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

[Goosewhisperer]

Ooh if Pamela Rabe were younger/larger she'd be perfect to play Erin.

I just thought, we haven't seen a mugshot of Erin. Do they not release them in Australia?

Not unless she escapes

 

[Bats]

I think I see now why you are struggling to see why the jury decided on the verdict that they did, that maybe you are not across the evidence in a great enough detail

RSBM

I get the impression there are many people that were expecting a not guilty verdict. Perhaps not evident in this chat group but for me, living and working in Melbourne, it wasn't scarce to hear that opinion of expecting a not guilty verdict. 2 out of 3 of the ABC mushroom podcast presenters were surprised about a guilty verdict and they sat in court for most of the sitting days.

Just my observation

 

[Scuffy35]

RSBM

I get the impression there are many people that were expecting a not guilty verdict. Perhaps not evident in this chat group but for me, living and working in Melbourne, it wasn't scarce to hear that opinion of expecting a not guilty verdict. 2 out of 3 of the ABC mushroom podcast presenters were surprised about a guilty verdict and they sat in court for most of the sitting days.

Just my observation

I was never in doubt that she was guilty, but I thought that it most probably would have result in a hung jury.

There were some mistakes the prosecution made in not having expert witnesses on mushroom toxin transfer etc, the excluded evidence the directions from the judge that were in the favour of the defence. A sloppy house search and sloppy computer and phone forensic work (eg UTC or local time confusion).

We had the benefit from doing our own research, but the jury didn't.

 

[Old Soul]

RSBM

I get the impression there are many people that were expecting a not guilty verdict. Perhaps not evident in this chat group but for me, living and working in Melbourne, it wasn't scarce to hear that opinion of expecting a not guilty verdict. 2 out of 3 of the ABC mushroom podcast presenters were surprised about a guilty verdict and they sat in court for most of the sitting days.

Just my observation

IMO Rachael Brown from ABC’s Mushroom Case Daily podcast seemed to always show a bias toward Erin Patterson being not guilty, though I don’t think this was reflective of how the majority of Australians felt.
I do think a lot of people were anxious about a hung jury as the days of deliberations wore on.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

Yes, it's a 5 day drive.

When I travelled Australia, we landed in Perth and then decided to go to Sydney. It turned out the cost for the plane and the Indian Pacific train was the same.

The train was 3 days and we thought it might be more interesting.

Yeh that wasn't a good shout.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

IMO Rachael Brown from ABC’s Mushroom Case Daily podcast seemed to always show a bias toward Erin Patterson being not guilty, though I don’t think this was reflective of how the majority of Australians felt.
I do think a lot of people were anxious about a hung jury as the days of deliberations wore on.

Yes this. The tone of the first podcast after the verdict was very different to anything else I've heard or read.

The first time Rachael was on the pod, she mentioned Lindy Chamberlain so I think that demonstrates where her headspace was.

 

[Susjay]

To give overseas posters a better idea of the trip ie time and distance.
It would have been a very worrying trip driving in such desolate countryside with a young baby.

It is totally consistent with who this woman was - I am absconding because this is what meets my needs. I don’t give a toss what anyone else’s needs are.

 

[Susjay]

Yes this. The tone of the first podcast after the verdict was very different to anything else I've heard or read.

The first time Rachael was on the pod, she mentioned Lindy Chamberlain so I think that demonstrates where her headspace was.

P I stopped listening once she

Maybe she doesn't like her in laws either...

Once the accused testified I found it really difficult to listen to the ABC podcast. Rachel presented everything the accused said as fact! It made me shift in my seat. I couldn’t really listen much after that.

 

[Ellery84]

Oh gawd they tracked down and published the foot photo!

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/poignant-instagram-post-a-window-into-erin-pattersons-strange-world/news-story/d7cea3a2a82229db3032e3c48840f73f?amp

#slownewsday

IMO


<simon comments “the closest you get to a selfie”….. 448 weeks ago >

 

[Susjay]

IMO Rachael Brown from ABC’s Mushroom Case Daily podcast seemed to always show a bias toward Erin Patterson being not guilty, though I don’t think this was reflective of how the majority of Australians felt.
I do think a lot of people were anxious about a hung jury as the days of deliberations wore on.

I think Rachael got a bit wrapped up in the drama. Quite often she failed to say “this is what accused said” and and just relayed what the accused saiid as if it was factual testimony. It drove me crazy. It seemed to misrepresent the facts.

 

[Susjay]

Oh gawd they tracked down and published the foot photo!

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/poignant-instagram-post-a-window-into-erin-pattersons-strange-world/news-story/d7cea3a2a82229db3032e3c48840f73f?amp

#slownewsday

IMO


<simon comments “the closest you get to a selfie”….. 448 weeks ago >

Let’s just pretend the foot photo is a non entity. Best for everyone.

