juries are allowed to use common sense where there is circumstantial evidence to join the dots, so to speak.
If this was just a terrible accident, why didn't she fess up at the start? "Oh, I'm so sorry, maybe foraged mushrooms ended up in lunch, I foraged them but didn't know what they were."
She didn't. Kept quiet and lied about the source of the mushrooms in the lunch, delaying critical treatment for her lunch guests. I believe she lied to conceal the real truth. Erin didn't admit to foraging mushrooms until she gave Evidence at the trial, nearly 2 years after the lunch. Why? To try and save her own skin, imo.
Anyway, that's my thoughts on the subject.

I'm aware there isn't a legal requirement to prove motive. However, in a case entirely revolving around intent, with very little direct evidence, motive is very important. Or to put it another way, the lack of motive is very good evidence of lack of intent.

Your comments about Erin's actions post-lunch are interesting. For me, those actions are evidence against Erin's guilt, not in favour of it. The actions are consistent with a person who accidentally poisoned her family, then panicked and tried to hide it so she wouldn't lose her kids. They're not the actions of a premeditated killer.

 

[Monstradamus]

Can't think of what it would have been

Since it was her primary phone, probably details of her Messenger Groups, some FB history, Signal Chat/WhatsApp history, Google locations, text messages, searches, possible dating apps (Hinge, Her, Pink Cupid). Not that there's anything wrong with that.
MOO

 

[Jake18]

Since it was her primary phone, probably details of her Messenger Groups, some FB history, Signal Chat/WhatsApp history, Google locations, text messages, searches, possible dating apps (Hinge, Her, Pink Cupid). Not that there's anything wrong with that.
MOO

Good point. I’m sure there are some people Erin communicated with who haven’t come forward with any shared communication.

I wonder what the rural dating scene is like?

 

[Monstradamus]

I'm aware there isn't a legal requirement to prove motive. However, in a case entirely revolving around intent, with very little direct evidence, motive is very important. Or to put it another way, the lack of motive is very good evidence of lack of intent.

Your comments about Erin's actions post-lunch are interesting. For me, those actions are evidence against Erin's guilt, not in favour of it. The actions are consistent with a person who accidentally poisoned her family, then panicked and tried to hide it so she wouldn't lose her kids. They're not the actions of a premeditated killer.

Maybe the actions after the lunch are reactive and show panic. But she wasn't panicked before the event, imo. Those DCs were in her Pantry (or hidden somewhere so the children couldn't access them - providing she knew what they were) in her house for months. She researched them, she found them, she picked them and she stored them.
MOO

 

[drsleuth]

I'm aware there isn't a legal requirement to prove motive. However, in a case entirely revolving around intent, with very little direct evidence, motive is very important. Or to put it another way, the lack of motive is very good evidence of lack of intent.

Your comments about Erin's actions post-lunch are interesting. For me, those actions are evidence against Erin's guilt, not in favour of it. The actions are consistent with a person who accidentally poisoned her family, then panicked and tried to hide it so she wouldn't lose her kids. They're not the actions of a premeditated killer.

So in her panic , she just had no care at all for her much loved relatives, you know the ones that had been so nice to her, the ones her kids loved?? I think 4 people facing death is more important than worrying about the thought of maybe losing her kids - why did she think she would lose he kids if this was all one big horrible accident??

That's a very steep hurdle for me to jump.

Also lying about cancer - the reason for the lunch ( because she apparently wanted feel loved etc by the same people she let die by not admitting when asked if she foraged mushrooms )

 

[JBowie]

What do you all think would have been on Erin's phone/ sim card that she discarded?
Police still retrieved the dehydrated mushroom photos, inaturalist look ups, messages and photos shared with her Facebook friends. What more incriminating evidence would the phone have held?

Possibly photos and/or SMS messages.

She may also have used GPS navigation on it and perhaps thought that her travel history may have been recorded within the phone (and maybe was).

 

[Yh5r]

Since it was her primary phone, probably details of her Messenger Groups, some FB history, Signal Chat/WhatsApp history, Google locations, text messages, searches, possible dating apps (Hinge, Her, Pink Cupid). Not that there's anything wrong with that.
MOO

Signal and Facebook was retrieved from the people she messaged with but yes searches could have been very interesting and damning indeed!

 

[PinkButtercup]

I'm aware there isn't a legal requirement to prove motive. However, in a case entirely revolving around intent, with very little direct evidence, motive is very important. Or to put it another way, the lack of motive is very good evidence of lack of intent.

Your comments about Erin's actions post-lunch are interesting. For me, those actions are evidence against Erin's guilt, not in favour of it. The actions are consistent with a person who accidentally poisoned her family, then panicked and tried to hide it so she wouldn't lose her kids. They're not the actions of a premeditated killer.

BBM

Erin's reluctance to bring her children to the hospital after they had supposedly eaten the same meal as the other guests, is all the evidence of guilt that I need.

MOO

 

[drsleuth]

‘I was freaking out’: Doctor defends caustic comments on Erin Patterson

Complaints have flooded in about a Gippsland doctor who testified in Erin Patterson’s triple-murder trial, after his later comments made headlines.

www.theage.com.au

‘I was freaking out’: Doctor defends caustic comments on Erin Patterson​