Current Trial Leongatha Mushroom Deaths - VIC * ERIN PATTERSON FOUND GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS

[Kurve]

Try some Oleander tea

Pretty but I wouldn't have Oleander in my garden.

 

[Lady O]

Pretty but I wouldn't have Oleander in my garden.

They are quite safe if you don't eat them

 

[Kurve]

They are quite safe if you don't eat them

Yeah but kids can pick the flowers and leaves and then stick their fingers in their mouth, dogs can chew on it. Best stay away from it then I don't have to worry about it.

I kill mushrooms and toadies in the yard as soon as I see them as well.

 

[Kurve]

WTF? Where did they get the mushroom link from then? Did they just wildly speculate that because she had had a drink with mushrooms in it that must have been the cause?

The link I posted suggests the son was first to blame the mushroom tea. So I'm not sure now if the other two who drank it became sick or they were taken to the hospital for observation and as a precaution.

 

[Lady O]

Yeah but kids can pick the flowers and leaves and then stick their fingers in their mouth, dogs can chew on it. Best stay away from it then I don't have to worry about it.

I kill mushrooms and toadies in the yard as soon as I see them as well.

Ok, our dogs don't have access to the oleander, but the mushrooms and toadstools in the yard are another issue. They pop up so quickly, they are hard to keep them away in wet weather and I noticed recently that they eat the little ones without problems (lucky as there were 100's).

 

[Irma]

Erin has been back in court this morning. Interesting that she’s parted ways with Philip Dunn KC and is now being represented by Colin Mandy SC.

She has also requested that her case not be moved to Melbourne and that she wants it to all take place over at Morwell, and even though Morwell court can’t accommodate her case further until next year, she’s more than happy to wait in remand. Which is so bizarre, you’d think she’d want it dealt with asap, or is she going for “time served” to reduce time she may need to spend in big girls prison if she’s convicted? Or is it more that she thinks country jurors are less likely to convict her than city jurors?

Mushroom chef Erin Patterson makes a special request from behind bars

Erin Patterson wants to remain behind bars for more than a year in the hope of standing trial closer to her local community.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[MrsBlueSky]

Erin has been back in court this morning. Interesting that she’s parted ways with Philip Dunn KC and is now being represented by Colin Mandy SC.

She has also requested that her case not be moved to Melbourne and that she wants it to all take place over at Morwell, and even though Morwell court can’t accommodate her case further until next year, she’s more than happy to wait in remand. Which is so bizarre, you’d think she’d want it dealt with asap, or is she going for “time served” to reduce time she may need to spend in big girls prison if she’s convicted? Or is it more that she thinks country jurors are less likely to convict her than city jurors?

Mushroom chef Erin Patterson makes a special request from behind bars

Erin Patterson wants to remain behind bars for more than a year in the hope of standing trial closer to her local community.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Over time, memories fade, people die (of natural causes), evidence gets lost...maybe that's her reasoning.
That's an interesting point about city v country jurors.

 

[darklake]

Erin has been back in court this morning. Interesting that she’s parted ways with Philip Dunn KC and is now being represented by Colin Mandy SC.

She has also requested that her case not be moved to Melbourne and that she wants it to all take place over at Morwell, and even though Morwell court can’t accommodate her case further until next year, she’s more than happy to wait in remand. Which is so bizarre, you’d think she’d want it dealt with asap, or is she going for “time served” to reduce time she may need to spend in big girls prison if she’s convicted? Or is it more that she thinks country jurors are less likely to convict her than city jurors?

Mushroom chef Erin Patterson makes a special request from behind bars

Erin Patterson wants to remain behind bars for more than a year in the hope of standing trial closer to her local community.

www.dailymail.co.uk

The latter I'd suggest.

 

[Lady O]

Erin has been back in court this morning. Interesting that she’s parted ways with Philip Dunn KC and is now being represented by Colin Mandy SC.

