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?

I don’t know, if she was a person driven by rage, hatred, etc - wouldn’t there have been evidence of that? People who knew her gave evidence and they didn’t describe her that way at all.

the prosecution didn’t have any evidence that she was a hateful embittered person. She’d been frustrated, briefly and bitched about them to friends once. She was hurt that she wasn’t invited to a party and she told them and they all moved on.

Who hasn’t vented to friends about their family? I’m glad my phone history isn’t public information!

The prosecution never produced a convincing motive.

She could have been hiding something else.

they can prove she reset her phone, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that she reset it because there was evidence of intentionally poisoning people.

How would they prove that though? You can't prove whether she did it on purpose or not. Unless she wrote a confession out somewhere. Well I'd say you can by the fact she miraculously managed not to get sick from the exact same meal but some people think that's not beyond reasonable doubt?

There was medical evidence saying that some people eat death caps and don’t get that sick. There were different levels, one of which was a gastro like experience, which Erin says she had. I think her blood tests also indicated dehydration and other results indicating she’d been unwell.

I agreed it cannot be proved that she did it on purpose. It's the weight of the circumstantial evidence that is compelling to me.

Her behaviour simply cannot all be explained by panic. We would ALL panic under such circumstances (that is- serving a meal that put people in hospital, let alone family you supposedly cared about).

We wouldn't all immediately start lying, then doubling up on the lies. Disposing of what might obviously be evidence (dehydrator and phone).

We don't all lie to our families, even ex-inlaw families, about our medical issues so as to gain support for future childcare.

No, there is no 'smoking gun' but there often isn't.

Colin Mandy in his defence summation made the point that she's not on trial for being a liar. For the Victorians/Australians- my mind went back to the trial of Greg Domaszewicz, tried for the murder of toddler Jaidyn Leskie in 1997. Strangely enough, in the town of Moe, not far from Morwell, Leongatha etc.

His defence made the point that "This man is not on trial for being an idiot". Because he clearly was an idiot. And it worked, because Greg Domaszewicz was found not guilty.

The jury certainly have a lot to think about.

If she is found guilty, I will be interested in the “what the general public couldn’t be told while the trial was live” stories that inevitably come out after a high profile case like this.

She’s definitely a liar, but it’s a big leap from that to murderer.

The Jaidyn Leskie case is so sad. That poor baby.

I only compare the 2 cases as the defence was actually similar. Not on trial for being a liar or a moron etc.

Yes it was bloody awful. Poor little baby and the mother shaming was revolting.

Sorry, I don't mean to derail the thread.

To me, the leap from liar to murderer isn't huge when you consider all the other information to hand.

It will be interesting to hear the Judge's instructions to the jury tomorrow before they're sequestered to decide.

I hope there's a budget to get them some decent food bought in! Even though Morwell is a small town, there's actually a really nice Indian restaurant, and a decent pub. I guess they're not allowed to drink? Fingers crossed they can have some nice food while they thrash this out 🍔

I totally get this and not to be a downer but I think it's super important that other posters don't leapfrog from this to speculate AT ALL on this during jury deliberations- trials have been tanked on less.

PS I'm with @courageiscontagious - it would still be not guilty for me.
I thought the defence case was stronger before Erin gave evidence, but I don't think she tanked it to the point where my residual doubts have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt.
I think however she is absolutely able to be found guilty of manslaughter, as far as I'm aware in Victoria it would be an option open to the jury but it doesn't seem to have come up yet on judicial directions, so maybe I am wrong.

I think however she is absolutely able to be found guilty of manslaughter, as far as I'm aware in Victoria it would be an option open to the jury but it doesn't seem to have come up yet on judicial directions, so maybe I am wrong.

I think you are correct on this. I asked my Uncle Barrister, who has been in the media with his clients before (in Vic) and he said "It is the Crown's decision as to what charges to bring. They have charged her with murder. If the criminal intent was not to kill or seriously injure then the judge can leave the alternative of manslaughter".

I think manslaughter would fit - there was no defence argument made that someone else could have interfered with the BW and they were the source of the poison.

Guilty

I think the motive makes a lot more sense when you factor in the ex husband was invited and should have been there. She could have abandoned the plan when he cancelled. She went ahead anyway. That is extremely cold and calculating behaviour.

See this is the big sticking point for me actually! I think it would only make sense if he came, or cancelled very shortly before. Instead, he cancelled with enough notice that she could very easily have altered the meals (just making scotch fillet steaks with roast veg, eg) to not include poison, if she indeed intended the food to be poisoned in order to kill her ex.

For her to kill collateral people trying to kill him (if he was still coming) would have reasonable plausibility. For her to deliberately try to kill them all, knowing he was fine and safe, has just not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution to the point where I believe it is the only plausible explanation for what happened.

She didn't know he wasn't coming - I expect he had caved to her manipulations throughout their marriage, and she assumed he would also this time, after she piled it on in her last text - until his parents arrived at 12.30 and told her.

She certainly was hiding something else - Phone A, which she totally disappeared. All normal, innocent behaviour.

The prosecution made a strong point at the start of the trial, that they would not be attempting to present a motive.

Those are my readings, based on my own experience of the personality type I believe Erin to have - which again is just my reading.

I am sure the jury can come up with several potential motivations, themselves, but motive has not been advanced as part of this trial.

From the information she had available, she did know. He told her he wasn't coming with over 12 hours notice. She said she hoped he would anyway, but he did not lead her to believe he was. There's been no evidence led that she believed he was coming after he said he wasn't. Assuming she would have thought it goes beyond the evidence. Without any evidence, it goes beyond what a jury should do to make inferences as to her beliefs following this point.

