Live stream of sentencing of Erin Patterson here, 9:30am tomorrow.

https://vimeo.com/event/5357020

The camera is switched on, but the judge’s chair remains unoccupied at this juncture.

No screenshots allowed.

Bubblecar said:

The camera is switched on, but the judge’s chair remains unoccupied at this juncture.

No screenshots allowed.

Who wants a screenshot of a judge anyway?

The radiator behind the chair is finished in a “wood look” to blend with the mahogany panelling.

Note the box of tissues, jug of water and upturned glass.

I’m betting he doesn’t draw a single tissue from the box, but he may take a little water.

…and here he is.

He can’t even reach those tissues, unless he has telescopic arms.

She uses iNaturalist. uh oh.

I’ve switched it off, too much foul language.

Peak Warming Man said:

I’ve switched it off, too much foul language.

He’s going into rather exhaustive detail.

Fuck, this is a disgusting thread.

He’s worked his way up to the fateful lunch.

His tone is certainly damning, and rightly so.

He agrees with the prosecution that this falls into the worst category of premeditated murder and calls for the maximum sentence.

Bubblecar said:

He agrees with the prosecution that this falls into the worst category of premeditated murder and calls for the maximum sentence.

What is the maximum sentence?

Divine Angel said:

Bubblecar said:

He agrees with the prosecution that this falls into the worst category of premeditated murder and calls for the maximum sentence.

What is the maximum sentence?

Minimum 30 years, but he hasn’t announced that yet.

He’s about to announce that he will allow parole eventually, due to her having to endure solitary confinement.

Non-parole period of 33 years. Sentence has been passed.

Court adjourned, God save Charlie.

Bubblecar said:

Non-parole period of 33 years. Sentence has been passed.

Long time.

and away from other prisoners. What a miserable existence.

Oh well.

Boris said:

Bubblecar said:

Non-parole period of 33 years. Sentence has been passed.

Long time.

For the term of her natural life.

Peak Warming Man said:

Boris said:

Bubblecar said:

Non-parole period of 33 years. Sentence has been passed.

Long time.

For the term of her natural life.

I think a life sentence would be more appropriate.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Boris said:

Long time.

For the term of her natural life.

I think a life sentence would be more appropriate.

Anyway Deathcapie has a long time to reflect on her actions, alone.

full stop

Victoria’s highest court has dismissed Erin Patterson’s appeal against her murder convictions and resentenced the killer to life in prison without parole. Erin Patterson has chosen not to come to court in person today, and will watch proceedings from the Dame Phyllis Frost women’s prison.

Justice McLeish is recapping what occurred during the appeals process, and the seven grounds on which Patterson is appealing. He says the first ground is unsuccessful be there is no possibility the jury would not have made a correct decision even after being accommodated in the same hotel as a police witness. Justice McLeish says the second ground — the evidence of mobile phone data — is also unsuccessful. He says the evidence was admissible. The court rejects the other grounds.

Justice McLeish says Erin Patterson’s conduct was characterised by “an elaborate series of deceptions”. He raises the false cancer claim, the destruction of evidence, the planning of the lunch and the “cruel breach of trust” of her relatives. Justice McLeish says the non-parole period will be set aside, and that the prosecution’s appeal for a harsher sentence is successful. He says Patterson’s conduct deserves to be “denounced in the strongest terms”, and it is inappropriate for parole to be an option.

note a bit of silliness here

we can’t say that “Wes and Brett” are real people or otherwise just based on this but taken at face value they are being disingenuous with their articulation

“leave to appeal” is not the same as “appeal” so asking what for about an appeal being granted, is not what this is about

SCIENCE said:

full stop

Victoria’s highest court has dismissed Erin Patterson’s appeal against her murder convictions and resentenced the killer to life in prison without parole. Erin Patterson has chosen not to come to court in person today, and will watch proceedings from the Dame Phyllis Frost women’s prison.

Justice McLeish is recapping what occurred during the appeals process, and the seven grounds on which Patterson is appealing. He says the first ground is unsuccessful be there is no possibility the jury would not have made a correct decision even after being accommodated in the same hotel as a police witness. Justice McLeish says the second ground — the evidence of mobile phone data — is also unsuccessful. He says the evidence was admissible. The court rejects the other grounds.

Justice McLeish says Erin Patterson’s conduct was characterised by “an elaborate series of deceptions”. He raises the false cancer claim, the destruction of evidence, the planning of the lunch and the “cruel breach of trust” of her relatives. Justice McLeish says the non-parole period will be set aside, and that the prosecution’s appeal for a harsher sentence is successful. He says Patterson’s conduct deserves to be “denounced in the strongest terms”, and it is inappropriate for parole to be an option.

note a bit of silliness here

we can’t say that “Wes and Brett” are real people or otherwise just based on this but taken at face value they are being disingenuous with their articulation

“leave to appeal” is not the same as “appeal” so asking what for about an appeal being granted, is not what this is about

It was obvious the appeal would be dismissed.

