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?

And your answers to my two questions?

Indeed. Us general members of the public can absolutely discuss the myriad of data from the trial that has been released.

There is no link from this to people not having an open mind.

Dustyblue, I'm not sure what you mean. The problem with focusing on the details is that as you say "the devil is in the detail". Not all the detail I've seen on this site is accurate, and/or is disputed.
My original two posts on this topic were an attempt to take a different approach by focussing on the logic of the timeline of some of the defendant's actions, rather than getting bogged down in disputed detail.
I have been following the trial very carefully since its onset (both via live summaries and the ABC Mushroom Case Daily), and my recollection is that not all the details I've seen others claim in this thread are accurate.
Even if the jury finds the defendant not guilty, it would seem that the "court of public opinion" has damned her, without the requirement to fully check every detail.

Dustyblue, I'm not sure what you mean. The problem with focusing on the details is that as you say "the devil is in the detail". Not all the detail I've seen on this site is accurate, and/or is disputed.

Dusty didn't say that. I said that.

And your answers to my two questions?

I don't know what your two questions are!

What are you disputing? Course people can think she is guilty. Now yes there are some things the jury have to not include on a law technicality. They can't search themselves or do any research like we can.

For example the mushroom seeping into the meat.

This is the question Justice Beale is touching upon as he revisits evidence from a toxicology expert.

That expert said that different outcomes are possible from the same meal, as it's "very likely" the distribution of mushrooms throughout the paste would be uneven. Also, Erin Patterson was younger than her guests and weighed about 100 kilograms.

Surely JCB is speculating here. He was warned the jury not to so why is he. If it was a powder it would likely be over the whole thing. Large surface area basic Science 101.

I think she’s a highly manipulative individual. There are hints to this in her behaviour and the words she uses in both speech and texts. I honestly think (although the judge has told the jury to ignore the lack of motive) that she has done this simply because these people were not behaving as she wanted them to. Even when she lies or is found out about lying, her expectation is that her new truth will be believed - an arrogance that she will get away with this, rather than coming up with a more plausible plan. I think when Ian didn’t turn up, despite her message, there may have been a red mist which confused her logic in the aftermath. She is highly intelligent. - she’s worked as an air traffic controller - but this intelligence isn’t seen in her actions or the way she explained them. To me, she clearly has some sort of mental health issues (psychopath?).

now wondering how her parents died…. Given she’s not that old, they must have died young…..!

I think she did have a motive - I think she believed that her ex’s parents were ‘influencing’ him and believed in her warped view, that if she got rid of them, then she could control her ex’s actions or manipulate him easier. Unsure about the others who attended….perhaps she never intended for them to come? Maybe her in laws invited them?

@Cantsleepdontsleep her mum died of cancer

I recall it being Erin who invited then when at the baptist church. Heather was said to be surprised.

From the guardian.

Wilkinson told the court on Tuesday that Patterson was at a church service when she invited his wife, Heather, to lunch less than a fortnight before the meal in July 2023.

I’ve followed it very closely from the beginning snd from the start of the trial- I think she’s guilty but I am not sure she will be found guilty.

I think all of the lies - whilst not proving guilt - are very damning. Also the bulimia, gastric bypass, liposuction all seem like things she just invented as part of her case.

As to the lack of motive - just because there is no discernible motive doesn’t mean there wasn’t one.

Just a few more hours of Justice Beale yakking and the deliberations will begin. God help the jury. I remember when it was thought the court case would end sooner than the originally projected 5-6 weeks! What a slog for them.

This feels ominous:
"The jury will deliberate every Monday to Saturday from 10:30am until 4:15pm until a verdict is reached."

i dont know how they can find her guilty of intentionally poisoning with no known motive - it is just a gut feeling, who knows

Details here.

How jurors will decide the outcome of Erin Patterson's mushroom triple-murder trial - ABC News

I do wonder, when it comes to jury trials that run as long as this has- if the jurors just get fed up and vote to go home?

By that I mean- maybe you're torn between two decisions, and a bit unsure, but not so unsure as that you won't vote one way if means you'll get out of there sooner than later.

I honestly dont know, am just pondering!

Quote from ABC news above-

'What if the jury cannot decide?'
Given the requirement for a unanimous verdict, even one dissenting member can cause a "hung jury", meaning no unanimous verdict can be reached.
Without trying to influence jurors' verdicts, the judge may offer assistance to prevent that outcome.

But in the event that the jury remains unable to reach a consensus and a hung jury is declared, they will be discharged, and a new trial eventually held.
On Monday, Justice Beale told the jury their verdict must be unanimous on each charge, but that that did not mean they must all reach their decisions the same way.

"No matter how you reach your verdict, you must all agree," he said.

I'd be surprised if they can agree on what food to bring in for dinner at this point.

She did have a motive. She asked the in-laws to back her up and they wouldn't. They wanted to be impartial. She'd been very good to that family financially and there's some was now not being good financially in return. I can completely understand why she was pissed off. Having said that, the aunt and uncle weren't involved in that at all so I don't know why they were invited and poisoned.

Does anyone know the other case that she's rumoured to be involved in?

The only thing we don’t have is a motive strong enough for multiple murder - but I can’t see how we need one given the wealth of practical evidence she killed three people deliberately.

She’s a liar and a fantasist, they’re not that nice. She’s never said sorry. Lots of killers don’t have motives.

Does anyone know the other case that she's rumoured to be involved in?

Do you mean the charges she faced for attempting to kill her ex-husband that were dropped at the start of this trial? If so, I'm too tired to explain it again, you'll have to read the news/threads.

Not sure if everyone can see the final vote on our poll, so here it is.

511 votes.

86% Guilty
6% Not Guilty
8% Cannot reach a decision.

The 'Guilty' vote actually wavered and dropped a tad in the last few days, from 89 to 86. This added to the "Cannot reach decision" vote.

Interesting!

Elsewhere...

Begins with T:
"Do you think EP is guilty of murder?"
330 votes. 89.7% Guilty
4 votes. 1.1% Not guilty
34 votes. 9.2% Unsure

Begins with R:
Out of 236 votes, predictions for the outcome of the jury:
187 Guilty - murder
39 Guilty - manslaughter
7 Not guilty - reasonable doubt
3 Not guilty - just an accident

Some interesting numbers there!

I would say guilty based on the evidence I’ve seen, though I appreciate I may not have seen all of it since I’m not a juror.
I don’t think a lack of clear motive should be a reason for voting not guilty, sometimes people do things for no reason at all, or simply through maleficence.
But in this case I believe her motive was to generally cause harm to her ex husband, either directly to him, or indirectly, by harming people he loved.
I think she is a very clever and calculating woman who knew exactly how to make it seem like she is a victim of unfortunate coincidences around the evidence.
Really interesting case to follow.
As someone upthread said, I’m interested to see what information is released at the end of the trial that hasn’t been included.
I feel very sad for her children!

If it’s a hung jury and eventually a retrial can Erin live at home on bail?