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?

Yes, not factually similar, more in terms of relevant legal principles about evidence and beyond reasonable doubt.

I suppose what it evokes is that there was no direct evidence, but there was a circumstantial case that seemed at the time overwhelming.

All the circumstantial evidence built on itself to create a picture, but actually, no individual pieces of evidence directly proved guilty BRD.

A cautionary tale indeed for those of us who work in the space (and society as a whole).

But there is a plethora of circumstantial evidence in this case, not just some curious diary entries and four dead infants. As the judge said:

Justice Christopher Beale also told the jury at the start of the trial in April that “it may help you to consider the pieces of evidence to be like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle; while one piece may not be very helpful by itself, when all the pieces are put together, the picture may become clear”.

“However, when putting all the pieces together, you must take care not to jump to conclusions. It is sometimes easy for people to be too readily persuaded of a fact on the basis of insufficient evidence or evidence that turns out to be truly coincidental,” Beale said.

Jury urged to reject ‘ridiculous’ and ‘convoluted’ propositions in Erin Patterson mushroom trial as defence completes closing address | Australia news | The Guardian

Yes I can definitely see all of this. Absolutely that is the principle behind the law and I think it’s been so interesting to see how much the judge has been really emphasising this point and how to ensure fairness. Granted I’ve never followed a case this closely but I’ve never seen anything like this level before. Even though I’m sure she did it I’m not sure they’ll be able to find that.

I think in terms of comparisons to other cases I do wonder if in the UK they do the same kind of breakdown of the evidence in this way, or to this level of care and detail as the judge seems to have done. The comparisons with Lucy Letby and the evidence against her are obvious even though the cases and people themselves are completely different.

It's absolutely nothing like the Lucy Letby case - and nor is it like the Lindy Chamberlain case, either!

i dont think i have ever paid attention to a case, with so much attention being given to the judge's summing up - it was a whole week's worth

I mean it is similar to the letby case in the fact that all the small evidence fits and they are both guility. The judge in the letby case summing up was fair and didn't speculate like has been in this case. That could be the difference in laws of the land.
I mean Erin actually did posion 4 people that isn't under dispute. I just can't see how it can be accidental. No matter the mental gymnastics I perform.

No one’s saying it is - just in terms of there not being actual proof, just circumstantial evidence.

I’ve never heard a judge here speak in the same way. It doesn’t come across as very impartial, telling them to discount all lies. As the (proven) lies appear to be her trying to cover up the facts and what actually happened.

I would be a little surprised if an appeal was successfully made on the basis that the judge's summing up here was too "speculative". It is appropriate for a judge to explain to a jury how they should use the evidence to make their findings.

In this case the judge has said, eg "the defence/prosecution has said X. If you accept this as fact, then you can use this to form the belief that Y".

These are normal judicial directions, it's just the length of the case and volume of evidence that makes it seem extremely extensive.

For example, the following link includes template directions for a trial judge in NSW (though as it states, these must be carefully and specifically tailored to the evidence presented): www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/criminal/tendency_and_coincidence_evidence.html

It is interesting as I have been following this case and the Diddy trial at the same time. And both jury's are out at the moment.

On the Diddy case podcase I listen to, they have a lawyer who talks about the law and how it works. He said similar to Justice Beale, in that it's not enough to think they probably did it. However he then went on to say are you 1 million percent sure they did it, that is how you find them guilty. And that is not what beyond reasonable doubt means. You do not have to be absolutely 100% certain that they did it, you have to be certain enough that they did.

Well, actually, they are. For example:

The comparisons with Lucy Letby and the evidence against her are obvious even though the cases and people themselves are completely different.

and

LL came to my mind too.

and

As well as Lucy Letby, to me the case it brings to mind is Kathleen Folbigg

By no "actual proof" do you mean no direct evidence?

Well I can only speak for myself but I’ve explained what I meant by that - that there was no 100% proof in her case either but she was still found guilty (although there are now doubts about the evidence used).

I have no doubt in my mind that EP is guilty, and I do not believe they need 100% proof for her to be found guilty, as some here do. I think the wider picture and all the facts I listed together in my first post on this thread last week are enough for me to think that she is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

My post last week. This together is enough for me to believe she’s guilty, and I would hope they can use this information together to make a decision, rather than needing - for example - 100% proof that she picked mushrooms in the locations she went to - as some posters are saying they need.

I still don't know what you mean by "actual proof" and now "100% proof". Do you mean direct evidence - such as video footage of her commiting some part of the crime? I wouldn't think that was very common.

Has the jury started its deliberations?

Direct evidence of intent is actually relatively common in murder cases, because most of the normal ways to kill someone requires an intentional act (pull the trigger, obtain and use the knife to stab, choke until dead). As long as there's evidence like good DNA evidence or CCTV etc that the accused did the act, then most of these types of murder, the intent is pretty clear in the doing.

Often where intent to specifically kill can't be proved, the prosecution will pursue (or accept a guilty plea for) manslaughter instead.

I absolutely believe she’s guilty for the reasons you’ve said, that I’ve said, and others have said and no doubt there are loads more besides I just feel there’ll be enough doubt thrown in for the jury to struggle to find her guilty, despite everything. But we shall see.

Letby was 10 months trial and wasnt as long. Again it is different countries but JCB was speculative about the uneven spread of the shrooms.

Exactly. Some posters have said she shouldn’t be found guilty because there isn’t actual evidence of any of the points.

I don’t know whether it’s different in Australia but in the UK at least there are many cases where people are found guilty without direct evidence - in answer to your point I’m not sure what the posters are expecting!

I feel like there is this kind of evidence - her dehydrator has been recovered with death cap mushrooms, her phone was shown to be in the location of where mushrooms had been found (and she had searched for this online)… the only thing really is whether it was intentional or not and I think direct evidence of intent must be rare…

For me the closest thing to a smoking gun is the fact that by Erin's own testimony, 7 people ate a meal containing death cap mushrooms either at the meal or as leftovers. From the exes family: 3 dead, 1 gravely ill. From Erin's family: 1 runny poo at the side of the road that nobody can corroborate. That cant be dismissed as an unlucky coincidence to me. Add in the rest of the evidence and I would have no problem crossing the beyond a reasonable doubt threshold.

I agree that is before even thinking of Ian's evidence of the coloured plates corroborated by Simon's 'hearsay' evidence from Heather. Then on and in for a catalogue of errors. Giving her kids any leftovers etc

Not to mention inviting them for the food, for the first time in years, with lies.

Keli Lane was found guilty on entirely circumstantial evidence. There was no proof her baby was even dead. It seemed to be the lack of any other reasonable explanation that created BRD in that case.

Although from memory, I believe the judge in that case later said he felt a miscarriage of justice had occurred.

Definitely- it can happen, and the prosecution would never have brought the case if they didn't feel like they could win it (because it's an enormous amount of public funds spent, amongst other reasons).

I don't think a finding of guilt on the surface looks like it would be miscarriage of justice in the legal sense, aka a decision that could not be reached within the fair application of the law (though will be interesting to see if either party appeals the outcome). I think both options are fairly open to the jury. It's just my personal belief that it should be NG.

I'm curious why you believe it should be not guilty. I mean what specifically from the evidence presented leads you to that, not just the prosecution hasn't proven guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Do you mean you believe it was all some sort of accident, coupled with a few miracles?