GUILTY Australia - 3 dead after eating wild mushrooms, Leongatha, Victoria, Aug 2023 *Arrest* #20

[IBR]

The thing that bugs me about any kind of parole is that we are not looking at the murder of one person, or two, but the murder of 3 people.

To me, she should get 3 individual (and not concurrent) murder sentences.
And then tag on extra years for the attempted murder of Ian.

So if there was to be a possibility of parole it would be in 90 years (minimum).

imo

Absolutely. But that’s not going to happen. After Mandy’s plea on Monday, the current conditions at Dame Phyllis almost guarantee her parole. I just wonder how, if she really gets whatever kind of parole, they will justify that the other inmates in the Gordon unit, notorious or not, will have to put up with exactly the same conditions.

Edited to add: what really bugs me is that she‘ll probably get parole even though she doesn’t even suffer a lot under the conditions there, due to her wicked personality.

 

[Charlot123]

Absolutely. But that’s not going to happen. After Mandy’s plea on Monday, the current conditions at Dame Phyllis almost guarantee her parole. I just wonder how, if she really gets whatever kind of parole, they will justify that the other inmates in the Gordon unit, notorious or not, will have to put up with exactly the same conditions.

Edited to add: what really bugs me is that she‘ll probably get parole even though she doesn’t even suffer a lot under the conditions there, due to her wicked personality.

Is there only one prison in Australia?

 

[Charlot123]

Well, guess what? Being fed deathcap mushrooms is even more harmful than prison isolation, and is also "not very humane".

What about Ian if she is out on parole? Judging by her reason for leaving the job in 2004 and probably, attempts at Simon's life, there is pervasiveness in her behavior.

And as the case of Robert Crawford has amply shown, even the "out on bail" conditions can be easily breached.

Who can protect her prior targets?

 

[Breezyflavor]

A bunch of posts had to be removed because they went wayyy off topic. We have to be careful about "diagnosing" other people. Also, we're lucky enough to have all of you here. You come from all over and live wildly different lives and have lots of different thoughts and opinions. So it can be easy sometimes to take things personally and get reactive. If someone pisses you off, just remember that probably wasn't their intention, but if it obviously was then report it and we'll get on it. Thanks for being here and participating in the conversation

 

[Monstradamus]

The thing that bugs me about any kind of parole is that we are not looking at the murder of one person, or two, but the murder of 3 people.

To me, she should get 3 individual (and not concurrent) murder sentences.
And then tag on extra years for the attempted murder of Ian.

So if there was to be a possibility of parole it would be in 90 years (minimum).

imo

I agree. It's akin to EP being sentenced for the murder of only one person, and the other two don't matter, imo.
I know it's the law, but still....

 

[JBowie]

I still think that Mandy will get parole for her,

I'm thinking otherwise. I believe that Judge Beale has the measure of EP given the calculated way she went about these murders, her incessant lying, her attempts to cover up and her plainly evident lack of remorse.

All of these aspects IMO have earned her life without parole and who the hell cares what prison conditions are like: she richly deserves her position in there.

 

[Charlot123]

I find it interesting that NOW we hear from Mr Mandy of his agreement to the suggestions that Erin poisoned her lunch guests in what was a deliberate & planned occurrence.
And he agrees that the lied about her post-lunch behaviour, including lying about being unwell herself.

None of this is or was News to him, as he had every bit of evidence that the prosecution was bringing to trial - yet at that stage he was prepared to get up and argue her innocence.

I said I found it interesting, but to be honest I find it amoral. … each to their own I guess, in choices of how to earn a buck.

I sometimes wonder if it was even a more deliberate and "planned" than we think. If she planned who had to die, and who potentially could live. If certain guests were "targeted" more than others.

The portions were individual. Gail ate 1/2 of hers. Her husband Don ate 1 of his and 1/2 of Gail's.

(People have different strengths and livers, of course.)

Yet... Gail fell sick earlier.

Gail and Heather died the same day.

Don, who ate 1.5 portion as opposed to Gail's 0.5, fell sick later, and made it to liver transplant, just didn't survive.

In short, did Erin target (at least her female guests) more?

Or do you think it is a random occurrence?

 

[Charlot123]

I agree. It's akin to EP being sentenced for the murder of only one person, and the other two don't matter, imo.
I know it's the law, but still....