She has also requested that her case not be moved to Melbourne and that she wants it to all take place over at Morwell, and even though Morwell court can’t accommodate her case further until next year, she’s more than happy to wait in remand. Which is so bizarre, you’d think she’d want it dealt with asap, or is she going for “time served” to reduce time she may need to spend in big girls prison if she’s convicted? Or is it more that she thinks country jurors are less likely to convict her than city jurors?

Mushroom chef Erin Patterson makes a special request from behind bars

Erin Patterson wants to remain behind bars for more than a year in the hope of standing trial closer to her local community.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Maybe she wants to be close to her children.

 

[GrayRanga]

Erin has been back in court this morning. Interesting that she’s parted ways with Philip Dunn KC and is now being represented by Colin Mandy SC.

She has also requested that her case not be moved to Melbourne and that she wants it to all take place over at Morwell, and even though Morwell court can’t accommodate her case further until next year, she’s more than happy to wait in remand. Which is so bizarre, you’d think she’d want it dealt with asap, or is she going for “time served” to reduce time she may need to spend in big girls prison if she’s convicted? Or is it more that she thinks country jurors are less likely to convict her than city jurors?

Mushroom chef Erin Patterson makes a special request from behind bars

Erin Patterson wants to remain behind bars for more than a year in the hope of standing trial closer to her local community.

www.dailymail.co.uk

A Court is meant to declare the amount of Pre-Sentence Detention that applies to the sentence upon sentencing. If no such declaration is made the Court may decrease the totality of the sentence by an amount equal to the period held on remand

If the Court makes no declaration either way, the Prison may apply the PSD applicable to the sentences for which the person was held on remand.

The totality of the period spent in custody cannot exceed the sentence imposed (Writs of Habius Corpus = big payouts footed by the taxpayer)

I grew up in a country town, and going Mushrooming was a regular Sunday activity around town during Autumn.

Her defence may be running on the basis of shared cultural experiences aided by a confusion of as what or wasn't toxic fungai.

Add to that the often held mistrust of born and bred Country people to City Elites knowlege of the realities of the rural lifestyle, where they buy from the local butcher, green grocer and baker and go foraging for commonly available food.

But, then again. rural people may be less suspectable to the to the silver tongued city KC defence lawyers

 

[MrsBlueSky]

But, then again. rural people may be less suspectable to the to the silver tongued city KC defence lawyers

I don't know about silver tongued lawyers. They either tell the truth representing their client or they don't. There's no escaping from the truth.
Are they going to say someone may have gone out foraging for wild mushrooms and sold poisonous ones by mistake in their shop.
Surely police had something about mushrooms in their evidence before they charged her with murder.

 

[Longmembrey]

A Court is meant to declare the amount of Pre-Sentence Detention that applies to the sentence upon sentencing. If no such declaration is made the Court may decrease the totality of the sentence by an amount equal to the period held on remand

If the Court makes no declaration either way, the Prison may apply the PSD applicable to the sentences for which the person was held on remand.

The totality of the period spent in custody cannot exceed the sentence imposed (Writs of Habius Corpus = big payouts footed by the taxpayer)

I grew up in a country town, and going Mushrooming was a regular Sunday activity around town during Autumn.

Her defence may be running on the basis of shared cultural experiences aided by a confusion of as what or wasn't toxic fungai.

Add to that the often held mistrust of born and bred Country people to City Elites knowlege of the realities of the rural lifestyle, where they buy from the local butcher, green grocer and baker and go foraging for commonly available food.

But, then again. rural people may be less suspectable to the to the silver tongued city KC defence lawyers

Plenty of people spend time in custody that exceed any sentence and receive zero payout. Ie every person that is remanded that is eventually found not guilty

 

[GrayRanga]

I don't know about silver tongued lawyers. They either tell the truth representing their client or they don't. There's no escaping from the truth.
Are they going to say someone may have gone out foraging for wild mushrooms and sold poisonous ones by mistake in their shop.
Surely police had something about mushrooms in their evidence before they charged her with murder.

Barristers are not concerned about the "truth"

They are there purely to debate the instructions given to them by their clients (both prosecution and defence) before a Judge, and this case, a Jury.

They will test the evidence provided by the opposing party to create a narrative which hopefully hopfully proves to the Judge and Jury that if found guilty it is beyond reasonable doubt or if reasonable doubt exists, they are found innocent.

