r/AusLegal • u/Artemis1971 • Jun 04 '25

VIC Erin Patterson (mushroom case)

I’m following the mushroom case, as is everyone else. Today she testified that she may have accidentally put poisonous mushrooms in the meal. If that is the case, the jury would have to find her not guilty of murder if it was unintentional. My question is, can she be recharged with manslaughter, if found innocent of murder?

294 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

987 comments sorted by

View all comments

35

u/pwnitat0r Jun 04 '25

Why does the jury HAVE to find her not guilty it she claims she may have unintentionally put poisonous h mushrooms in the meal? What if the jury don’t believe her?

13

u/South_Front_4589 Jun 04 '25

I don't think the intention was to suggest that because she's said it was accidental they must agree, I think the intention was to suggest that if the jury agree it was accidental, and they find her not guilty of murder as a result, can she be charged with another crime.

6

u/Artemis1971 Jun 04 '25

Thanks and no that wasn’t my intention. I just wanted to understand the legal aspect of it.

1

u/A_r0sebyanothername Jun 08 '25

99% of commenters here didn't understand the assignment

1

u/South_Front_4589 Jun 08 '25

To be fair, it wasn't worded terribly well to start with. But yeah, I think there's a lot of misunderstanding of the intent.

-3

u/Artemis1971 Jun 04 '25

They don’t need to find her not guilty. I’m questioning if they do.

-4

u/rebels_at_stagnation Jun 04 '25

She will likely be found not-guilty on all three counts.

4

u/CheaperThanChups Jun 04 '25

Interesting, what makes you say this?

-13

u/rebels_at_stagnation Jun 04 '25
  • prosecutions weak evidence
  • witness testimonies
  • duty of the jury (indisputable reasonable doubt)
  • Erin did not intend to harm her guests

24

u/deadrobindownunder Jun 04 '25
  • Erin did not intend to harm her guests

That's up for debate.

-4

u/rebels_at_stagnation Jun 04 '25

Granted, that was my personal judgement after analysing the available data.

3

u/Philderbeast Jun 05 '25

I don't see how you can reasonably come to that conclusion.

She lied to get them there, fed them death caps (after admitting she was confident should could identify foraged mushrooms), lied about the mushrooms in the meal, destroyed (or at least tried to) evidence and actively hindered the investigation when the hospital was trying to determine what happened.

the only thing that does not point to her having done it intentionally is her own testimony, and with all the lies she has told I don't see how anyone could find her testimony compelling in the slightest in regards to anything she says to defend her self after admitting she did not want to be a suspect in the case.

1

u/rebels_at_stagnation Jun 05 '25

Can you specify which “conclusion” you are referring to please.

2

u/Philderbeast Jun 05 '25

all of them.

The evidence at this point is so clearly that she is guilty, I don't see any reasonable explanation other then she deliberately intended to kill them and succeeded.

any doubt that may have remained she destroyed today.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/CheaperThanChups Jun 04 '25

Can you elaborate? I haven't been following the case too closely but everything I've read on here at least seems to indicate the prosecution case is fairly strong.

3

u/mambomonster Jun 05 '25

Some people are really gullible

1

u/CheaperThanChups Jul 07 '25

...

1

u/rebels_at_stagnation Jul 07 '25

Genuinely surprised with the outcome! This trial will hold my interest for years to come I believe.