Erin Patterson - We the members of the MN jury find the defendant Guilty or Not Guilty?

[Dustyblue]

Well here we are, after 2 years of head-scratching speculation and many weeks of trial detail-thrashing. It looks like the Judge will give his directions to the jury on Tuesday, after which they'll be sequestered in a local motel (I do not envy them this) to reach a verdict.

Clearly we're not privy to every last piece of evidence shown at the trial, but those of us who've been following closely will surely have formed an opinion one war or the other.

So, I ask you- if you were on the jury- what would your verdict be?

Guilty for sure!

Definitely guilty

I haven't been religiously following the trial - but I say guilty.

Guilty!

I think guilty, but I find the lack of clear motive difficult to get past. I know the jury have been instructed not to let this influence their decisions.

All the possible motives discussed require too much mental gymnastics.

Do you think she’s guilty beyond reasonable doubt though? Because I think there’s still some doubt

Guilty as a weasel in a hen house

It's jurors like you who will keep the rest of them stuck in a crappy motel for days on end!

Or at worst, lead to a hung jury. However- this is what juries are for!

But isn’t that exactly how the justice system is designed to work?
If I genuinely believe there’s reasonable doubt, I have a duty not to vote guilty just to reach a verdict or make it easier for the group.
The whole point of a jury is to bring different perspectives and ensure the decision is truly fair — not unanimous for the sake of convenience

I don't think there is reasonable doubt. The defence hasn't come up with a plausible theory as to how the death cap mushrooms ended up in the food. She wasn't a forager and the health department have ruled out the commercial source theory.

Absolutely guilty, quoting @InWalksBarberalla as completely agree

Hi all, I’ve been following the case and reading the threads. This comment has stuck in my mind. I think she’s guilty. But beyond reasonable doubt? This comment makes it easier to see how that bar could be reached, I think.

if she’s innocent, we’d have to believe she was the victim of a lot of coincidences and bad luck and things for which there is no other explanation than for her to be guilty.

I wouldn’t be able to vote guilty because I don’t think prosecution have proven their case beyond reasonable doubt.

I think it looks likely she did, but it’s not actually on the defence to prove innocence, it’s on the prosecution to prove guilt.

To convict I would need more evidence.

It really is such an interesting case. I think she is guilty for a few reasons. It’s tricky as I do feel the defence have made a good case and I think the fact she isn’t having to actually deny killing them, just doing it deliberately, is very interesting and makes it much harder to prove.

But I do think there’s enough things that can only really be explained by there being a deliberate intent that no matter how smart she thinks she is she lost track of.

• looking up where the DC mushrooms are and then going there with no explanation as to why
• having a second phone and hiding it with no explanation
• The fact that she never had them to dinner before and it was unusual despite apparently being close to them, that there was false pretences created for them coming, and that she wanted her husband to come and he didn’t.
• That she had issues with the whole family and was angry with them (I know motive isn’t required but she does have one, however petty or incomprehensible)
• That she wasn’t sick with no real explanation. She was just focused on covering her tracks rather than scared of being ill.
• inconsistencies between her and her husband’s story about what was said

Ultimately she had motive, means and opportunity and the number of coincidences required for it to be an accident is surely too high. I’m fascinated to see what happens.

I agree there is no reasonable doubt. The entire defence is that she made irrational and stupid decisions due to panic, and that any one of us might panic and make similar decisions under similar circumstances.

Not good enough.

I agree with you. I’m not saying that she is guilty or not but I don’t think I could in good conscience vote guilty, to me there is reasonable doubt.
There’s no ‘smoking gun’ so to say. Nothing from the prosecution that is absolutely concrete in my mind.

For me it was the lie that got them to the meal. That she had a medical issue to discuss. Which she claims was weight loss surgery but let them believe it was cancer.

The weight loss story just doesn’t work 1) nothing was booked so why hold the meal then 2) the clinic mentioned didn’t even do weight loss surgery 3) why would she tell her in-law’s sister and husband 4) why would she need to send the kids away for that conversation.

I think it is entirely possible she is guilty, but beyond reasonable doubt? I am not so sure.

Although I do have a question that I haven’t heard discussed. If you have gone to the effort of making beef wellingtons (and they are a faff), why on earth would you use packet gravy? To me this indicates guilt!

i think it will depend on the judge's summing up
beyond reasonable doubt is a conundrum though

I’ve been following this case via The Mushroom Cook podcast series and reading threads here.
In my mind she did it. The most convincing part is all the lying about the dehydrator - hiding and then dumping it especially - and the phones.
However I can see it’s a tough one for the jury as so much of it was normal for other families but not theirs. For instance most people host in-laws and the wider family but she never did, even when relationships were good. But again most of us keep the kids at the meal too because that’s generally why the family want to come!

I tend to agree with you. It will be very interesting to see what happens.

How long do we think the jury will be out for?

There is doubt but it isn't reasonable. Those poor people and her kids.

Which bit makes you doubt it?