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

[Scooby-Doo]

So what happens now?​

The sentencing comes first, with the court likely to reconvene sometime in the next month

The court will reconvene [Patterson will] sit there, and the judge will ask for sentencing submissions

At this point, the defence would typically ask for a pre-sentence report

The pre-sentence report is often an independent psychological evaluation, but it could also include an analysis on the defendant’s rehabilitation prospects, her background, criminal history, health or other mitigating factors that could help determine an appropriate sentence.

The matter will then be set down for a future date, and when the reports come in they will be delivered to the judge and court will reconvene.

The submissions on the sentence from the prosecution and defence will then be heard by the judge.


Australian mushroom murders: Erin Patterson guilty verdict ends weeks of laborious detail and ghoulish fascination
Read more
Then the judge will consider [Patterson’s] sentence and probably come back another week later and deliver the sentence

What sentence could Erin Patterson face?​

The last triple-murderer to be sentenced in Victoria was Robert Farquharson, who was convicted of murdering his children in 2007 and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 33 years.

Maximum penalty sentences are scaled, with murder and trafficking large quantities of drugs sitting at level 1 – which attracts the highest penalty.


The maximum sentence is life imprisonment, its anticipating that she’ll get a life sentence, and then it just comes down to what the non-parole period will be.

In Victoria, the minimum non-parole period for murder, if the offender has other convictions, is 30 years.

the non-parole period will be between 30 and 37 years.

You have countenanced the fact that there is not just one murder

Patterson is 50 years old, which means her prison sentence could see her incarcerated into her 80s.

Erin Patterson mushroom murder verdict – what happens next?

Legal expert anticipates a life sentence for Australian triple-murderer but her legal team has 28 days to decide if they are going to appeal

www.theguardian.com

 

[MrJ]

Life without possibility of parole, please. She's dangerous to her kids' and Simon's safety, and dare I say the broader community too

 

[JBowie]

In Victoria, the minimum non-parole period for murder, if the offender has other convictions, is 30 years.

the non-parole period will be between 30 and 37 years.

By contrast in NSW:

A life sentence is the most severe penalty a court can impose in Australia, following the abolition of the death penalty in 1985. Under NSW legislation, if an individual received a life sentence in NSW, this orders the offender to spend the rest of their natural life in prison unless the court has set a non-parole period.

The natural life sentence was introduced as the maximum punishment in NSW in 1990, following the outrage of ‘Truth in Sentencing’ findings that the average inmate sentenced to life imprisonment served 13 years.

How long is a life sentence in Australia?

Whilst most people acknowledge a ‘life sentence’ as the most severe penalty that can be imposed in the Australian legal system, many are unaware of the legal

www.hamiltonjanke.com.au

 

[CityKid]

And she still might have thought she could get him to eat it or send it home with him when he dropped the children home.

IMO she wouldn't have sent it home with him. I think by this point in Simon's gastro journey with EP's cooking, there was a more-than-zero chance he might choose to take it in for testing. I also think part of the thrill for her was smugly watching her victims eat what she knew would kill them.

 

[Sarahlou]

Life without possibility of parole, please. She's dangerous to her kids' and Simon's safety, and dare I say the broader community too

Yes, I think she poses a great danger to anybody.
I can't see her ever being released.

 

[Eloise]

So what happens now?​

The sentencing comes first, with the court likely to reconvene sometime in the next month

The court will reconvene [Patterson will] sit there, and the judge will ask for sentencing submissions

At this point, the defence would typically ask for a pre-sentence report

The pre-sentence report is often an independent psychological evaluation, but it could also include an analysis on the defendant’s rehabilitation prospects, her background, criminal history, health or other mitigating factors that could help determine an appropriate sentence.

The matter will then be set down for a future date, and when the reports come in they will be delivered to the judge and court will reconvene.

The submissions on the sentence from the prosecution and defence will then be heard by the judge.


Australian mushroom murders: Erin Patterson guilty verdict ends weeks of laborious detail and ghoulish fascination
Read more
Then the judge will consider [Patterson’s] sentence and probably come back another week later and deliver the sentence

What sentence could Erin Patterson face?​

The last triple-murderer to be sentenced in Victoria was Robert Farquharson, who was convicted of murdering his children in 2007 and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 33 years.

