The mushroom poisoning in Vic...... we are gripped!.....Part 3

[Dustyblue]

New thread! Cheers @echt for noticing!

@mokjkjjoi don’t think it’s unrealistic for someone to taste mushrooms they have foraged in a small amount. If I foraged mushrooms that’s what I would do.

Totally a liar, but it doesn’t make her a murderer. They have to prove she murdered, not that she lied.

there’s a lot of reasons to wipe your phone, a lot of batty people think/say they have cancer when they don’t, a lot of people don’t trust doctors, a lot of people vomit after they eat, a lot of people text bitchy things about their in laws to their friends even though they otherwise get along with their in laws and wish them no harm.

none of it is great behaviour but I don’t think it will be enough to prove she purposely killed a bunch of people. She didn’t gain anything by doing so. She hadn’t been abusive previously.

She ate the same meal, unless she cooked her mushrooms separately for some reason.

She said 8 months before the meal in messages read in court that he was a ‘deadbeat’, his family were ‘a lost cause’ and said “I’m sick of this shit I want nothing to do with them”. And added ‘f* them’. In relation to finances and child support. None of this is proof, but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence building up.

If I offered my kids the choice of a boring family meal or the cinema I know what they would do. That type of choice isn’t really a choice when you know your kids. Sounds like being at the meal was an option on the surface but in reality you know they would never have taken that option.

Thanks for all the trial gossip since I'm not following live...
Seems to me that much of the rationale stated here in favour of her defence is variation on "you wouldn't murder people like that if you were being clever about it"

If you decide this is a crime of passion and she's not very clever, there's a lot less defence in those lines of logic.

Most criminals aren't very clever.

I wouldn't be surprised if her real motive was to make them very ill not kill them, but she isn't using that defense even thought it would be much stronger than the defense she is using.

Personally, if I was on that jury I wouldn’t find that persuasive.

she was venting to her internet friends, in what she thought was a safe space to express her frustration. She was going through a child support battle.

What saint among us has never done similar?

also it was 8 months earlier that she texted that, it’s a long bow to say that she remained that angry for 8 months. So angry she killed four people, including two people who had almost nothing to do with it.

Oh that was my exact thought at the start.

I was angry, I wanted to make them all poop their pants. I overshot it and accidentally killed them.

I don't know the law but imagine if you accidentally kill people by poisoning when you 'only' meant to make them ill, you could still be charged with murder as it was surely reckless, and there would be a real chance of death with poisonous mushrooms.

Yeah you’re heading to jail either way. Maybe for less time though?

😆😆😆😆 As a Brit, I’ve always said Aussies are THE funniest people on earth.

Ps sorry, I know this board is for Aussies and New Zealanders I’m just following this case 😬🤫

That would be manslaughter

I’d have thought so. If the law is anything like in the res some sort of thought as to whether or not death could be reasonably seen as a potential result of actions. People have been charged with murder (not manslaughter) for pushing someone and they fall and hit their head and die. So I would have thought the case for murder not manslaughter is even stronger for feeding someone poisonous mushrooms.

But yes, the sentence for manslaughter can be as high as for murder too. In the U.K. anyway, no idea about Australia.

No, it would be murder. If she intentionally fed her guests poisonous mushrooms with the intent of causing them serious harm, even if she didn’t intend on killing them, and three of her guests die as a result, then that’s murder.

Manslaughter is generally a lesser sentence than murder.

@GirlOverboard123how could you prove she intended serious harm as opposed to mild- moderate harm?

Well she admits to feeding her guests death cap mushrooms. And anyone with half a brain (not least an intelligent woman and mushroom forager like Erin) knows that eating death caps will cause serious harm.

So it’s just a case of whether she knowingly gave them to her guests or not.

depends what relevant Australian law says about requirement of intent... since this is an Aussie thread, maybe someone else knows for sure. Previous posts seem to say that confidence about murderous intent is essential to be confident enough to convict Erin in this Aussie state in this incident. In USA it would typically be a manslaughter charge (2nd degree). Am not sure about English laws for intent and 'types' of murder.

A lot of poisonings that killed people were only meant to scare them (maybe as part of extortion or intimidation) or make them ill for a little while ...

@Dustyblue so disappointing that Erin Patterson has ruined any sneaky business for the women of Gippsland 🤣🤣🤣

Agree with posters that almost all mums would easily be able to predict DCs’ preferences, in this case cinema vs lunch with their mum and father’s relatives.

Wasn’t that why there was all the discussion of what amounts you’d need to cause death and so on? In terms of the foreseeability of serious v non serious harm.

I was taking about murder trials.

It was brought to my attention by a criminal lawyer in a discussion about another case that almost all murder trials rely on circumstantial evidence - which covers things like DNA, fingerprints, and other forensic evidence. So when people say "it's only circumstantial evidence" they are missing the point. The case is built, brick by brick, on circumstantial evidence, and the inferences the jury (or the judge in a judge only trial) draws from that.

Circumstantial evidence - Wikipedia

Yes, it's certainly not the case that most murder prosecutions are brought on circumstantial evidence. This is simply because running a murder trial costs the state a great deal of money, the bar for a finding of guilty is high, and the prosecution are therefore very cautious about bringing case where the elements are not backed with evidence to trial.
There is of course no data on this (unless JIRS has a category I haven't come across!) but that's my experience and something prosecutors would and do freely admit.

So... most murder prosecutions rely on direct evidence? That seems unlikely.