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?

I didn’t say anything about what she wanted or didn’t. I was simply speculating about human nature when trying to arrive at a verdict. And saying I could see why someone might decide to err on the side of caution with the verdict.

Either I've missed it or just don't remember, but are the defence still saying she bought the mushrooms? Or has she admitted to foraging them and claiming the death caps were accidental?

pretty sure she is still denying foraging

No, the defence say she did forage - and everything she said before was a lie - but she did not deliberately forage death caps.

Thanks!

Who among us can honestly say we've never foraged for mushrooms, put them into a dish that killed people, and then claimed to have bought them at some mysterious Asian supermarket that you can't seem to remember the location of? Happens all the time.

Oh my goodness, can't believe she's testifying!! It was pretty dull the stuff today though 🫠 Looking forward to cross examination...

Oh I knew she would testify! No doubt in my mind. Probably got a personality disorder and loves the attention. Hopefully it seals the deal for her guilt. Can't believe there are people thinking she might be innocent?! What sort of evidence were you expecting? If she'd done it accidentally she wouldn't have made sure she didn't get any death caps-which she didn't because she'd either be dead or have almost died and now have a liver transplant. And now people are saying let mother's off with lesser charges?! Smdh.

Women use poison as a method far more than men, this is absolutely the sort of thing a female killer would do. Why on earth should parents get lesser charges?! You think parents don't commit crimes?

Not charges. Verdict. Oh my word, the way people exaggerate! Simply saying it might sway a jury member. Humans are not perfectly rational beings, despite what the rules say.

Totally simplistic reading of what I said, but heyho.

Well I hope to god it doesn't sway anyone. What if someone didn't like parents, and decided from the off she was guilty, would that be fine too? Or only one way?

Where did I say it was fine?! It’s just an observation about human nature. It could even be subconscious. The system is inevitably imperfect in cases of this nature, particularly when it all turns on mens rea. Very interesting.

Jury system is terrifying really. I Must admit I do feel a bit... bewildered by people who think she's innocent. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence!!

She wouldn’t be innocent, it just wouldn’t be murder

Exactly. Her defence is going to be that, although her story has changed several times and she wasn’t particularly helpful to medical staff trying to identify the poison, it was an accidental poisoning of people she cared about.

But she went to DCM identified locations, bought a dehydrator, served up the food, didn’t get sick herself, served it to her children who also didn’t get ill, lied about the source of the mushrooms and dumped the dehydrator and wiped phones while relatives were dying. She knew which portions were poisoned and which were not and then tried to hide evidence. There is too much circumstantial evidence for her not to be guilty IMO. It’s beyond reasonable doubt to me.

Why?

I don't understand

I am talking about the difference between murder and manslaughter - the two possible verdicts I was referring to.

Yairs, because that would be so much nicer for her children!

Not killing their rels would have been nicer, though.

Definitely. Is it because she used an obscure/unusual method of murder people think she should only get manslaughter? 3 people are dead because of her (probably would've been 5 including ex if she had her way) and it couldn't be more obvious it was done deliberately. I'm just confused what more evidence people want?

Add to this the series of lies told in the leadup to the lunch:

On June 28, the day that Gail had noted in her diary Erin was due to have an appointment at St Vincent's to investigate a lump on her arm, there was this exchange:

Gail: Hi Erin just wondering how you got on at your appointment today? Love Gail and Don

Erin replied the next morning: Hi Gail Sorry I had taken [my daughter] to see a movie last night. We saw The Little Mermaid. The appointment went ok, thanks for asking. I had a needle biopsy taken of the lump and I'm returning for an MRI next week and we'll know more after the results of those two things.

LSC Eppingstall tells the court there is no evidence Erin was ever referred for, or obtained, an MRI.

Then she convenes the lunch to discuss her serious medical concerns, tells them she has been diagnosed with ovarian cancer, another of her lies, and she sits there and lets them pray for her, knowing they have eaten poison and will die a hideous protracted death.

None of that suggests an accident, and lies told out of panic to cover it up.

Sounds like she was a bit of a fantasist. Let’s see what she has to say for herself.

She's a lying liar who lies. I look forward to her burying herself further in this narcissistic move.