I’m a bit surprised they granted the prosecution’s appeal though – I thought they’d just leave the original sentence alone.

Erin will now never be released.

Bubblecar said:

SCIENCE said:

full stop

Victoria’s highest court has dismissed Erin Patterson’s appeal against her murder convictions and resentenced the killer to life in prison without parole. Erin Patterson has chosen not to come to court in person today, and will watch proceedings from the Dame Phyllis Frost women’s prison.

Justice McLeish is recapping what occurred during the appeals process, and the seven grounds on which Patterson is appealing. He says the first ground is unsuccessful be there is no possibility the jury would not have made a correct decision even after being accommodated in the same hotel as a police witness. Justice McLeish says the second ground — the evidence of mobile phone data — is also unsuccessful. He says the evidence was admissible. The court rejects the other grounds.

Justice McLeish says Erin Patterson’s conduct was characterised by “an elaborate series of deceptions”. He raises the false cancer claim, the destruction of evidence, the planning of the lunch and the “cruel breach of trust” of her relatives. Justice McLeish says the non-parole period will be set aside, and that the prosecution’s appeal for a harsher sentence is successful. He says Patterson’s conduct deserves to be “denounced in the strongest terms”, and it is inappropriate for parole to be an option.

note a bit of silliness here

we can’t say that “Wes and Brett” are real people or otherwise just based on this but taken at face value they are being disingenuous with their articulation

“leave to appeal” is not the same as “appeal” so asking what for about an appeal being granted, is not what this is about

It was obvious the appeal would be dismissed.

I’m a bit surprised they granted the prosecution’s appeal though – I thought they’d just leave the original sentence alone.

Erin will now never be released.

Maybe they granted the leave to appeal so that she could not go through a legal process about being denied a leave to appeal?

Appealed on seven grounds:
The “Hotel Error” (Compromised Jury): Defence lawyers argued there was a “fundamental irregularity” and a “catastrophic” failure of the justice system during jury sequestration. Due to accommodation shortages in the Gippsland region caused by a national table tennis tournament, the jurors stayed at the same hotel as the lead police witness, two members of the prosecution team, and media reporters while deliberating their verdicts.

Unfair Cross-Examination: Her team argued that the five-day cross-examination of Patterson by prosecutor Nanette Rogers was “unfair and oppressive,” creating an unbalanced trial environment.

Contradictory Arguments Over Motive: The defence claimed a substantial miscarriage of justice occurred because the prosecution explicitly opened the trial stating they did not need to prove a motive, but then pivoted during closing addresses to aggressively imply Patterson was motivated by an active family child-support dispute.

Wrongful Admission of Mobile Tower Data: They argued that large tranches of technical evidence—specifically mobile phone tower tracking data tying her movements to rural Gippsland areas where death cap mushrooms grow—should never have been shown to the jury.

Exclusion of Exculpatory Foraging Evidence: Her lawyers argued the trial judge erred by ruling out photos and videos found on Patterson’s electronic devices (including an SD card) from 2020, which her team claimed could have supported her defense that she was a harmless, long-time mushroom forager.

Prejudicial Facebook Evidence: They asserted that personal messages and rants about her estranged husband and in-laws sourced from Facebook “friends” and groups were legally irrelevant, and that their highly prejudicial nature completely outweighed any actual value to the case

Overreach in the Prosecution’s Closing Address: The final ground targeted what the defence identified as up to 35 separate instances of errors, speculative claims, and prejudicial overreach made by the Crown during their final closing address to the jury.

—-

on the long time mushroom forager point – she told the police that she did not go foraging in an interview.

Arts said:

Appealed on seven grounds:
The “Hotel Error” (Compromised Jury): Defence lawyers argued there was a “fundamental irregularity” and a “catastrophic” failure of the justice system during jury sequestration. Due to accommodation shortages in the Gippsland region caused by a national table tennis tournament, the jurors stayed at the same hotel as the lead police witness, two members of the prosecution team, and media reporters while deliberating their verdicts.

Unfair Cross-Examination: Her team argued that the five-day cross-examination of Patterson by prosecutor Nanette Rogers was “unfair and oppressive,” creating an unbalanced trial environment.

Contradictory Arguments Over Motive: The defence claimed a substantial miscarriage of justice occurred because the prosecution explicitly opened the trial stating they did not need to prove a motive, but then pivoted during closing addresses to aggressively imply Patterson was motivated by an active family child-support dispute.