There's also no evidence he caved to her manipulations (nor that there were abnormal manipulations) through their marriage. So this is building an assumption on top of an assumption to my mind.

I think she’s guilty.

There are too many facts that for me together make her look guilty.

Not being a known forager but going to the located of death cap mushrooms more than once after sightings of them.

Then buying a dehydrator.

The photos of them and postings in a true crime group.

Disposing of the dehydrator once realising that they’d picked up on the DCM poisoning.

DCM are only detectable in the system for 48hrs after consuming them. As food poisoning symptoms come on hours afterwards, with you then getting better for days before getting worse, there was a good chance they wouldn’t have detected the cause, thus not getting rid of the dehydrator prior to this.

They were admitted to different hospitals, and there was a chance they wouldn’t have communicated and found out the link.

A different colour plate for herself, and not getting ill despite eating the same meal.

Keeping the kids away from the meal.

On being told how seriously ill the others were, and the suspected cause, not wanting to be admitted but wanting to go off and sort our things that she could have called someone else to do - what’s more important than your life?

Apparently feeding the kids leftovers the next day after knowing that people had been ill after eating the meal. Scraping off mushrooms would not have stopped them leaching into the meat. Aside from that, I think they had the leftover meat that hadn’t touched the mushrooms, but at the point she fed them the meat how did she know that the meat wasn’t the cause of the illness? The meat would be my first suspicion - unless I knew the illness was caused by something else…

Not wanting her kids to go in and be checked straight away. This is a massive red flag to me. You’d want them to be thoroughly checked if there was even the tiniest chance they’d had a tiny bit of the same thing. Especially given the health history she’s mentioned, where something was dismissed with one child.

The lies to get them there, saying there she had a serious health issue she needed to talk about. Telling them she had cancer at the meal, a lie. Then later lying and saying it was actually weight loss surgery she was booked in for - another lie.

I think she still hoped her ex would turn up to the meal - judging by the message she sent after finding out that he wasn’t attending which looked like she was trying to make him feel guilty. Thus carrying on with it - plus she didn’t really have much time to go out and get ingredients and make another special meal, she had already bought/ got ingredients from various locations. 12 hours notice was nothing to repurchase things and cook when you consider the effort she’d gone to.

Her ex’s mystery illness prior to this - if she was involved it would have given her extra confidence that she could get away with it.

The messages about the family saying that they were a lost cause and she was done with them etc suggest she was at the end of her tether with them. I don’t think it is normal to say such things.

The above don’t make her come across as rational.

No apparent interest in how they were. The fake tears in the interview afterwards - checking her fingers for tears!

I don’t buy the panic - panic would make me want to get myself and my DC checked, and if it was accidental I would be giving as much information as possible, not running off to hide phones, wipe them and dispose of dehydrators.

She had previously been an air traffic controller - I’d be surprised if someone prone to panic would be able to get such a a job.

the lying about being ill (no toilet stops on a long journey) and going out in white trousers with diarrhoea. Telling the nurse her urine was diarrhoea.

I’m sure there’s more I’ve forgotten.

I think she's got to be found guilty - there might be some doubt on motive but its got to be beyond reasonable doubt that she knew what she was serving up.

Interesting that people don't think there's enough evidence though, what would the prosecution need to produce to swing it? I mean it'd be nice for them to have CCTV of her dehydrating the mushrooms and mixing them in whilst laughing like a villain, or a $50m life insurance policy taken out the day before, but they must be pretty convinced to bring a murder charge.

I agree that panicked people can do stupid and unpredictable things.

But her loose relationship with the truth did not begin when panic set in, but long before that.

The entire basis for the meal was a lie upon a lie.

Panicking after the event did not explain why EP invited the guests round so she could tell them that she'd been diagnosed with ovarian cancer (which she hadn't) to cover up weight loss surgery. When the clinic didn't even do study kids surgery and no evidence of an appointment her been called. A lie upon a lie to get the unfortunate guests there.

Guilty to me and many others, but will be found not guilty of murder. Maybe manslaughter if the judge allows that as a finding.

From the information she had available, she did know. He told her he wasn't coming with over 12 hours notice. She said she hoped he would anyway,

Simon texted, at 6.54pm: “Sorry, I feel too uncomfortable about coming to the lunch with you, mum, dad, Heather and Ian tomorrow, but am happy to talk about your health and implications of that at another time if you’d like to discuss on the phone."

And the last word on the matter was Erin's, at 6.59pm: “That’s really disappointing. I’ve spent many hours this week preparing lunch or tomorrow which has been exhausting in light of the issues I’m facing and spent a small fortune on beef eye fillet to make beef wellingtons because I wanted it to be a special meal as I may not be able to host a lunch like this again for some time.

“It’s important to me that you’re all there tomorrow and that I have the conversations that I need to have. I hope you’ll change your mind. Your parents and Heather and Ian are coming at 12:30. I hope to see you there.”

There's also no evidence he caved to her manipulations (nor that there were abnormal manipulations) through their marriage. So this is building an assumption on top of an assumption to my mind.

This is a heavily manipulative text, replete with lies. All the dark implications around her "health" and the heath "issues" she was "facing" were part of the lure for her guests, including Simon, in my view.

I also recall the evidence being that Erin was the one who left the marriage multiple times, and Erin who effectively called the shots and held the cards. Which is why I think, as do many, she went postal when he began to withdraw a little from her influence and/or control, along with his extended family.