Did you know?

[Jerry_Atrick]

33 minutes ago, onetrack said:

But I wasn't privy to all the info the jury got, so the verdict must be reasonably sound.

That is the key.. Most of the sensationalistic press will cause a furey when some seemingly guilty person gets off, and blame the weak or liberal judiciary. However, for most indictable offences, it is the jury - 12 ordinary people - that decide. 

 

In terms of appeals, it is rare, but not unheard of that an appeals court will overrule a jury, unless the conclusion they came to was mainfestly perverse. It is usually only limited to an application of the law itself by the judge, in which case an acquital may be provided by the appeals court if the verdict was guitly. If the prosecution brought the appeal on a misapplication of the law, or the appeal was brought on a judges misdirection to the jury and the appeal is successful, a mistrial will be declared and the accused will normally be re-tried, unless the prosecution consider it a waste of time.

[red750]

During the trial, on the sitting days, she spent the nights in the cells at the Morwell police station. Each weekend, she was moved in a prison van to the Dame Phyllis Frost detention centre in Melbourne. According to the Ch 7 6 oclock news, those photos were taken on one of the prison van trips during the hearing.

[rgmwa]

I thought she would get off because I couldn't see how they could prove intent.

[facthunter]

Channel 7 are making a BIG deal if this one. Big coverage coming tomorrow night. $$$$$$$'s. Beyond reasonable doubt is the Level required. Her Lawyer was not happy. In the USA, She'd get the death penalty.   Nev

[onetrack]

I was quite amazed at the length of time - several days - that judge spent, instructing the jury. I don't ever recall a judges instructions to a jury taking that long before. But obviously, the judge was concerned the case balanced on a lot of what appeared to be, weak evidence, so he was making sure there could be little chance of error in the decision-making.

 

The ABC led me to a case of women poisoning men, in Hungary, over 100 years ago. I had never heard of this event before, and an American woman has written a book about it.

The story is extremely complex, with hunger and abuse and forced marriages, forming what seemed to be good reasons for these women to get rid what appears to be abusive husbands, and other menfolk. Life must have been unbelievably hard for these women and I do have some sympathy for them - but murder is murder, no matter how compassionately you approach it.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/non-fiction/review-the-women-are-not-fine-hope-reese/

[Jerry_Atrick]

1 hour ago, rgmwa said:

I thought she would get off because I couldn't see how they could prove intent.

Thge Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) doesn't actually define the crime of murder, so it must be the common law definition, of which the mens rea (guilty mind, in modern times, the fault element) is intention to kill, intention to commit grievous bodily harm, or with reckless indifference to human life. Reckless indifference to human life is subjective (i.e. what was in the mind of the defendant, and not what a reasonable or normal person would think). And basically it means that she knew that her actions were likely/probably going to kill, she knew they were likely to kill, but she went ahead with her actions without necessarily the desire to kill them. 

 

I am no lawyer, let alone a prosecutor, but my guess is the prosecution provied beyond reasonable doubt to the jury that a) She had formed the intent either by the time she served the food, or by allowing it to continue to be eaten, during them eating the food (although that could be an interesting ground for appeal); or that she knew the mushrooms were death cap mushrooms and that she intended to serve the mushrooms to those members of the family she killed/attempted to kill, knowing they were likely to cause death, even though, say, she only wanted it to be the most delicious beef wellington they ever tasted. The jury, after examining the evidence would have to form the conclusion beyond reasonable doubt, that either of the two fault elements existed. 

 

I read there was an assertion she served herself and others of her family at the dinner a differently made beef wellington, and if that was true, that may well be some of the evindence that she intended to kill or was at least reckless to their lives. 

 

Also, remember, that any od the defences that she has available to her, only have to be proved on the balance of probabilities. 

 

43 minutes ago, onetrack said:

I was quite amazed at the length of time - several days - that judge spent, instructing the jury. I don't ever recall a judges instructions to a jury taking that long before.

In some of the NSW criminal cases we looked at, there were very lengthy directions to the jury, augmented with writeen directions. This may work in the defence's favour, because in such a long summation/direction, can result is some mistakes creeping in. If they are big enough, a mistrial will be delcared and the thing has to happen all over again. The facts of this case, from what I have read, would make it a complex case to prove, more than weakness of evidence per se. There appears to be little doubt of the act itself; the problem would be proving the requisite mens rea/guilty mind/fault element because of the subjective nature that is defined for murder. 

 

 

Edited Monday at 10:58 AM by Jerry_Atrick

[red750]

https://au.yahoo.com/news/first-photo-shows-deadly-beef-063548862.html

[onetrack]

See the body of evidence used to convict Erin Patterson ...

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-08/erin-patterson-murder-guilty-verdict-trial-evidence/105504308

[nomadpete]

All I know is that if I get an unexpected invite to a family dinner, I'll be very nice to the host/ess, arrive early to help prepare the food, and even then, I'll be the last one to start eating.

[rgmwa]

Don’t bother with all that. Just swap plates with the hostess when she isn’t looking. 

[onetrack]

The Doctor who dealt with her after the meal, reckons he picked up very quickly, that she was "evil". She lied straight-out to him, after he asked her where she got the mushrooms, and she replied "Woolworths".

