Australian Irene Patterson was convicted today on Monday, killing three relatives of her individual husband, deliberately offering them dinner.
The jury during the trial in the Supreme Court on the state of Victoria made their decision after six days of discussion after nine -week -long trial. Patterson has a lifelong conclusion, and the proposal will be made later, but the session has not yet been established.
Patterson, who was sitting on the pier between two prison officers, did not show any emotions, but rather quickly blocked the verdict.
Three of the four guests of Patterson died at dinner – they were protected by Don Patterson’s prison, and sister Jill, Heather Wilkinson – in the hospital, after lunch in 2023 in her house in Lenungot, where she gave them a Willington dish containing a deadly mushroom.
It was also condemned by an attempt to kill Jan Wilkinson, husband Hizer, who survived the food. It was not asked that Patterson provided mushrooms or that the dish killed his guests. The local form was to decide whether Patterson knew this dinner containing toxic mushrooms, and whether she was going to kill them.
The regulations of condemnation, which were supposed to be unanimously, indicated that the local defense rejected the protection of Patterson, that the presence of toxic mushrooms in food was an accident that arose as a result of improper addition to mushrooms collected from farms that did not know that he was dead. The accusation was not a motive for murders, but during the trial, he emphasized the tense relationship between Patterson and her individual husband and the disappointment that she felt in relation to his parents in the past.
The case was focused on whether Patterson was strictly planned for trilateral murder or accidentally killed three people. Her lawyers said that she had no reason to do this, since she recently moved to a beautiful new house, and she had a convenient financial position, and she was the only incubator for her children, and she had to start her studies to get a nurse and internal certificate.
But the statement indicated that Patterson had two sides; A woman who seemed public a good relationship with her husband’s parents, while her personal feelings for them remained hidden. The accusation said that her relationship with an individual husband Simon Patterson, who was invited to a fatal lunch, but was not present, worsened the year before the crime.
The most basic facts associated with what happened that day and beyond were directly disputed. But Patterson’s motives for what they did, and his reasons were discussed in detail during a long trial, in which more than 50 witnesses were caused.
Patterson’s plate was from his guests from the points of disagreement; Because the recipe that I used included instructions for the preparation of one family. The prosecutors said that she returned to the provision of individual dishes so that she could mix deadly mushrooms with other parts of the nutrition, but not in parts of her food, but Patterson said that she could not find suitable ingredients for preparing the recipe in accordance with the instructions.
Each detail of the crime day was carefully studied, including the reason why Patterson sent his children to watch the film before the arrival of her guests, and the reason for adding an additional dryer to the recipe from his store and the reason not to develop the disease when others were injured and the reason for getting rid of the dryer after the death and informing of the institutions that she does not have power.
Patterson recognized some lie during her testimony, including that she had never been looking for mushrooms or had a dryer, but she said that these accusations were made in a state of panic when she realized that her food caused death.
She said that she did not have such a disease as other pioneers of the restaurant, because she pulled out after eating from a disorder of food behavior. She denied that she told her guests about cancer as a shell to explain the reason why she invited them to her home that day.
This strange and tragic problem remained stuck in the minds of the Australians and caused the interaction of the public and the media. During the trial, five separate podcast programs analyzed every day of the procedures, and several media were published directly, immediate reports for more than two months of evidence.
