The mushroom poisoning in Vic.... I am gripped - Part 2

[ImustLearn2Cook]

Hi everyone, Aussie Mumsnetter here. As some have requested a new thread be started by an Aussie I decided to do it.

I am still gripped by this case and like many, I am awaiting updates of new information.

Will a matching donor for a liver for Ian be found soon? I hope he makes a full recovery.

Will he be able to shed new light on the lunch they all shared?

And of course is she guilty of deliberately poisoning them or was it an innocent mistake?

Not really a very good cover up plan! I suppose I was swayed by the reports of her being supposedly intelligent - but I know that book learning doesn’t necessarily translate into smooth executive functioning or thinking in an under pressure situation.

You need quite a lot of mushroom to kill 4-5 adults

Half a death cap per person will do the trick:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanita_phalloides#:~:text=It%20is%20estimated%20that%20as,to%20kill%20an%20adult%20human.

If you Google individual Beef Wellingtons there are tons of recipes, though I agree that in my mind's eye the massive centrepiece is what I see. It looks better. It's the vibe.

Unless I wanted to selectively poison people, in which case I'd go for the individual - pie and people

If you buy them in the supermarket in the UK, they are usually sold as individual Wellingtons - I don't know if Aussie supermarkets are the same?

She's told the child protection worker that she got the recipe for the BWs from RecipeTin Eats... But that's not a recipe for individual ones as far as I can see.

So... now it appears Death Caps were found in the leftovers! (as well as the dehydrator), according to the evidence of the chap who tested them, Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine forensic toxicologist Dr Dimitri Gerostamoulos.

I'm so confused!

One juror discharged 😬

That leaves them with only two spares. I hope no-one gets sick...

I read that she directed police as to where to find the binned leftovers eg bottom of the red bin. What if they then went to all other bins including the outside bins and found other food samples to test and these tested positive?

that would be quite suggestive of a deliberate cover up if she directed them to the toxin free leftovers but they also found other toxic leftovers.

Or I guess she was going to go with blaming the Asian store mushrooms so it didn’t matter if the leftovers had traces?
and in fact supports her tragic accident defence

If she is going down the Asian supermarket, unlabelled imported from China (as the probability of death caps entering the mushroom chain inside Australia must be very low) then the expert saying death caps don’t grow in China becomes a lot more relevant.

Don Patterson and Ian Wilkinson tested positive for death cap mushroom toxins, which were found in their urine samples. Gail Patterson and Heather Wilkinson tested negative for the toxins.

what does this mean?
but later i read that no urine was collected or suitable for analysis for Gail Patterson
because they had aready left the urine?

The toxins leave the body in 24-30 hours I read.
Freaks me out that she could maybe have got away with this??

Cork affect? Really. Surely she isn't that daft.

Naughty juror blabbing to people. I can see the temptation but really, he deserved to be kicked off.

I feel bad for whoever the two expendable jurors turn out out to be. Imagine sitting through all this, putting your life on hold and not getting a say in the outcome. I'd feel well ripped off.

So funny. With the judge interrupting to clarify she actually said that.

During their discussion, the worker reiterated that Patterson had reported suffering diarrhoea on Saturday, and that evening during an outing, “she stayed in the car to act as a cork so she didn’t poo herself.”

At that point, Justice Christopher Beale chimed in seeking clarification:

Justice Beale: “Was cork her word?”

The worker: “Yes.”

Even though it is a horrific case, there have been a few really funny moments, like when Ian Wilkinson was giving evidence and his chair lost its gas and he disappeared out of sight. After they fixed it/got another chair the judge said, "We do that to all our witnesses."

Oh dear that's too funny. I feel bad for laughing. Sort of.

Justice Beale has a sense of humour! I guess part of his extensive role is to keep the jury engaged.

My friend was on a jury for a trial that ran for almost a whole YEAR and one of the jurors had to drop out a week before it concluded to have emergency dental work done. At the end, they still had spare jurors (1 or 2, I think) that were randomly chosen to be removed.

Far out, almost a year? Nobody could deal with that. I know some employers will pay wage for jury duty but some will use annual leave or unpaid leave etc.

I get called up every 2 years and exempt myself. I'd like to do it but examples like this put me off!

I think in the UK if the trial is going to be a long one you have an opportunity to not be put forward for that case if eg you have a holiday already booked, you are self employed or have another reason you cannot serve on a jury for months. I have never done jury service but if ever required I will get a holiday booked for about a month after my jury service will start so I cannot be assigned to a trial which will go for more than 2-3 weeks.

Honestly, she was traumatised by the experience. The government should pay for jurors’ debriefing and therapy!

Not sure about her pay, but she was working at the time. I know you’re given a stingy stipend, so some employers will give you your pay minus the juror stipend.

Another friend was on a jury for two weeks and it turned out the police had fucked up with the collection of evidence. Even though the jury thought (knew) they were guilty, the magistrate instructed them that the evidence was inadmissible and they had to find them not guilty. My friend was pissed off about it. Such a waste of everyone’s time and guilty people walked free.

What the hell is the point if the judge can tell the jury what decision they have to reach? I didn't know that was possible!

Think it sounds like that was an exceptional case where the evidence was tainted and thus could not legally be relied on…

In jury trials, the jury has to determine the "facts" (aka whether the prosecution case is supported or not by the evidence) but the judge still has to determine how the law applies to the evidence and how arguments are made. So the judge determines if evidence is inadmissible and if so it can't be used to support either case. If enough prosecution evidence is deemed inadmissible then there isn't a case for the accused to answer which is why a finding of not guilty must be made.
Definitely a frustrating scenario for absolutely everyone, and a very embarrassing one for the prosecution.