Maximum penalty sentences are scaled, with murder and trafficking large quantities of drugs sitting at level 1 – which attracts the highest penalty.


The maximum sentence is life imprisonment, its anticipating that she’ll get a life sentence, and then it just comes down to what the non-parole period will be.

In Victoria, the minimum non-parole period for murder, if the offender has other convictions, is 30 years.

the non-parole period will be between 30 and 37 years.

You have countenanced the fact that there is not just one murder

Patterson is 50 years old, which means her prison sentence could see her incarcerated into her 80s.

Erin Patterson mushroom murder verdict – what happens next?

Legal expert anticipates a life sentence for Australian triple-murderer but her legal team has 28 days to decide if they are going to appeal

www.theguardian.com

She's 50 and morbidly obese. I"m pretty comfortable with the fact she's going to die in jail, even if she gets a parole period, even if she doesn't get a 'life sentence'. She's pretty unlikely to last another 30 years. Unless jail inspires some kind of new health-conscious lifestyle?

 

[Bekind89]

Life without possibility of parole, please. She's dangerous to her kids' and Simon's safety, and dare I say the broader community too

Yes, she is a very dangerous woman to all who know her or are in her path.
It takes a special kind evil to poison another human being, it is so sinister. It takes an evil person to actually serve deadly poison to another and watch them consume it, knowing what an agonizing death they will suffer, and with Erin, she kills for the most petty of reasons.
Erin is a serial posioner and they will never change. Jmo.

 

[JBowie]

Interesting pay-walled article in the SMH about EP's history. Paraphrasing:

* It says that she obtained a degree in business accounting.

* Had a reputation online as a super sleuth because of her speed in researching.

* After working as an air traffic controller she was an animal welfare officer for Monash City Council.

* After inhering $2 million from her grandmother she concentrated on being a homemaker while also pursuing her love for learning.

* While living in WA she opened a bookstore and took on courses from law to veterinary science.

* Is quoted as saying that she was comfortable financially, thus could afford to go to university and didn’t need to work a full-time job.

* Regarding the 4WD trip when she abandoned Simon and her newborn in Townsville and flew by herself back to Perth, Simon is quoted as saying that he and the baby then drove straight back to Perth as directly as possible.

The remarkably unremarkable life of Erin Patterson

Erin Patterson is a self-confessed liar, a devoted mother and a convicted triple killer.

www.smh.com.au

 

[Bekind89]

"Regarding the 4WD trip when she abandoned Simon and her newborn in Townsville and flew by herself back to Perth, Simon is quoted as saying that he and the baby then drove straight back to Perth as directly as possible."

Erin appears to enjoy punishing people. I believe she takes great pride and enjoyment in hurting others, especially her family.
She is extremely sadistic, imo.

 

[JBowie]

A 6 minute summary of the case.

When I first saw her performance when questioned as she got out of her red MG at her house, I said aloud "Guilty as hell!". Seeing it again here makes me really wonder how anyone could think otherwise.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[JBowie]

"Regarding the 4WD trip when she abandoned Simon and her newborn in Townsville and flew by herself back to Perth, Simon is quoted as saying that he and the baby then drove straight back to Perth as directly as possible."

Erin appears to enjoy punishing people. I believe she takes great pride and enjoyment in hurting others, especially her family.
She is extremely sadistic, imo.

She is quoted elsewhere as saying that he she and Simon had great difficulty communicating when at odds over something.

Narcissistic translation of that: He regularly refused to accept that I am always correct.

 

[CityKid]

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 for focus. MOO throughout.
For the first issue, say person A approached person B, a stranger, who was standing at the edge of a subway platform, and gave them a hard shove from behind as the subway was pulling in. B dies. Do you believe there is a motive for such an act from A? If not, do you believe that is good evidence that A had no intent for B to die?
For the second issue, can you cite a case where a person has lost their children to child protection because they accidentally served a food that poisoned others? "Accidentally" meaning the person did not deliberately add a poison to the ingredients or the food. I can't find a case where that has happened. I don't believe that's a reasonable belief, but I welcome your citing of a case in which that has happened.

 

[iamshadow21]

"Regarding the 4WD trip when she abandoned Simon and her newborn in Townsville and flew by herself back to Perth, Simon is quoted as saying that he and the baby then drove straight back to Perth as directly as possible."