Many years ago and in a different area of employment, I heard a Supreme Court Justice say (paraprased from an aging memory) that there are 4 "truths" in every criminal case

1 What the Prosecution attempts to prove
2 What the defence say or don't say
3 What the Judge/Jury finds proven
4 What actually happened

By the way, the defence doesn't have to prove anything. It is the Prosecution to create the narrative to prove beyond reasonable doubt she is guilty to the jury and the defence Barrister to question each fact presented

When the matter goes to Commital we will learn an indication of the prima facie case the prosecution has developed

 

[GrayRanga]

Plenty of people spend time in custody that exceed any sentence and receive zero payout. Ie every person that is remanded that is eventually found not guilty

The State cannot arbitrarily hold a person in custody without legal warrants issued by a Court to hold them

A remand warrant is different to a warrant to hold a person in custody after being sentenced to a term of inprisonment

if the remand prisoner wins the court case, he/she is released. If there are no other warrants in existence to hold them in custody their continued detention is unlawful.

If a prisoner is held beyond the expiry of their sentence, there are no lawful warrants to deprive them of their freedom. This too is unlawful

The only difference to this is when the person is sentenced to a term of inprisonment with a Non Parole Period.
In the absence of an order by the Parole Board to release the person after the expiry of their NPP, the person remains in custody under sentence until the sentence is satisfied by effluxion of time

Screw ups in the calculation of sentences happen and payouts are made where the prisoner's liberty is deprived without lawful reason

 

[MrsBlueSky]

Barristers are not concerned about the "truth"

If a barrister knows the instruction from the client is a lie, then who is responsible for committing perjury.
If the defendant in giving evidence under oath and says he didn't do something and is found guilty of doing it why aren't they prosecuted for perjury.
There seems to be a lot of lying going on in a courtroom which makes it difficult for the magistrate or judge to decide who is telling the truth.
I would say a lot of times a person who knows they are guilty is charged and will plead not guilty and take it to trial.
They may have second thoughts if they contravene "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" will cost them an extra 10 years in prison.

 

[GrayRanga]

If a barrister knows the instruction from the client is a lie, then who is responsible for committing perjury.
If the defendant in giving evidence under oath and says he didn't do something and is found guilty of doing it why aren't they prosecuted for perjury.
There seems to be a lot of lying going on in a courtroom which makes it difficult for the magistrate or judge to decide who is telling the truth.
I would say a lot of times a person who knows they are guilty is charged and will plead not guilty and take it to trial.
They may have second thoughts if they contravene "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" will cost them an extra 10 years in prison.

Perjury is defined as lying after giving an oath to tell the truth (sign a stat dec recentiy?)

A barrister does not give evidence (unless they are a witness or charged) and therefore did not give an oath or affimation to the Court to tell the truth.

A defendant who does not give evidence did not give an oath or affimation to the Court that they will tell the truth.

From one perspective the barrister's personal views of the defendent's guilt or innocence are immaterial; guilt is only determined by the Court if the charges are proven.

Until the Court has make a determination of guilt, the defendant is innocent

Barristers are obliged to accept a brief if the brief is within the area of their expertise, the client is willing to pay and they have the time to dischage their obligation to their client.

I would suggest that if the barrister does have any personal qualms about accepting a brief, they would seek guidance from the Bar Council

 

[Zidane98]

Plenty of people spend time in custody that exceed any sentence and receive zero payout. Ie every person that is remanded that is eventually found not guilty

Is there an actual law on this or just guidelines? If someone is going to held on remand long term the prosecutor better have their ducks lined up for a conviction.


I guess the only times a compo payout will be a possibility is if the prosecution has had information in their possession that would lead a reasonable person to believe there was a strong chance that the person charged could in fact be innocent.


In this case I don't see anyway in which the charged will escape any conviction in this case. At the very least she has admitted to cooking up the beef wellington pie with mushrooms that can cause significant health issues or even death. To me, the only question is whether she was aware that those shrooms could kill her in laws or whether the deaths were inadverent ie manslaughter.