In fact, she poisoned four, one simply made it. By attempt, it is a mass murder.

 

[Deleted member 367982]

Personally, I would have liked to have seen more made of the suspicion Simon had of being poisoned by his estranged wife.
If someone from the health dept had told the police and the police knocked on Erin's door and said we have had a report of poison being in Simon's food on 4 occasions, it may have made her think twice about going ahead with her scheme to kill everyone.
They're not knocking on her door to accuse her, just to say it has been noted.
So, it didn't happen this time. maybe it can be a lesson for health authorities next time they have suspicions someone is up to no good.

 

[Kemug]

If Erin is let out in say 30 years, noone can be sure that she wouldn't murder again. 80 isn't considered all that old these days. Simon maybe? She's probably really annoyed that he slipped through her fingers. Ex brothers and sisters in law? What about her own children even? If they don't pay enough attention to her in the coming decades (possibly none at all), would she decide they needed punishing? You don't need to be young and physically fit to poison someone. She could never ever be trusted.

 

[Moll]

If Erin is let out in say 30 years, noone can be sure that she wouldn't murder again. 80 isn't considered all that old these days. Simon maybe? She's probably really annoyed that he slipped through her fingers. Ex brothers and sisters in law? What about her own children even? If they don't pay enough attention to her in the coming decades (possibly none at all), would she decide they needed punishing? You don't need to be young and physically fit to poison someone. She could never ever be trusted.

You seem to be assuming any of them, or anyone at all, would consume anything that had come within a mile of her!
ETA I don't disagree with your main point. And I am sure a scenario could be constructed. Ancient crone injecting fruit in supermarkets with poison, perhaps...

 

[IBR]

If Erin is let out in say 30 years, noone can be sure that she wouldn't murder again. 80 isn't considered all that old these days. Simon maybe? She's probably really annoyed that he slipped through her fingers. Ex brothers and sisters in law? What about her own children even? If they don't pay enough attention to her in the coming decades (possibly none at all), would she decide they needed punishing? You don't need to be young and physically fit to poison someone. She could never ever be trusted.

Yes. I think so too. No one she thinks might have done her wrong would be safe. If she really gets 30 years minimum and parole, we can only hope she’ll die in prison before being eligible for parole.

 

[IBR]

I sometimes wonder if it was even a more deliberate and "planned" than we think. If she planned who had to die, and who potentially could live. If certain guests were "targeted" more than others.

The portions were individual. Gail ate 1/2 of hers. Her husband Don ate 1 of his and 1/2 of Gail's.

(People have different strengths and livers, of course.)

Yet... Gail fell sick earlier.

Gail and Heather died the same day.

Don, who ate 1.5 portion as opposed to Gail's 0.5, fell sick later, and made it to liver transplant, just didn't survive.

In short, did Erin target (at least her female guests) more?

Or do you think it is a random occurrence?

Maybe some portions contained a bit more poison than others, but I doubt the portions were allocated to particular guests. Remember that each guest picked their own plate. Except for EP who probably held her unpoisoned portion back and put it on her orangey-tan plate after her guests had taken their grey plates to the table.
I think the reason why the women passed away first would have been a matter of gender, age, weight and general health condition, apart from how much toxin had been ingested. Hasn’t it been said somewhere that Gail had recovered from a health condition only a short time before the lunch? I’m really not sure, but I think I read it somewhere, but that could have contributed to her being poisoned by half a portion. It’s all so terribly sad!

 

[Scuffy35]

Maybe some portions contained a bit more poison than others, but I doubt the portions were allocated to particular guests. Remember that each guest picked their own plate. Except for EP who probably held her unpoisoned portion back and put it on her orangey-tan plate after her guests had taken their grey plates to the table.
I think the reason why the women passed away first would have been a matter of gender, age, weight and general health condition, apart from how much toxin had been ingested. Hasn’t it been said somewhere that Gail had recovered from a health condition only a short time before the lunch? I’m really not sure, but I think I read it somewhere, but that could have contributed to her being poisoned by half a portion. It’s all so terribly sad!

Don was reportedly fit and in good health but didn't survive even after having a liver transplant.

Ian somehow survived though, without even having a liver transplant, or at least there have been no reports that I am aware of that he had one.