Erin appears to enjoy punishing people. I believe she takes great pride and enjoyment in hurting others, especially her family.
She is extremely sadistic, imo.

You have to be to be the kind of poisoner she is. She chose the poison she did specifically because of the suffering her victims would endure. It's easy enough to find information on the progression it takes. She knew what they would endure, and she did it anyway, rather than choosing something faster, or something that would mimic a heart attack or stroke, common enough at their age.

The protracted sadism was the point. Their deaths were a side benefit.

MOO

 

[JBowie]

You have to be to be the kind of poisoner she is. She chose the poison she did specifically because of the suffering her victims would endure. It's easy enough to find information on the progression it takes. She knew what they would endure, and she did it anyway, rather than choosing something faster, or something that would mimic a heart attack or stroke, common enough at their age.

The protracted sadism was the point. Their deaths were a side benefit.

MOO

Yes, but what I find truly bizarre is that she is hailed as being a "super sleuth" for her ability to put two and two together regarding crimes, yet she somehow expected that a group of relatives becoming very ill and dying at around the same time would not lead to questions as to where they had all been together beforehand.

 

[Montrealaise]

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.

What may not be a motive for you could nevertheless be a motive for someone else. You're probably thinking of cases where there is a clear and tangible benefit to murdering someone, for example, being the sole beneficiary of a large life insurance policy. However, murderers can also kill for reasons that may seem trivial to you. EP appears to be a very spiteful, vindictive person. Her estranged husband not only walked out on her but he also refused to pay her the child support she wanted. His relatives sided with him, not her. To someone of her mindset, that would justify killing them all.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

I must say that, unlike Max, I do not appreciate the perspective of people who do not trouble to listen to the evidence that has been given and is clear - such as the fact that EP certainly did not show symptoms of death cap poisoning. I think this is a modern heresy - (the 'my truth' heresy, perhaps!) that anyone's opinion is as good as anyone else's regardless of their respective knowledge and understanding .

I strongly disagree with this I'm afraid. 'My truth' refers to something that is actually factual and the other person has their own version of the truth.

This is simply a disagreement about a set of facts. As convinces as you or I might be, we should be able to accept that other people can look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion. It's not necessarily that they're not listening, they're just not convinced.

This poster has argued their opinion, and done so without much drama from what I can see. I think they're wrong about there being much doubt about whether she now did it, but about the jury I can understand how somebody could come to that perspective.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

"Regarding the 4WD trip when she abandoned Simon and her newborn in Townsville and flew by herself back to Perth, Simon is quoted as saying that he and the baby then drove straight back to Perth as directly as possible."

Erin appears to enjoy punishing people. I believe she takes great pride and enjoyment in hurting others, especially her family.
She is extremely sadistic, imo.

Unless you've got kids, you maybe can't fully understand how insane it is for a mother to do this. My wife would never have left the children in a million years like this.

Far more likely would be a woman taking the child and the car saying 'get yourself home!'

 

[musicaljoke]

That is called the C

I'm sure they anticipated that she would make up more lies but expecting them to know what bung she will testify to and have evidence to refute it is a bit much. How exactly would you expect them to know she's going to make up a lie about an eating disorder and pretend she threw up two years ago while supposedly sick from deathly toxins that she didn't remember even then that she had foraged herself?

That would be called the CSI Effect. These crime TV shows distort audience expectations into the unrealistic realm.

 

[Way2Invested]

Unless you've got kids, you maybe can't fully understand how insane it is for a mother to do this. My wife would never have left the children in a million years like this.

Far more likely would be a woman taking the child and the car saying 'get yourself home!'

As a mum who had really bad PND I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that she was in such a black place that she believed her husband and child were better off without her. I've been there.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

Yes, but what I find truly bizarre is that she is hailed as being a "super sleuth" for her ability to put two and two together regarding crimes, yet she somehow expected that a group of relatives becoming very ill and dying at around the same time would not lead to questions as to where they had all been together beforehand.

Has anybody ever considered that this was part of the plan?

Maybe she thought she was so clever that she was playing 5d chess, and the whole idea that nobody would murder 4 people without apparent motive was how she thought she'd get away with it.