Wrongful Admission of Mobile Tower Data: They argued that large tranches of technical evidence—specifically mobile phone tower tracking data tying her movements to rural Gippsland areas where death cap mushrooms grow—should never have been shown to the jury.

Exclusion of Exculpatory Foraging Evidence: Her lawyers argued the trial judge erred by ruling out photos and videos found on Patterson’s electronic devices (including an SD card) from 2020, which her team claimed could have supported her defense that she was a harmless, long-time mushroom forager.

Prejudicial Facebook Evidence: They asserted that personal messages and rants about her estranged husband and in-laws sourced from Facebook “friends” and groups were legally irrelevant, and that their highly prejudicial nature completely outweighed any actual value to the case

Overreach in the Prosecution’s Closing Address: The final ground targeted what the defence identified as up to 35 separate instances of errors, speculative claims, and prejudicial overreach made by the Crown during their final closing address to the jury.

—-

on the long time mushroom forager point – she told the police that she did not go foraging in an interview.

Always a worry with appeal like this you get even stricter sentencing

Cymek said:

Arts said:

Appealed on seven grounds:
The “Hotel Error” (Compromised Jury): Defence lawyers argued there was a “fundamental irregularity” and a “catastrophic” failure of the justice system during jury sequestration. Due to accommodation shortages in the Gippsland region caused by a national table tennis tournament, the jurors stayed at the same hotel as the lead police witness, two members of the prosecution team, and media reporters while deliberating their verdicts.

Unfair Cross-Examination: Her team argued that the five-day cross-examination of Patterson by prosecutor Nanette Rogers was “unfair and oppressive,” creating an unbalanced trial environment.

Contradictory Arguments Over Motive: The defence claimed a substantial miscarriage of justice occurred because the prosecution explicitly opened the trial stating they did not need to prove a motive, but then pivoted during closing addresses to aggressively imply Patterson was motivated by an active family child-support dispute.

Wrongful Admission of Mobile Tower Data: They argued that large tranches of technical evidence—specifically mobile phone tower tracking data tying her movements to rural Gippsland areas where death cap mushrooms grow—should never have been shown to the jury.

Exclusion of Exculpatory Foraging Evidence: Her lawyers argued the trial judge erred by ruling out photos and videos found on Patterson’s electronic devices (including an SD card) from 2020, which her team claimed could have supported her defense that she was a harmless, long-time mushroom forager.

Prejudicial Facebook Evidence: They asserted that personal messages and rants about her estranged husband and in-laws sourced from Facebook “friends” and groups were legally irrelevant, and that their highly prejudicial nature completely outweighed any actual value to the case

Overreach in the Prosecution’s Closing Address: The final ground targeted what the defence identified as up to 35 separate instances of errors, speculative claims, and prejudicial overreach made by the Crown during their final closing address to the jury.

—-

on the long time mushroom forager point – she told the police that she did not go foraging in an interview.

Always a worry with appeal like this you get even stricter sentencing

As an experience mushroom forager it could work against you as you’d be aware of the poisonous ones and less likely to accidentally pick them.

Cymek said:

Cymek said:

Arts said:

Appealed on seven grounds:
The “Hotel Error” (Compromised Jury): Defence lawyers argued there was a “fundamental irregularity” and a “catastrophic” failure of the justice system during jury sequestration. Due to accommodation shortages in the Gippsland region caused by a national table tennis tournament, the jurors stayed at the same hotel as the lead police witness, two members of the prosecution team, and media reporters while deliberating their verdicts.

Unfair Cross-Examination: Her team argued that the five-day cross-examination of Patterson by prosecutor Nanette Rogers was “unfair and oppressive,” creating an unbalanced trial environment.

Contradictory Arguments Over Motive: The defence claimed a substantial miscarriage of justice occurred because the prosecution explicitly opened the trial stating they did not need to prove a motive, but then pivoted during closing addresses to aggressively imply Patterson was motivated by an active family child-support dispute.

Wrongful Admission of Mobile Tower Data: They argued that large tranches of technical evidence—specifically mobile phone tower tracking data tying her movements to rural Gippsland areas where death cap mushrooms grow—should never have been shown to the jury.

Exclusion of Exculpatory Foraging Evidence: Her lawyers argued the trial judge erred by ruling out photos and videos found on Patterson’s electronic devices (including an SD card) from 2020, which her team claimed could have supported her defense that she was a harmless, long-time mushroom forager.

Prejudicial Facebook Evidence: They asserted that personal messages and rants about her estranged husband and in-laws sourced from Facebook “friends” and groups were legally irrelevant, and that their highly prejudicial nature completely outweighed any actual value to the case

Overreach in the Prosecution’s Closing Address: The final ground targeted what the defence identified as up to 35 separate instances of errors, speculative claims, and prejudicial overreach made by the Crown during their final closing address to the jury.

