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?

Nothing this woman says makes sense. She sort-of mentioned having weight-loss surgery and sort-of mentioned an appointment she'd booked in Melbourne. It turned out the clinic she'd sort-of named have nothing to do with weight loss, let alone surgery like gastric banding or liposuction. Not even close.

The Nursing & Midwifery profession had a near miss there.

It’d be easy to ‘mark’ the ‘safe’ wellington in a way that wouldn’t be obvious to others eg cuts or small symbol / decoration in the pastry.

I always remember being told that circumstancial
evidence is like a rope - a single strand is weak but many strands combine to form a strong rope. That’s what the jury will have to grapple with and whether they consider all the strands add up to beyond reasonable doubt - I have no doubt - but I haven’t been there and heard it all.

In the UK if someone comes up with a defence that’s never been raised at the police station it can be open to the jury to draw an adverse inference about why it wasn’t mentioned earlier - here we have a number of things like vomiting and bariatric surgery which appear to be late responses to the case against as it developed.

I keep saying this but no discernible motive isn’t the same as no motive. Plus the answer to why she risked going to jail and leaving her kids without her is because she believed that she wouldn’t be caught!

As unanimity is required a 4 day deliberation suggests deadlock and doubt.

Jesus, I’ve not made a beef Wellington for about 40 years so I’ve just googled it to look up the technique . As if it’s not complicated enough, who the hell would be bothered to go and make single serve beef Wellington’s, unless it’s for a very strong reason !

As reported by ABC News:
”Ms Patterson told the court she had mistakenly believed a Melbourne-based clinic offered gastric-band surgery when she made an appointment in 2023. The court today heard the clinic did offer liposuction at the time, which Ms Patterson later said was also a procedure she was looking into.”

”The devil is in the detail”.

this is how it seems to go with EP. Tell a lie - pretend to have cancer because embarrassed was actually having gastric band surgery; get questioned on the lie - how come then the clinic doesn’t offer gastric surgery? oh that’s puzzling I don’t know. Then the defence says actually they did offer liposuction so EP then claims that was what she was going to look into. So a lie on a lie on a lie.

clearly it’s all nonsense. She was pressuring Simon to come for lunch because she wasn’t going to be able to host something like that again for a long time. She tells them at the lunch at end July she has cancer and wants their advice on how to tell her kids (weak, what an odd thing to be asking Heather and Ian about) . But she didn’t have the appointment for “gastric surgery” consultation until September. That’s a consultation, not the actual surgery that never existed. She was claiming to have been diagnosed with ovarian cancer at this point! So despite being diagnosed with a very serious cancer she was not going to have the pretend gastric surgery for another 2 months in which time she would be pretending to be very unwell? And then disappear for surgery and come back thinner and well again? With no chemo or other treatments obviously happening…

Although I think at some point she said that she never said that she “had cancer” but that she was having “cancer treatment”.

All that is just part of the likelihood that the story was full of holes as she thought they wouldn’t survive for all of that stuff to be questioned.

I do hope the jury can see past each bit of tiny plausibility and knit that strong narrative together.

Thanks for putting it all together so we can see lie upon lie. It then becomes clear that she invented all these illnesses. There’s also the ‘elbow cancer scare’ for which she had a biopsy. I’ve never heard anything like this.

I was a nursing sister in operating theatres for many years, dealing with all sorts of surgical specialities. None of what she said rings true in terms of clinical assessment or treatment. I expect she pieced together bits of info from the internet to make up her storylines.

I keep shouting at her in my head, “if you’re so worried about your weight, just stop overeating!” But of course her obesity conveniently played a role in her defence too.

The devil is indeed in the detail. Erin didn't book an appointment with the lone doctor at the practice who was offering liposuction back in 2023.

The doctor she booked to see was a dermatologist who specialised in allergies.

“The court today heard the clinic did offer liposuction at the time, “

Yes, indeed, they did offer liposuction at the time, as I wrote. You would think you would book in for an assessment or appointment with the person at the practice who did the liposuction at the time (for your gastric bypass!). But no, as I also wrote, Erin booked in with a dermatologist specialising in allergies.

My source is ABC News live updates of the case for 12 June. I don’t have access to everything presented to the jury.
Do you know if the information about the particular doctor booked at Enrich was presented to the jury? Was it presented as evidence that the booking was with a dermatologist?
If it was, has been proved that Patterson understood the specialisation of the doctor she booked with?
”To err is human …”

I think that when Erin was questioned about the fact that the clinic didn’t offer gastric surgery and was in a different suburb to the once she said, she said that was puzzling.

im not sure when the defence noted that the clinic has moved and used to offer liposuction. I don’t think it was re-tested in court with Erin, they didn’t seem to go back over the multiple loose threads that cropped up like her saying she had eaten loads of cake and been sick. But there is so much we don’t hear or know so appreciate it’s all speculation outside the courtroom.