 

[mrskafoops]

Tonight I am cooking mushroom soup for dinner. As it happens my husband and I had a lawyer over yesterday to finalise our wills and power of attorney.
My husband just walked into the kitchen and saw what I was doing, raised an eyebrow and said “you know this looks suss, right?”

 

[BFew]

Tonight I am cooking mushroom soup for dinner.

Where did you pick the mushrooms from?

 

[Sqotty from office works]

Where did you pick the mushrooms from?

Just some Sunday market place "I think "

 

[BFew]

 

[Run n Spread]

Elected to skip the committal.
Interesting would want to have a stack of evidence.
Given murder has 4 elements it is going to be hard to prove 3.
1. It was a deliberate act. Can you prove she bought the mushrooms or she deliberately picked toxic mushrooms
2. The act caused the death Can it actually be proven what they died of/what they were poisoned with. Given death was 3 weeks later an autopsy would be inconclusive
3 she was acting with malicious aforethought? Most people wouldn't know death cap mushrooms or how they work. I know not to eat wild grown ones but I had no idea they poison you over weeks. So even it they were picked she could argue ignorance thus manslaughter at worse
4 no alternative. Safe to say it wasn't self defence.
Without medical records or initial report the attempted murder charge is a 1 in a million

 

[Ninety Nine]

Erin Patterson pleads not guilty over alleged mushroom murders of relatives

Accused killer Erin Patterson formally pleads not guilty to murder over the alleged mushroom poisonings of three of her relatives, and elects to have her case "fast-tracked" to a Victorian Supreme Court trial.

www.abc.net.au

 

[faible]

2. The act caused the death Can it actually be proven what they died of/what they were poisoned with. Given death was 3 weeks later an autopsy would be inconclusive

Huh?

How a sleepy Gippsland town made global headlines after a mushroom lunch allegedly killed three guests

A beef wellington lunch allegedly led to three deaths and a small south-east Victorian community in shock. Now the host has been charged with murder. Here's how it all unfolded.

www.abc.net.au

• Saturday July 29 2023: Dinner.
• Saturday July 29 - Monday July 31: 5 people present to hospital at various points.
• Friday August 4 2023: First 2 victims die.
• Saturday August 5 2023: 3rd victim dies.
• Monday August 7 2023: Health Department confirms mushrooms were involved in the fatalities.

Victims all presented to hospital within 3 days. Not sure where your '3 weeks later' comment is from? It was 7 days or less for all 3. Seems toxicology is clear that mushrooms were involved as well.

 

[MrsBlueSky]

Huh?

How a sleepy Gippsland town made global headlines after a mushroom lunch allegedly killed three guests

A beef wellington lunch allegedly led to three deaths and a small south-east Victorian community in shock. Now the host has been charged with murder. Here's how it all unfolded.

www.abc.net.au

• Saturday July 29 2023: Dinner.
• Saturday July 29 - Monday July 31: 5 people present to hospital at various points.
• Friday August 4 2023: First 2 victims die.
• Saturday August 5 2023: 3rd victim dies.
• Monday August 7 2023: Health Department confirms mushrooms were involved in the fatalities.

Victims all presented to hospital within 3 days. Not sure where your '3 weeks later' comment is from? It was 7 days or less for all 3. Seems toxicology is clear that mushrooms were involved as well.

Run n Spread said the deaths were three weeks after presumably eating the beef wellington.

Even your timeline can be confusing: It was lunch, not dinner, 4 people, not 5, went to hospital the following day and the most startling thing to me is a day you missed November 2 when Erin was arrested.
To me, Erin would seem like a prime suspect but it was only after she was arrested that police searched the house giving a huge amount of time to cover up any evidence.
Police should know they can get a search warrant!

NOVEMBER 2 Erin Patterson is arrested and taken to Wonthaggi police station for questioning. The home where the fatal lunch took place is searched by police.

I think what Run n Spread was getting at is not to jump to conclusions such as a false claim that Erin's own parents had died due to poisoning which was exposed as a lie. The pair actually died of natural causes.