this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2025
14 points (100.0% liked)
Melbourne
2157 readers
43 users here now
This community is a place created for the people of Melbourne and Victoria. We are a positive, welcoming and inclusive community. We might not agree about everything, but we always strive to stay civil and respectful.
The focus of our discussions is based around things that affect Victoria, but we are also free to discuss our local perspective on wider issues. Or head to the regular Daily Random Discussion thread to talk about anything.
Ongoing discussions, FAQs & Resources (still under construction)
Adoption Certificate for Nellie, the Daily Thread numbat (with thanks to @Catfish)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Erin Patterson discussion/thoughts
Heheheheh so I've been reading the deathcapdinner subreddit posts, and it's surprising (or maybe not) how many people don't know what "reasonable doubt" means, or are accusing Justice Beale of doing the defences job for them. Like come on, his instructions are par for the course for Judges, even my partner tuned it all out because he worked for the WA state court in a past life and it's a super boring and long part of the process.They're all like "oh she's definitely guilty of murder" but forget that she is innocent UNTIL the prosecution PROVES her guilty. It doesn't matter what we as laymen think, what matters is: did the prosecution prove her guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt? If the jury finds the prosecutions evidence as not enough, then it doesn't matter if she is actually guilty or not - the prosecution just didn't find enough evidence she murdered them. I wouldn't be surprised at all if she is found not guilty on some charges, or guilty of manslaughter. Having read the articles and listened to the podcast, there is definitely room for reasonable doubt she committed murder, in my mind.
Thoughts?
I agree the onus needs to be on the prosecution, but I don't believe there is reasonable doubt that she didn't intend to do it, what has made this case so fascinating is how bad she was at hiding her intentions.
Everytime I listen to the ABC mushroom daily podcast, I flip flop between "she's so guilty" to "hm well maybe not?"
She certainly fucked up somewhere, being an internationally followed court case
Thoughts: The judge being so comprehensive with the jury instructions is actually intended to reduce a "jury misdirected" avenue for appeal. He's not doing the defence's job, he's shoring up the verdict, especially if it is a guilty verdict.
I've been following along daily and anyone who thinks Justice Beale is doing the defence's job for them is just upset that there is room for reasonable doubt. I think they're angry that there's a chance she'll won't be found guilty. That sub is fascinating, but definitely an echo chamber of "SHE'S GUILTY".
The jury must just be exhausted by this point.
I can't imagine doing jury duty for a case like this, ugh!!
And yeah, there is so little nuance to the discussions on that subreddit. If someone tries to explain reasonable doubt they're downvoted. Way too much of an echo chamber.
Still though, where is Phone A!? ๐ญ
My thought is that average people underestimate how stupid average people are
or that stupid people can have other personal faults as well, like being a defensive liar
so yeah, she could have made a terrible mistake and then did a whole bunch of stupid things and lied as well
the fact that those family members were all cunts doesn't mean she would kill them either
or that she was a plain middle aged woman in a country town , which makes her a "low status" easy target of hate
and my thoughts is that people judging Erin deny how sexist they are, how sadistic they are, and I reckon a lot of them are just trolls who know very well about justice, innocence and doubt