—-

on the long time mushroom forager point – she told the police that she did not go foraging in an interview.

Always a worry with appeal like this you get even stricter sentencing

As an experience mushroom forager it could work against you as you’d be aware of the poisonous ones and less likely to accidentally pick them.

that’s true, but my understanding is that even experienced foragers can be mistaken with this particular mushroom (Buffy might be able to correct or confirm)
, the point is that EP said she was not experienced (at the same time she told them she didn’t have a dehydrator) and part of her appeal is her trying to establish foraging experience. it’s straw clasping at this point.

in any case, she can now lodge a special leave application – these have super strict legal thresholds… or if there is new evidence that is ‘fresh and compelling’ she can launch an appeal then too…

otherwise, she has pretty much set her fate now.

I am also amused that the team thinks she will at some point not be notorious and the possibility for gen pop is there… I think this one will be remembered for a very very long time in the collective Australian memory.

Arts said:

Cymek said:

Cymek said:

Always a worry with appeal like this you get even stricter sentencing

As an experience mushroom forager it could work against you as you’d be aware of the poisonous ones and less likely to accidentally pick them.

that’s true, but my understanding is that even experienced foragers can be mistaken with this particular mushroom (Buffy might be able to correct or confirm)
, the point is that EP said she was not experienced (at the same time she told them she didn’t have a dehydrator) and part of her appeal is her trying to establish foraging experience. it’s straw clasping at this point.

in any case, she can now lodge a special leave application – these have super strict legal thresholds… or if there is new evidence that is ‘fresh and compelling’ she can launch an appeal then too…

otherwise, she has pretty much set her fate now.

I’m not actually a forager – I’m much too risk averse for that. I do think I could ID a deathcap and have done so on iNaturalist, but there are a lot of white Amanita mushrooms. It would be easy to make a mistake.

33 years before parole
Imagine getting out after all that time
Culture shock

Arts said:

I am also amused that the team thinks she will at some point not be notorious and the possibility for gen pop is there… I think this one will be remembered for a very very long time in the collective Australian memory.

In all that time though they might find one or two people she can mix with safely.

Cymek said:

33 years before parole
Imagine getting out after all that time
Culture shock

She won’t need to worry about that now.

buffy said:

Arts said:

Cymek said:

As an experience mushroom forager it could work against you as you’d be aware of the poisonous ones and less likely to accidentally pick them.

that’s true, but my understanding is that even experienced foragers can be mistaken with this particular mushroom (Buffy might be able to correct or confirm)
, the point is that EP said she was not experienced (at the same time she told them she didn’t have a dehydrator) and part of her appeal is her trying to establish foraging experience. it’s straw clasping at this point.

in any case, she can now lodge a special leave application – these have super strict legal thresholds… or if there is new evidence that is ‘fresh and compelling’ she can launch an appeal then too…

otherwise, she has pretty much set her fate now.

I’m not actually a forager – I’m much too risk averse for that. I do think I could ID a deathcap and have done so on iNaturalist, but there are a lot of white Amanita mushrooms. It would be easy to make a mistake.

Exactly
I’d think considering what a mistake could cause I’d always ere on the side of caution

Bubblecar said:

Cymek said:

33 years before parole
Imagine getting out after all that time
Culture shock

She won’t need to worry about that now.

No

I heard on the radio yesterday that there is going to be a TV mini-series in the making next year.

party_pants said:

I heard on the radio yesterday that there is going to be a TV mini-series in the making next year.

hard pass

Arts said:

party_pants said:

I heard on the radio yesterday that there is going to be a TV mini-series in the making next year.

hard pass

same.

But I’m like that with many real-life TV drama shows

party_pants said:

I heard on the radio yesterday that there is going to be a TV mini-series in the making next year.

She has a telly in her cell so she’ll be able to watch it.

Came in late.

What happened?

Free to go?

Stay as she is?

Locked up until the end of time?

captain_spalding said:

Came in late.

What happened?

Free to go?

Stay as she is?

Locked up until the end of time?

>Locked up until the end of time?

This one.

Bubblecar said:

captain_spalding said:

Came in late.

What happened?

Free to go?

Stay as she is?

Locked up until the end of time?

>Locked up until the end of time?

This one.

Oh, well, at least the lawyers will make some more money when it all goes to Canberra.

captain_spalding said:

A. Came in late.

B. What happened?

C. Free to go?

D. Stay as she is?

E. Locked up until the end of time?

OPTION É. Locked up until the end of time?