 

[Susjay]

I think that the prosecution does allege that Erin was a bumbling idiot type of killer.

imo

A bumbling killer because it sort of went to plan. But not bumbling when it unravelled… then the lies rolled out.
Then it became lie after lie - Uhm, yes, yup, I foraged just a bit, but not really, and then I thought yeah a facial would be nice… and I was thinking of gastric band surgery but maybe liposuction or actually quite a nice long facial. Yes I booked a facial.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I've seen her IG, it's kind of sad seeing the normal happy family photos. Some with Don. Simon still follows her. Hasn't been updated for 10+ years, not much there

 

[Susjay]

I think that the prosecution does allege that Erin was a bumbling idiot type of killer.

imo

But much more bumbling idiot after the murder and then she just made it up as she went along. I think her defence didn’t even know what she would say.

 

[Susjay]

I've seen her IG, it's kind of sad seeing the normal happy family photos. Some with Don. Simon still follows her. Hasn't been updated for 10+ years, not much there

IG.

 

[Susjay]

4565 km = 2837 miles (say NY City to LA)

Taking off with one child and leaving Simon to drive home with the younger daughter to drive all that way was irresponsible, selfish thoughtless and cruel to Simon and the daughter. Go figure!

 

[Megnut]

Taking off with one child and leaving Simon to drive home with the younger daughter to drive all that way was irresponsible, selfish thoughtless and cruel to Simon and the daughter. Go figure!

I'm reminded of the saying oft attributed to Maya Angelou -- when people show you who they are, believe them.

You know why that doesn't happen? It's not because of the person who is showing who they are IMO, it's that the other person has a good heart and believes (needs and wants to believe) thst other people are also good.

Some people just aren't good.

Simon's parents were good and kind and good to her, but she killed them anyway.
Her children were close to their grandparents. She murdered them anyway.
The other couple, never anything but kind and supportive, she killed them anyway.
Simon was a good person, faithful and long suffering, she murdered his support system without flinching.

Some people need to win. Win, as they define it.

I dare say, as those four victims, already dying of a time-released bullet, prayed for HER (bogus) health issues, she felt like she won. Ultimate dupe.

For some people that is motive enough.

And that is terrifying.

JMO

 

[Montrealaise]

I don't understand this blind deference to a jury trial verdict. Plenty of innocent people have been convicted by a jury. And even if someone is actually guilty, a verdict doesn't necessarily mean every aspect of the prosecution's case has been proven to be true.

Someone's state of mind is fundamentally unknowable, IMO. You can make reasonable inferences about it, but you may never actually know for sure. But that might just be a philosophical difference between us.


This is an extremely weak argument for a motive. Even the prosecution admitted (in opening statements) it didn't have a motive for Erin. In those circumstances, I'm pretty comfortable stating there wasn't a motive. A motive isn't required for a conviction, obviously, but lack of motive is evidence against intent.

I agree with you about the lying though. I suspect it was basically what caused the jury to land on guilty. If you don't believe anything Erin says, all you are left with is the prosecution's murder narrative, which as I've admitted before is very compelling when zoomed out.


Thanks for the list (not sarcasm, it's actually useful to have everything laid out). That's essentially what the prosecution did at trial: Zoom out, provide a long list of circumstantial evidence and ask the jury to fill in the gaps. The problem with that approach is it encourages hindsight reasoning (working backwards from an intended result).

When you actually examine these items, a lot of them are either irrelevant, incorrect, or have an alternative benign explanation (granted, you need to believe some of what Erin said to accept those explanations. As above, I understand why some people might not do that).

For example: The cancer story. You say Erin lied to her guests about having cancer "in order to lure them to her luncheon", but that's incorrect. The only testimony we have about the cancer is Ian's, and he said Erin did not mention it until after everyone had finished eating. Erin didn't need the cancer story to "lure" people to lunch, by all accounts they came willingly. That is, except for Simon, who Erin did tell she had medical news. She didn't say cancer though.

Another example: The plates. First of all, Ian's story about the plates hasn't been proven. The police search of Erin's house didn't show plates matching Ian's description, and Erin's son's police interview disagrees with Ian too. But more importantly, it is totally reasonable to conclude Erin just didn't have 5 matching plates. Simon confirmed she had mismatching plate sets under cross-examination. Personally, I don't have 5 matching plates in my house either. If I was serving a meal for 5 people, I would definitely give my guests the matching plates and eat off the odd one myself. Erin's behaviour here is only suspicious if you already assume she is guilty. It's just not relevant.