All the evidence pointed to the fact that she picked the death cap mushrooms from Loch. The photo of the death cap mushroom on the scales she owned, and the fact that all the phone tracking pointed to her being in the location of Loch.

 

And the fact she was within metres of the people she had poisoned in the hospital, and made no attempt to see them, or ask about their condition, was what finalised the Doctors opinion of her.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-08/chris-webster-erin-patterson-mushroom-murder-trial/105508638

[spacesailor]

He accused her of being evil !.

Before the deaths of her family .

Normally you would think ,'  she was in shock '.

spacesailor

[red750]

You can't put too much faith in the word of a prisoner, or the TV news for that matter, but a prisoner from the detention centre she has been kept in since her relatives died (see my earlier post) said that she had shared some facilities with her including kitchen facilities, and claimed Pattison had interfered with her food and she felt sick afterwards. Other prisoners had made threats, and she has been placed in solitary for her own protection.

[onetrack]

The ripples in the pond are travelling outwards - and no-one wants to talk about mushroom recipes! Personally, I hate them with a vengeance, because my gut reacts to them violently, and I will go out of my way to avoid anything with mushrooms in it. I even detest the smell of them cooking. Unfortunately, SWMBO loves them, so she has to cook them for herself.

 

https://www.watoday.com.au/national/the-ripple-effect-why-good-food-hasn-t-published-a-mushroom-recipe-in-months-20250708-p5mdby.html

[Marty_d]

I bet Nagi Maehashi was ropeable that one news site published a picture of her cookbook in relation to this murder.

I've considered cooking that beef Wellington one day, with normal mushrooms of course.

[onetrack]

The amount of adverse information that is now coming from others that have worked with, or employed Erin Patterson, is quite amazing. Although she trained for and worked as an ATC, she made no social friends at the position - and was sacked after 10 mths, for lying about the hours she worked.

 

She was knocking off early and still claiming she was on the job - but CCTV caught her in the carpark, going to her car, when she claimed she was still working. But she continued the lies and charade until she was presented with the CCTV proof.

 

https://thenightly.com.au/australia/erin-patterson-the-pathological-lies-that-got-the-mushroom-killer-fired-from-her-air-traffic-control-job-c-19290775

 

 

[Marty_d]

1 hour ago, Marty_d said:

I bet Nagi Maehashi was ropeable that one news site published a picture of her cookbook in relation to this murder.

I've considered cooking that beef Wellington one day, with normal mushrooms of course.

I know it's bad form to quote yourself, but I just saw this...

https://www.theguardian.com/food/2025/jul/09/australian-cook-behind-recipetin-eats-beef-wellington-recipe-in-patterson-case-asks-for-privacy-from-tragic-situation-ntwnfb

[spacesailor]

I remember all this ' anti murderer ' in the case of " Lindy Chamberlain " .

Such an evil mother ! .

spacesailor

[red750]

And now Victoria is facing another murder trial, for the murder of Hannah Macguire at Ballarat (not the Samantha Murphy case where the body has never been found). Hannah Macguire's boyfriend was arrested for her murder and placing the body in a burning car.

[ClintonB]

Woolworths has mini beef Wellingtons in the freezer section.

they have been marked down cheaper and cheaper over the last few months.

no body is buying them

[facthunter]

Lindy Chamberlain HAD to be GUILTY or people wouldn't come the the NEW Uluru  Complex just built by the NT Gov't.. It HAS to be REMEMBERED she was Finally acquitted. I remember a Black tracker saying "SHE didn't DO IT, poor Bugga". Eventually an Item of the baby's clothing was found, providing irrefutable proof a DINGO DID it.  Nev

[red750]

Alice Lynne "Lindy" Chamberlain-Creighton (née Murchison, born 4 March 1948) is a New Zealand–born Australian woman who was falsely convicted in one of Australia's most publicised and notorious murder trials and miscarriages of justice. Accused of killing her nine-week-old daughter, Azaria, while camping at Uluru (known then as Ayers Rock) in 1980, she maintained that she saw a dingo leave the tent where Azaria was sleeping. The prosecution case was circumstantial and depended upon forensic evidence that was eventually found to be deeply flawed.

 

Chamberlain was convicted on 29 October 1982, and her appeals to the Federal Court of Australia, and High Court of Australia, were dismissed. On 7 February 1986, after the discovery of new evidence — clothing the same as Azaria wore — Chamberlain was released from prison on remission. She and her husband Michael Chamberlain, co-accused, were officially pardoned in 1987, and their convictions were quashed by the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory in 1988. In 1992, the Australian government paid Chamberlain $1.3 million in compensation.

[old man emu]

I wonder if the Indigenous people had experience gained, over the past 3500 or so years that dingoes have been in Australia, of dingoes carrying off infant children? Surely the Chamberlain incident could not have been the first.

[nomadpete]

Now that numerous whites have been attacked on Fraser Island, I suspect that the public sentiment about 'those fairly harmless' native dogs has changed. They clearly ARE capable of carrying off an infant. And around touristy places, they lose their fear of humans.

[facthunter]

Of Course it wasn't the first but they would have been black and not a threat to the Profitability of a NEW Tourist Gov't funded Oasis at Uluru. They can distend their Jaw to Grab a Kangaroo by the Head in flight.  Nev

Edited 12 hours ago by facthunter
extra content