[EDIT - As I remember it now, Don also ate some of Gails portion, so that might explain why he faired worse than Ian]

 

[Ellery84]

Don was reportedly fit and in good health but didn't survive even after having a liver transplant.

Ian somehow survived though, without even having a liver transplant, or at least there have been no reports that I am aware of that he had one.

[EDIT - As I remember it now, Don also ate some of Gails portion, so that might explain why he faired worse than Ian]

Don reportedly had 1.5 serves of Beef Wellington. Also: The fact that Ian survived is a miracle. IMO

 

[Warshawski]

If Erin were to sniff out even the smallest inkling of prejudice or moral discourse from Mandy during his representation, there would be grounds for appeal.

Defence are there to uphold the law and are vital to the integrity of the trial system.

Welcome back packet

( In response also to FPoulet’s comment) I’m definitely not disputing the need for the Defence, nor the importance of upholding the law.

I just don’t believe in changing one’s tune to suit the circumstances / audience, in any situation.

And I think it’s quite possible for Mandy to advocate for some leniency in EP’s sentencing with doing an about face.

Just my opinion.

 

[wellbehavedtortie]

With the length of Australia's waiting lists for adult assessment and diagnosis? Tell him he's dreaming. There's absolutely no way the turnaround is that fast, even with plenty of cash behind it.

MOO

If you go private you can get it done within a few weeks. I just did that.

 

[Detechtive]

I sometimes wonder if it was even a more deliberate and "planned" than we think. If she planned who had to die, and who potentially could live. If certain guests were "targeted" more than others.

The portions were individual. Gail ate 1/2 of hers. Her husband Don ate 1 of his and 1/2 of Gail's.

(People have different strengths and livers, of course.)

Yet... Gail fell sick earlier.

Gail and Heather died the same day.

Don, who ate 1.5 portion as opposed to Gail's 0.5, fell sick later, and made it to liver transplant, just didn't survive.

In short, did Erin target (at least her female guests) more?

Or do you think it is a random occurrence?

I don't think so, because;

1. They took their own plates - no way to 'dose' them.
2. Women metabolise poisons quicker and die quicker due to lower muscle concentration and smaller organs (like the liver).
3. You can't just "kill them a little bit" with deathcaps. Once a certain threshold is crossed with the dose, they are nearly certainly going to die.

IMO

 

[Warshawski]

I'm thinking otherwise. I believe that Judge Beale has the measure of EP given the calculated way she went about these murders, her incessant lying, her attempts to cover up and her plainly evident lack of remorse.

All of these aspects IMO have earned her life without parole and who the hell cares what prison conditions are like: she richly deserves her position in there.

Thinking about Judge Beale’s recent sentencing of Danielle Birchall for the murder of her elderly (de facto) father-in-law - she was jailed for 27 years with a non-parole period of 20 years, after the Judge took into consideration the profound abuse she suffered as a child, which left her with lasting mental health conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder (still lenient imo & I think perhaps that is a hallmark of Judge Beale)

Erin is being sentenced for the murder of 3 people + the attempted & almost successful murder of another. … with no proven mitigating circumstances to lesson her punishment (other than her current ‘difficult’ jail conditions)

3 x 27 = 81 years

Her lawyer is asking for 30 years non-parole. …he’s got to try, but seriously Mr Mandy, 30 years for multiple murders ! I think there would be global outrage, even though that would mean she would not see outside prison walls before she’s 80.

But I am starting to consider the possibility of her not getting LWOP.

 

[SouthAussie]

Justice Beale (same judge as this case) was the judge who inadequately sentenced Borce Ristevski.
Then the prosecution appealed Borce's sentence, and the appeals court increased the sentence.


In sentencing Ristevski in April, Justice Christopher Beale said he did not have enough information to determine the severity of the killing.

Prosecutors had argued the 55-year-old’s nine-year jail term for the manslaughter of Karen Ristevski at the couple’s Melbourne home in June 2016 was manifestly inadequate.

Victoria’s court of appeal on Friday re-sentenced Ristevski to 13 years, with a non-parole period of 10 years.

Borce Ristevski's jail term for killing wife Karen increased to 13 years after appeal

Prosecutors argued that nine-year term for manslaughter was manifestly inadequate

www.theguardian.com