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 do we know what exactly she gave her kids, she may hae cooked the beef seperately for them, and her

Yes. But at that point, how did she know that the leftover meat wasn’t the cause of the others (and her if she really was) being ill? I think it was the day after she fed them the leftovers that the hospitals suspected mushroom poisoning. Despite this she fed the kids ‘leftovers from the lunch’. Suggesting she knew that the meat was ok.

Love that metaphor!

I wonder where she went when her son was in Subway.

I think beyond reasonable doubt is an interesting phrase. I think in this sort of case there is always going to be doubt - there’s no way of getting indisputable evidence to show she did it on purpose other than CCTV or similar.

But you can take the evidence that we do have and consider on the balance of probability what is more reasonable and likely, and I’d say there is enough to say that even though there’s obviously a tiny bit of doubt over her guilt, overall it’s more likely than not that it was deliberate (imo).

I think the way she clearly controlled and seemingly bullied her husband and held financial sway over him is significant also - she had all the money, all the property, all the power but still went after him for child support and punished him by turning the children against him. That’s the impression I get anyway, it’s not something I would usually assume in a relationship breakdown but based on what the children have said and how she reacted to things it does seem that way. She was the one who ended the relationship repeatedly. The loans to his family are interesting also and another way of holding something over him.

I think she wanted to kill him but she also wanted him to suffer. If it was just him she was after, she didn’t have to involve the rest of them at all, but she did, so it’s like when he said he wasn’t going she thought well fine - if you won’t do what I’ve said then I’ll kill them anyway. Maybe she also wanted to be a victim, a survivor, gain sympathy like she had in the Facebook groups.

I’m aware this is all speculation but it’s just my impression!

I've just read this: "There are still 14 jurors, and two are to be balloted off at the end of the judge’s instructions. Twelve jurors will then deliberate a verdict."
Imagine having to sit through 36 trial days and then not get to put in your verdict!!

Stan have already got a series lined up to go after the trial:

"Death Cap Revealed"

New docuseries coming soon!

I do think she’s guilty . Will wait and see .

I would vote not guilty.

I think she did it. I think her motive was money. Her in-laws owed her a lot of money - but she didn’t try and kill the ones who owed her money - she tried to kill their relatives as it’s likely they will inherit and she will get paid back faster.

I don’t think the prosecution have proved their case. It’s all circumstantial.

They were hardly wealthy people. Any inheritance from Don and Gail Patterson would have to be divided among four siblings, anyway.

As far as I can see, it's EP who is the wealthy one. She received a big inheritance from her mother which enabled her to buy several properties and provide loans to her BIL/SIL for their house.

Simon did say at one point that she was not motivated by money. I wouldn't be either if I had that much of it. But for some people it's not just about the amount of money, it's about control.

One thing I do feel really strongly is that this is all NOT a plan she sat down and plotted out.

Perhaps what happened was that she genuinely did gather death caps, not even to poison anyone, but just to have the power of having.

She dehydrates them, fantasies about killing people, but then chucks them/puts them away.

Makes the pies, uses some other mushrooms, and does accidentally mix them up. She had planned this deception about the cancer - but had no intention of killing them. Then they actually get sick and she’s shocked/confused, gets rid of the stuff. Is in two minds - is sneaky and hides things because that’s her character type. The plan is rubbish because it was never the plan.

Did we ever get a good reason why the ex pulled out?

there are so many inconsistencies in her stories though.

Justice Beale starts his instruction to the jury

Erin Patterson murder trial live: Justice Christopher Beale delivers final instructions to the jury - ABC News

The problem is that if she made a mushroom duxelles (sp?) and put it on all the pasties, then how come only hers wasn't affected? That doesn't make sense at all. Either she didn't put it on hers, which is very unlikely because she loved mushrooms apparently, or she did put it on her and would've been poisoned. So if she didn't put it on hers that was a deliberate choice because she knew the others would become very ill. The fact they are called death cap mushrooms can't be ignored . She knew there was a high risk of death.

If she gets found guilty for this can the police/prosecution/whoever try again with the attempted murder of Simon charges?

I'd love to know more about the previous allegations too.

I will be listening to this on my lunch break from work today. I am quite interested in the charge from the Judge. Apparently he has tried to shorten it to only 2 days, so he must have a lot to say. It must go into a lot of detail on evidence they have heard over the weeks.

This is gripping stuff isn't it?

So far our poll is 88% guilty and 6% each for Not Guilty and Cannot Reach a Decision.

Ahem- for the lawyers on the thread- are we possibly doing something that could derail the trial? I certainly wouldn't want to fuck up the verdict. Just saying.

This popped up on my
social media. Some prople have a very odd affect. Doesn’t mean they are murderers, but some convicted people
have an usual effect. x.com/xcasefiles/status/1937223402156359907?s=46

Thanks for this thread.
I’m in the Uk, have followed the case a little and thought noone could be so stupid as to do this on purpose, because you would easily get caught.
However having read the thread I now think she is guilty! For me it’s the fact she fed her dc the meat the day after 4 people are seriously ill in hospital after eating her food. She knew the meat she gave her dc was ok, because she’d fed the relatives a completely seperate meat dish, with the deadly mushrooms in it.

I’ve gone back over the summaries of Simon’s evidence again, and I can only assume there was a lot of stopping and stuff the jury got sent out for/weren’t allowed to hear as it just feels like such an incomplete picture.

Once the trial is over, do reporting restrictions lift?

Is it the final decision today?

No - the judge plans on finishing his summarising today and then the jury will start their deliberations tomorrow - I'd expect that will take a few days at least.

Tomorrow at the earliest. Justice Beale may not finish today. From the ABC:

"You don't need to bring your toothbrush tomorrow," Justice Beale told the jury yesterday.

So at this stage, the earliest the jury will start its discussions is tomorrow.