Comment on Discussion Thread 📖 Wednesday 7 May 2025

tone212_@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

• CEOofmyhouse56@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Maybe she only had a 4 piece set of good plates. Would’ve been interesting to see what plate the husband could’ve received.

  source

  • Seagoon_@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    this to me sounds like clueless privileged lawyers who have never had to eat from a mismatched set

    source

    • CEOofmyhouse56@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Well yeah exactly

      source
• RustyRaven@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  How could it be anything but circumstantial? It’s rare in any murder trial to have direct evidence, and poisoning is inherently a hidden and secretive crime. Unless she actually videoed herself picking poisonous mushrooms, putting them the meal, and saying she know’s they’re poisonous I can’t see any way you could have direct evidence.

  Circumstantial evidence is not bad evidence. Once you have a reasonable amount of different bits of evidence all pointing in the same direction it becomes very solid evidence.

  source

  • tone212_@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    I agree. But circumstantial evidence is only good when it leads to no other reasonable explanation besides intent to kill. I haven’t heard of any evidence (so far at least) that goes beyond the accused acting suss. There’s weeks of this trial to go, I’m only referring to what’s come out so far.

    source
• StudChud@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  So so suss, so much suss. But that’s it so far. She had a different coloured plate, but her ex said she had mismatched plates.

  The lying about having cancer and telling the victims, but why tell them that lie if she intended to kill them with the meal?

  Lying about where the mushrooms came from when questioned, but she could have just panicked in a stressful situation.

  I’m very curious to see the outcome of this tbh

  source

  • Seagoon_@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    she could still just be very stupid

    source