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 3 hours ago by Jerry_Atrick