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?

But why on earth would she involve her husband’s uncle and aunt? I know that the motive is not meant to matter but why would she want to murder them?

I have been following this case from the uk as there is a daily podcast recapping what happened in court that day.

I’m really on the fence here. On one hand she is not denying that she cooked the meal and that there were deathcaps in it. But there is no clear motive and I think the stuff about the bulimia and eating most of a cake then throwing up is believable. Also there is no way that she would have served leftovers to the kids if she had thought they were dangerous - nothing I heard raised any concerns about her parenting.

Would not like to be on the jury.

i also think that too much was made of her ranting on Facebook groups about her in-laws. Every other thread in here is about an evil MIL or toxic families and people write things online they’d never express in real life. Not getting on with your in-laws of finding them overly religious isn’t a crime.

in Scotland we have a verdict which is not proven , in addition to guilty/not guilty. It means the accused walks free. It is usually taken to mean the jury thought they were probably guilty but that the Crown hadn’t proved their case beyond all reasonable doubt. I think that is appropriate here, the absence of motive is a huge problem.

Collateral damage. Their inclusion helped sell the story it was an important family lunch, not just any old gathering. It encouraged the other members to attend - all to convene to counsel Erin on her terrible news of her fake diagnosis of ovarian cancer, and how she was to break it to the kids.

But there is no clear motive and I think the stuff about the bulimia and eating most of a cake then throwing up is believable.

You don't need to know a motive to recognise intent.

It might be believable - or not - but it is irrelevant if she threw up. The toxins, if she had encountered any, would have been long ago absorbed into her bloodstream. Vomiting some hours later would have zero significant effect. And the doctors who gave evidence at the trial were very clear, she had suffered no liver effects.

Normal LFTs by definition excludes DC toxin poisoning.

i wonder if she is found guilty whether she’ll then confess and say why? Her poor children, this is a small community and they can not stay anonymous.

I’m not sure how it could be manslaughter- surely death caps can only mean murder or terrible accident?

She also did her best to get Simon there - on his death, I assume his assets and some of his parents assets would go to Erin and her children. Inviting other people she may not inherit from would give her a sort of alibi / act as a red herring (she barely knew two of them so it was strange to invite them to a family meal to discuss her “cancer diagnosis”)

I doubt she will confess - she will continue the lies, keep appealing etc, “poor me”. She won’t want her children to know she is guilty.

If the main aim was to kill the ex- then surely she would have abandoned the plan when he cancelled? It’s the kind of thing you only get one shot at.

I feel so bad for her children. Especially her son who sounds very sweet from the little we know about him.

I hope for their sake she is innocent and can return to them.

Or perhaps she wanted to punish him? People who commit murder don't always have reasons that make sense to others.

@IOSTTif she needed money she could have called in the loans she gave her in laws.

she could have sold the investment properties.

any inheritance would be split between many people before a cent found its way to Erin Patterson.

if money was a motive the prosecution would have spent time on it but they didn’t.

One shot?! On top of the three counts of murder, and one of attempted murder of Ian Wilkinson, EP was also initially charged with three counts of attempted murder of her husband, one in 2021 and twice in 2022, and an additional count of attempted murder for the lunch invitation of Simon.

Those additional attempted murder charges were withdrawn prior to the start of the trial.

They were still financially entwined years after separating. Given how pedantic Erin has been on the stand, I picture her as quite demanding/controlling. When her ex listed himself as single (can't remember the exact words) on his tax return she was not happy. Then came the fake cancer idea.. she would have been furious that he declined the meal, maybe furious enough to punish the in laws?

Pure speculation of course. Very interested to see what the jury thinks.

courageiscontagious You feel bad especially for her son?

The whole situation is terrible for both of her children, and I feel very sorry for them both.

Also the victims and their families.

There’s a good chance the jury will be torn and it could go either way - the defence went last and the prosecution have no come back to any of the last points. But I know which way I’d be voting.

There are many in jail for such crimes where there has been no solid proof and no obvious motive.

I forgot to add to my previous post the lies about where she got the mushrooms from (the Asian grocer), and claiming she’d been helpful when this seems in doubt from what we’ve heard, especially as the wider public could have been at risk if her story had been true. She had worked in the area with the grocers, so knew the area and would likely have known which shop she got them from if it had been true.

yes and he also dropped the kids off and probably thought he would pop in then.

Good point. I think the prosecution pointed out that Erin had an incredible memory, except somehow drew a complete blank on this mystery Asian grocery. How convenient!

I think Colin Mandy has done an incredible job in trying to sew doubt in the minds of the jury, but it just doesn't all add up.

And I'm sure there is more in the evidence we have heard about but cannot see ourselves, that the jury have access to.

i have been listening to the ABC podcast and it is fascinating. I think the fact she didn't seem concerned about her DCs health when told by a Dr that it was death caps. You would have thought she would have rushed them to the hospital for testing

I know the prosecution haven't advanced a motive but potential inheritance must be an obvious one.

Is anything known about the wills of the deceased and/or Australian intestacy rules?

What they say could mean that she/her children stood to gain, or she thought she/they stood to gain, if she wiped out her parents in-law, their sibling/spouse and her husband. It might explain why she invited her aunt and uncle by marriage - in order to remove them from the line of inheritance.

The jury can’t consider that it’s prejudicial.

if there was proof of it then they would have proceeded with it.

I think they had so much material for the three actual murders and the attempted murder of Ian Wilkinson who very nearly died also, that they realised it would muddy the waters to try and argue the lesser charges, which had less evidence.

Why are you bringing the jury into it? You made a comment and I responded. The jury will of course be aware of the previous, now dropped, charges, though.

But the jury wouldn’t be aware of charges dropped before trial. As @courageiscontagioussaid that would be prejudicious. A jury can only base their verdict on the evidence presented in court and knowing about dropped charges could prejudice that.

If charges were dropped after the start of a case that would be a different matter and obviously the jury would be aware and therefore may be grounds for a mistrial or appeal.

They were informed at the start of the trial that the charges were being dropped!

So, yes, they were aware. I understand they are expected to ignore those, but they are obviously aware of the fact they once existed.

None of this has any relevance to the comment I replied to though! Which was:

If the main aim was to kill the ex- then surely she would have abandoned the plan when he cancelled? It’s the kind of thing you only get one shot at.

Nothing to do with they jury at all.

On motive (not required for a guilty verdict) it could be financial or a form of family annihilation.