I guess however the jury are allowed to decide that they don’t believe her evidence.

I've been thinking about this a lot. The analogy about one strand of circumstantial evidence not being sufficient, but multiple making a rope is really useful, and I guess is the same as what I think the judge said - about it being like a jigsaw, and that there might be some pieces that don't seem to fit but that you will be able to see an overall picture.

For me, that overall picture means she's guilty. But I guess what the jury is having to do now is discard those strands for which there is no evidence. My understanding is that they can't speculate, so even if it seems like there's an obvious explanation, they would need evidence for that explanation. And as far as I can tell, the strands that don't have evidence are:

1. that there were four grey plates. The children don't remember there being those, and they weren't found during the search (I know, she could have discarded them, but I think they can't make that assumption if no evidence that's what she did).
2. that she saw the posts on iNaturalist detailing the DCM locations. The only evidence is that she once looked DCM up on the site and would have seen what they looked like, but they can't say that she saw the Funky Tom post etc.
3. that she went to the locations where the DCM had been identified. The only evidence I think is that her phone connected to phone masts in the general areas and so she could have just been driving through the areas nearby. I think the judge has already said that this argument has to be discarded for that reason.
4. that the toxins would have leached into the meat (no expert witnesses were called to testify, which in itself seems strange. That can't have been an oversight so why wasn't anyone called?).
5. I might be wrong with this one, but I don't recall anyone being called to testify how long it takes for the body to absorb the toxins, so there's no evidence about whether her throwing up hours later would have made a difference or not.

I mean anyway. For me the picture is still the same and her lies are as fishy as hell, but I'm not convinced they'll decide there isn't reasonable doubt.

But surely the witness statements of two lunch attendees about the plates is enough evidence?

She lied about so much that it’s extremely likely that she lied about disposing the grey plates.

If it was, has been proved that Patterson understood the specialisation of the doctor she booked with?
”To err is human …”

The jury were told repeatedly what a highly intelligent person Erin is. I would think, if a quick google gives that doctor's qualifications (dermatologist) and speciality (allergies) she was probably aware of that when she made the booking, as the website lists its practitioners and their field and specialities. The rest is just lies, and hoping the prosecution would have no chance to check, or would simply believe her silly lies.

Lies upon lies upon lies upon lies, and three dead (horrifically), and one maimed for life. To err is human, my arse.

When the police did the search of her house they didn't find four grey dinner plates, or the smaller orange/tan coloured one Ian saw.

Mandy tried to tell him he was misremembering the plates. But they also didn't find four white or off-white dinner plates! There were no four matching ones.

Erin herself said: "I think there's a couple of black, a couple of white, one that's red on top and black underneath, and then I've got one that [my daughter] made at kindergarten."

I think she tossed the plates used at the lunch.

Of course she threw the grey plates away straight after the lunch! Therefore the police would never find them.

I wonder what those who believe it is all an accident think about the vanishing plates?

For sure she is a very odd person. Very intelligent but lies in a way that means she is repeatedly caught out and then lies again to cover the original lie.

Family of 4 with decent means of living but doesn’t own 4 matching plates.

Owns many properties and seems to move around between them.

The early marriage was characterised by a lot of travelling and separating and getting back together.

Being an atheist and thinking she would convert Simon but then being converted into the Baptist faith / church (whilst telling online friends she was atheist).

Claims huge issues around dislike / distrust of hospitals but made repeated false claims about her own health and had applied for the healthcare training programme mentioned upthread.

The judge told the jury that one of those witnesses had to be discounted as heresay, so that leaves one witness. Rebutting that one witness are two other witnesses (the children) saying they had no matching white / grey plates. Because there is no evidence either way, I don’t think they’ll be able to factor the plates in.

But surely the children’s evidence should count less than that of an adult, especially as she may have coached them what to say beforehand?

On the plates - Ian was at the meal. He was across plenty of detail about where people sat, how they looked at the pantry, how Erin didnt want help with meal prep, what was said when. He’s surely a very credible witness? More so than a teenage boy who wasn’t at the meal …

or cook it on a separate shelf even

If only there were CCTV at the place where she had the very brief (not long enough to use the loo) stop with her son - I’ve wondered if she dumped the plates then.

there was talk about how long the mushrooms were present in the test, in the urine test i t hink, not long