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?

Been following it too.

I have to say I think it was deliberate. I’ve made BW and it’s a faff just making one. There’s no way I’d make several single ones, and as others have said, I’d have been using the pan that seared the beef to cook the mushrooms & then the gravy - no way would I use instant gravy on a BW.

For me, the constant changing of her story, the gaps etc - she is trying to confuse matters. However, part of me wonders if she actually believes what she’s saying now - the fear after being caught has made her convince herself that it’s all an accident.

I don’t envy the jury in the case at all.

Or what did she do when her son was at Subway?

I think that's the more likely time for dumping the plates, and other larger objects, in that 11 minute window.

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.

The CCTV from the servo shoed her spending 9 seconds in the ladies toilet, not long enough to wash her hands, but long enough to toss something smaller from her handbag. If she was carrying plates it would be obvious I think, and harder to dump in a loo toilet of sanitary disposal.

There was also the period when she left the hospital and "lay on the floor" but her car was pinged heading towards Outtrim.

Well, it appears that the verdict of Mumsnet was correct! Guilty verdicts just in.

I think it's the right verdict but her poor children.

Yep, right verdict.

let's hope she doesnt appeal

I've only just found this thread.

I think she's guilty but like @MedievalNun wonder whether she truly thought, had persuaded herself it was an accident. Like others on this thread I think her innocence rests on too many coincidences to be plausible.

She will appeal, of course.

@PossumHollow' s post caught my eye as the same thought had crossed my mind too: finding her not guilty opens up whole new possible defence in murder cases, confusion, though to be fair did ER ever say she was confused?

My concern about this is that I think the reason so much has been thrown at this with such a mammoth case is because if they can’t prove it then it opens up a whole new way of murdering people and getting away with it, if you’re smart enough to throw enough confusion into the situation as she has. It seemed at first like she was reacting without thinking and making mistakes but actually I think she calculated the likelihood of anything being pinned on her with any certainty and knew she had a very decent chance of success despite how obvious it would be that she did it

I really think they got the right verdict, but surely there'll be an appeal.

Well done to the jury, what a slog that must have been!

OMG! Justice is served. Well done to the jury.

I don't see much grounds for appeal. The judge gave the most exhaustive directive possible, and if anything erred on cautioning them to throw out prosecution allegations. The jury took a fair time to go over it all. She can't say they didn't examine the case thoroughly enough to reach a verdict.

Anyway, phew. I bet it's a great relief for Ian Wilkinson and all of his family and friends and congregation also, and for Simon Patterson and his siblings and all of their families. What a horrible ordeal.

Unanimous verdicts and yet it took 7 days! Yeah right. I'd say some jurors thought not guilty but in the end agreed with the others because they were So Tired Of Arguing For Seven Days!

Finally, some justice. After the Karen Read fiasco and P Diddy trial I was starting to think you can get away with anything!

It will be very interesting to read all the dirt on Erin that’s going to come out now.

Her colleagues back in her air traffic controller days suspected her of tampering with their food and hiding a pencil sharpener blade in a banana.

https://archive.ph/ltyyq

Erin Patterson's testimony alone took 8 days. The judge's charges took a week.

Only verdict that made any sense. There may well have been "doubt" but it wasn't reasonable. Well done team.

I’m glad she’s been found guilty, correct verdict for sure. Feel sorry for her kids.

apparently she was so sure she’d be found not guilty she’d had plastic erected around her d her house to shield her from the media on her return home.

Seems like the right result.

I feel very sorry for her children but thank goodness her ex husband didn’t attend that lunch.

😱 has that article been hidden until now?!
that sheds a new light on her personality

I agree- will be very interested to see if any appeal gets up, I think it's hard to see on what. Realistically though (depending on sentence) she'd likely throw everything at an appeal, because what does she have to lose at this point.

I tell you what though, this case has made me perversely keen to try my first Beef Wellington!

I have thought a lot about her children and wonder if they see their Dad. It seemed as if the relationship between the children and their Dad was strained by the time of the lunch.

Imagine how confusing this is for them - by all accounts they were close to their grandparents. Is Dad going to be expected to facilitate contact between the children and the woman who murdered 4 members of his family? The son is almost old enough to decide for
himself but the daughter is still very young .

Quite apart from the horrendous family dynamic, the case is so well known. I really hope that they will be left alone.

I disagree. They only had about 4 hours a day. There was a lot to get through. They have just done their due diligence. Credit to them.

If you weee right it would have been a hung jury. It wasn't so..... guess we will never know for sure.

I think if a jury decides to quickly then it looks like they haven't considered it properly.

I'm glad for the children that their father has survived but I'm also glad that he's going to have to start paying an awful lot more for the children's care.

I agree. It was a long trial with a lot of evidence and competing arguments. The fact that they were sequestered also shows IMO that they didn’t hurry and considered everything methodically.

We will all have followed this investigation and trial to varying degrees but we haven’t been in the court room and the jury will have seen her demeanour and that of the witnesses. As I said above, lots of strands of evidence can combine to form a very strong and compelling case.

The lack of motive is really not the issue people believed it to be. A lack of a discernible motive isn’t the same as no motive anyway.

I think her motive was vengeance, but her personality is so distorted it is hard to imagine how anyone could be so vicious and cruel as to cause elderly relatives who have done her no actual real harm such hideous suffering and death.