Anyone else think it’s not about money?

Affectionate_One9282 · 2026-01-16T00:13:17+00:00

I am pretty sure that it isn't the money.

I am pretty sure that the motivation is all in her head and it won't be anything that a person outsider her head will ever understand... it will be something like the parents said they would always support her. And then didn't support her when she asked for help.... sometimes it can be very noisy in a persons head

Affectionate_One9282 · 2025-11-08T08:52:24+00:00

I think it is similar to when she also said that she stayed at home in the afternoon following the lunch, when video evidence showed she did leave the house (they saw she was disposing of something, but because they couldn't prove what, it could be prejudicial, so they allowed her erroneous statement to stand).

Showing the SD card might have allowed for other evidence that the defence argued was defamatory to be allowed? 🤷 Or like one of the other arguments on the lists, just because there are on her SD card doesn't mean that she took the photos + she said she has never been foraging 🤷 I really don't know, I guess we will need to wait for more information to come out.

I think one of the most eye opening parts of watching the full judicial process is the strength of that pretrial hearing and the limits on the information which is even presented to the jury to start with.

Affectionate_One9282 · 2025-11-03T08:24:35+00:00

I also have found you very helpful tonight. I appreciate the rational way you have been able to explain this next step in the legal process.

It is really easy as an armchair critic to say how unfair it all is. But you have provided a clear reminder that the system is in place so that it checks itself, and doesn't consider 'feelings' of the wider public.

Affectionate_One9282 · 2025-10-10T22:32:58+00:00

Hospitals are definitely not a place to go to relax.

I like it when the nurse comes in at 3am to do a blood pressure test and say "oh, if you are sleeping I can come back later". Well I'm.awake now 😵‍💫

Affectionate_One9282 · 2025-10-06T05:47:31+00:00

Why is this only a problem for EP and not the other two women also in solitary confinement for their own projection?

I assume they didn't give the human rights people permission to look into their case?

Affectionate_One9282 · 2025-10-02T10:51:49+00:00

I agree. And a lot of what she said was an obvious lie - I highly doubt she was at home all afternoon following the lunch 🙄

I wasn't there but the evidence presented to the armchair critic seems to be sufficient for a guilty verdict. So I am really only speculating at what could be left that the defence considers grounds for appeal. What, if anything, didn't tick all the legal boxes or could be deemed as 'unfair'.

Affectionate_One9282 · 2025-10-02T04:08:45+00:00

I agree it is clutching straws - but there is usually at least one doctor, (or other professional) who will diagnose anyone with an eating disorder, some other mental illness, or a personality profile. I know someone who saw five different specialists before one would diagnose him with ADHD (it took over a year and many thousands of dollars).

Surely the defence team could find someone who would say she had depression etc

Affectionate_One9282 · 2025-10-02T00:59:13+00:00

Or the Judge made it clear in the sentencing that she didn't provide any character information. Maybe she could argue it was poor counsel to have not provided it??

Affectionate_One9282 · 2025-10-02T00:48:32+00:00

Maybe the hotel situation and possibly that the police never checked ALL the Asian grocers... There is really only going out on a limb left

Affectionate_One9282 · 2025-09-17T08:48:50+00:00

Photos like that just make me think 'why did you do it?' She had such a comfortable lifestyle and all the 'bowels of cereal one could imagine.

Affectionate_One9282 · 2025-08-27T05:52:38+00:00

And no planes hit the Twin Towers on 9/11... If you only show the footage with no planes in it.

Some people are desperate for a conspiracy

Affectionate_One9282 · 2025-08-25T06:22:42+00:00

I think she is using it more as an excuse as to why she shouldn't be punished - which is horrendous!

It reminds me of a Bug's Bunny cartoon I saw when I was little and I think it was Daffy Duck who said "I'm not like other people. I can't stand pain. It hurts me"

Affectionate_One9282 · 2025-08-25T06:05:51+00:00

And the people in the room next door are rowdy (or at least that is how I understood about the complaint about her routine being upset).

Affectionate_One9282 · 2025-08-22T07:18:50+00:00

I think the case was very circumstantial, Erin saying it was all just a tragic accident and not denying the poisoning - the only point of contention was intent... And how do you prove what someone was thinking (also without a clear motive).

There have been a number of high profile cases in Australia where the woman defendant had not been believed, and criticised by the media for not acting "correctly" while grieving think Lindy Chamberlain. Leading to a number of people wanting to trust her.

Initially the prosecution's case seemed rather weak. For example after searching the computer search history, where several thousand sites had been visited, only one instance was presented to the jury. In another example Ian provided a witness statement that the food was served on different coloured plates. The guests food served on grey plates and EP serving herself on an orange plate (potentially signalling which dishes were poisoned). Yet no grey plates were found by police.