One more, just to illustrate what I categorised above as something with a possible benign explanation: The Asian grocer. Erin's testimony was that, as far as she knew, she did use dried mushrooms from an Asian grocer in the meal, and so that's what she initially told medical staff. It was only later she realised she might have accidentally use foraged mushrooms as well. You might not believe Erin's testimony, but for me her story is more plausible than the prosecution's contention that Erin deliberately led authorities on a wild goose chase for purchased mushrooms so she could cover up the murders. As I've said before, if Erin was trying to cover up murders she would have immediately admitted to foraging.


Disagree. The prosecution didn't blow Erin's story apart, if nothing else than because it didn't have the opportunity to do so. You might say that's not fair, but that's how criminal trials work.


I don't need to come up with my own theory about why she didn't immediately own up - the defence presented one. Once Erin realised there might have been foraged mushrooms in the meal, she panicked and tried to shield herself from allegations of being a danger to her kids.

As above, if Erin had wanted to "walk away free", she would have admitted foraging, not lied about it.


That's not consistent with the prosecution's case though. The prosecution said Erin deliberately harvested death caps and purchased the dehydrator on that same day, it wasn't just an innocent household purchase. You can't have it both ways.


I agree, it is normal. But that's not what the prosecution alleged here. There wasn't just a couple of little mistakes, there was a whole litany of bizarre actions that directly contradict the prosecution's story of Erin as a calculating person who planned the murders for over a year.

I've thought about this some more, and I think there might be a case to be made that Erin was actually a bumbling idiot type killer. Someone who did things on the fly and never thought much about what story she needed to tell to get out of it or what evidence to dispose of. She might even have just meant to make her guests sick rather than kill them. That would at least be consistent with the facts. The problem is, that's not what the prosecution alleged.

Evidence in a criminal trial is like a jigsaw puzzle: one piece by itself tells you nothing, but put the pieces together and a picture starts to emerge. Once all the pieces are in place, the picture is very clear.

Take the mismatched plates. First, are you implying that Ian is lying? Why would he lie? If you think he was mistaken, remember that he first mentioned that a day or two after the poisoned lunch, so obviously it was something that struck him as odd. There has been no hint that he has a faulty memory so when he says Erin served the guests on grey plates but used an orange one for herself, I believe he is very credible. The police didn't find any such plates at her home - well we now have CCTV footage of Erin at a garbage tip, just 30 minutes after her guests had left, throwing a cardboard box into the trash. It's reasonable to assume the plates were in the box.

As for her son, he testified that there were white plates, not grey or orange ones, in the dishwasher. But they were smaller than dinner plates, so obviously dessert plates. Sure, if you only own four good plates but there are five people at lunch including yourself, then you'd use the good plates for your guests and use another one for yourself. However, when you look at all the other pieces of evidence, a benign explanation is very unlikely. And that's just for one part of the evidence.

 

[Tortoise]

During questioning from Dr Rogers, EP said they didn't go to church because her son had a sore tummy.

Patterson said her memory of that morning was different to the version of events described by the teenager, and that it was he who had suggested not going to church that morning.

The accused woman said that she got up that morning and went to check her son’s bedroom next door. After realising he was not in the room, she walked downstairs and found her son sitting in the TV room.

“The first thing he said to me was, ‘I’ve got a sore tummy ... can we not go to church today?’” Patterson told the court.

As it happened: Prosecutor suggests accused mushroom cook wanted to appear unwell after beef Wellington lunch - Erin Patterson trial day 29

Accused killer Erin Patterson has spent another full day in witness box during her triple murder trial. She has pleaded not guilty to three charges of murder and one of attempted murder.

www.smh.com.au

I found this odd because it would've been more supportive to EP's story of being unwell to agree with what her son had stated. But instead, she disagreed with his supportive testimony.

RSBM

This is the way Erin rolls, IMO. Her son's recollection supported her narrative of being sick, so it seems counter-intuitive for her to disagree with him. But, I think this was a calculated strategy of hers to sow the seeds for the jury that her son had an unreliable memory of that morning - all because he said he came down stairs and noticed her drinking coffee. He must have been confusing that morning with another morning, he was already down on the couch when I came down, I remember checking his room when I got up. As if she would remember those details two years later, which weren't anything extraordinary.

We see this kind of planning she applies in thinking no-one would believe she would deliberately poison to death a family group of four or five, and expect to get away with it. Hence they'll believe it was accident or misadventure. She plans for how to make people think, as far as she can control it.

My opinion

 

[Tortoise]

When I travelled Australia, we landed in Perth and then decided to go to Sydney. It turned out the cost for the plane and the Indian Pacific train was the same.

The train was 3 days and we thought it might be more interesting.

Yeh that wasn't a good shout.

I did exactly the same trip!! Yeah, miles and miles of nothing, as far as the eye can see.