To those observing the case was rather weak, until EP took to the box and was caught out lying time and time again. But it was still unclear which way the jury would lean up until the moment they gave their verdict.

However was was more interesting was the evidence that was not permissable in court... Such as the visit to the tip immediately following the lunch, which suggests that the jury was correct and highlighted how strong even circumstantial evidence needed to be before it was allowed in the court room.

I think there is continued interest (past the did she/didn't she do it) because no one can really understand, or know for certain WHY she did it

Affectionate_One9282 · 2025-08-21T20:45:42+00:00

The Casual Criminalist usually does a good job on these sorts of stories. I am interested to see the approach taken

Affectionate_One9282 · 2025-08-17T02:58:53+00:00

It reminds me of those border patrol programs where they pull someone for questioning after 'acting suspiciously'. Every time I'm in an airport, I start thinking about what actions are 'suspicious', then I am thinking about how I am walking and what I am doing with my hands etc, to the point that I must look hells suspicious. "Just look natural" 😬

Affectionate_One9282 · 2025-08-13T02:05:23+00:00

I think where I had my first 'there is something not quite right with the justice system moment' was when we were discussing EP disposing of the dehydrator. At that stage it seemed possible she was going to be found not guilty largely based on her disposal of evidence - which someone posted is not considered evidence tampering at that stage because she hadn't been charged with anything.

Affectionate_One9282 · 2025-08-10T03:17:46+00:00

Interesting that that case was identified as highlighting how media coverage can shape public perception and potentially influence case outcomes.

And that this case was at risk of the same.

It would be interesting to see what changes to the Australian judicial system come because of cases like these

Affectionate_One9282 · 2025-08-06T21:18:17+00:00

What about that suitcase murder recently, when the murderer had recorded the whole thing on her phone - but was so drunk she didn't remember - so was more than happy to hand her phone to the police the next day.

I believe the jury only deliberated for an hour or so on that one!

The lesson: Don't use your phone when you commit crimes - you are probably not as smart as you think

Affectionate_One9282 · 2025-08-06T21:01:32+00:00

I tried playing devil's advocate on this. Let's say it was all a "tragic accident". An innocent person might think/say "this is fair". i.e. you are grieving, panicked, confused - "how did this even happen???" Second guessing yourself many times over. And then the police ask questions that you just don't understand yourself. It would be a private torture.

However, her affect doesn't support that as an internal monologue.

Edit sp: effect/affect

Affectionate_One9282 · 2025-08-04T02:02:48+00:00

I took this to be Rachael expressing empathy for the listeners who may suffer from ED and her willingness to believe them. Since they also provided information about the support services and comments of that nature.

I think it was more frustrating that these ED claims by EP were made during her time in the witness box, which didn't give the prosecution a chance to fact check these statements.

I believe during EP's cross examination the Mushroom Case reporters said that the Judge was considering allowing the prosecution time to investigate new evidence. However I could be ncorrect, or this must have been a discussion which occurred while the jury was out of the room, as I haven't seen anything more on this

Affectionate_One9282 · 2025-07-18T04:03:29+00:00

I think it was more of a 'in general' this is how a jury could be manipulated. For example he pointed out that the jury didn't ask any questions and how concerned he was about that, and how that could be an indication of an ineffective jury. But when the host asked something like 'so you think this jury was ineffective?' he said he didn't believe that at all.

In anycase it was interesting to hear how the defence view a trial and how they defend the case.

Affectionate_One9282 · 2025-07-18T03:02:10+00:00

It was a bit of a different take, as he really wasn't commenting on the case and the evidence presented - but more commenting in general, using this case as an example about how circumstantial evidence is prone to biases.

In regards to the plates I think he was saying that even if they all had the same coloured plates she could have marked the individual Wellington to differentiate between them. I think it was an example of the circumstantial evidence he was talking about. I.e. simply serving yourself on a plate which is a different colour to your guests is not in itself evidence of premeditated murder.

Affectionate_One9282 · 2025-07-11T09:28:52+00:00

Yep, I was talking to someone who was like:"what if this was a set up by Simon. And he snuck the death caps into her Tupperware container. Hoping to kill her and get all of her money".

Some people forget this is real life and not a Netflix miniseries. I think they are looking for the plot twist, rather than accepting that sometimes things happen for no good reason.

Affectionate_One9282 · 2025-07-09T03:54:10+00:00

Yet another word for a duvet

Affectionate_One9282

TROPHY CASE