From Newsgroup: aus.legal

Peter Jason wrote:

On Tue, 01 Jul 2025 14:14:30 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote

MightyMouse wrote

The jury is still deliberating, but what is there to deliberate about? >>>> has she now told enough lies in court to con them into thinking it was >>>> just a 'terrible accident'? and the judge wasn't helping with his
instructions to the jury which were (in essence) that her lies don't
matter.

We've seen plenty of TV dramas where an innocent person inculpates
themself by seeking to hide evidence that might tend to make them look
guilty even though they're not.

Now, of course, they are TV dramas, not real life, but they raisethe
question of whether someone could behave that way in reality.

We know that does happen in reality in other trials, including the
one where the airline pilot shot two individuals in the alpine forests
in victoria and tried that route to get away with it and failed to do that >>

How sure can we be that the accused in this case has not done that?

Certain given that she deliberately didnt poison herself or her kids

And remember, the task for the jury is to find guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.

I'm glad I'm not on that jury.

I'm not, I would convince the fools to find her guilty because that is
what she is

And poison has always been a woman's way; throughout history.

poison only comes from something dead,ask the natives
--
Digital Marketing Specialist
24 Hours eCommerce support
Phone 03 67243630
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.legal


The jury is still deliberating, but what is there to deliberate about?
has she now told enough lies in court to con them into thinking it was
just a 'terrible accident'? and the judge wasn't helping with his
instructions to the jury which were (in essence) that her lies don't matter.
--
Always tell the truth,
there's less to remember!

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.legal

MightyMouse <squeak!@cheesefactory.com> wrote

The jury is still deliberating, but what is there to deliberate about?

About whether it is beyond reasonable doubt that she killed them
deliberately

has she now told enough lies in court to con them into thinking it was
just a 'terrible accident'?

And why she told so many lies and tried to wipe her phone
remotely three times after the cops had grabbed it.

and the judge wasn't helping with his instructions to the jury which
were (inessence) that her lies don't matter.

Yep, he is a terminal fuckwit

Presumably that stupidity has fooled some of the jury
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.legal

On 01-July-25 9:12 am, MightyMouse wrote:

The jury is still deliberating, but what is there to deliberate about?
has she now told enough lies in court to con them into thinking it was
just a 'terrible accident'? and the judge wasn't helping with his instructions to the jury which were (in essence) that her lies don't
matter.

We've seen plenty of TV dramas where an innocent person inculpates
themself by seeking to hide evidence that might tend to make them look
guilty even though they're not.

Now, of course, they are TV dramas, not real life, but they raise the
question of whether someone could behave that way in reality.

How sure can we be that the accused in this case has not done that?

And remember, the task for the jury is to find guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.

I'm glad I'm not on that jury.

Sylvia.


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.legal

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote

MightyMouse wrote

The jury is still deliberating, but what is there to deliberate about?
has she now told enough lies in court to con them into thinking it was
just a 'terrible accident'? and the judge wasn't helping with his
instructions to the jury which were (in essence) that her lies don't
matter.

We've seen plenty of TV dramas where an innocent person inculpates
themself by seeking to hide evidence that might tend to make them look guilty even though they're not.

Now, of course, they are TV dramas, not real life, but they raisethe question of whether someone could behave that way in reality.

We know that does happen in reality in other trials, including the
one where the airline pilot shot two individuals in the alpine forests
in victoria and tried that route to get away with it and failed to do that

How sure can we be that the accused in this case has not done that?

Certain given that she deliberately didnt poison herself or her kids

And remember, the task for the jury is to find guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

I'm glad I'm not on that jury.

I'm not, I would convince the fools to find her guilty because that is
what she is
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.legal

Sylvia Else wrote:

On 01-July-25 9:12 am, MightyMouse wrote:

The jury is still deliberating, but what is there to deliberate
about? has she now told enough lies in court to con them into
thinking it was just a 'terrible accident'? and the judge wasn't
helping with his instructions to the jury which were (in essence)
that her lies don't matter.

We've seen plenty of TV dramas where an innocent person inculpates
themself by seeking to hide evidence that might tend to make them look guilty even though they're not.

Now, of course, they are TV dramas, not real life, but they raise the question of whether someone could behave that way in reality.

How sure can we be that the accused in this case has not done that?

And remember, the task for the jury is to find guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

yes, and it's reasonable there's no doubt she's guilty..

1. she was the only person who didn't get sick from eating the wellingtons
2. she prepared the meals, and declined help in doing so
3. her meal was on a separate plate to identify it
4. she had researched poisonous mushroom locations on her computer
5. she had been to those locations
6. she claimed she got the mushrooms from an Asian grocery, but couldn't
say where it was despite being familiar with the area
7. she claimed she got sick too but the hospital found nothing wrong
with her
8. she bought a food processor prior to preparing the meal, and
destroyed it soon afterwards
9. she destroyed her phone after the police commenced their investigation
10. she lied about having cancer to get the relatives to come to the dinner
11. she lied to the police on numerous occasions
12. probably other things too i've missed

I'm glad I'm not on that jury.

I'm glad you're not too. have fun explaining how the poisoning could
have been accidental given that the meals were all prepared from the
same ingredients and she was the only person who never got poisoned?

Sylvia.

--
Always tell the truth,
there's less to remember!

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.legal

Rod Speed wrote:

MightyMouse <squeak!@cheesefactory.com> wrote

The jury is still deliberating, but what is there to deliberate about?

About whether it is beyond reasonable doubt that she killed them deliberately

I was suggesting there is no doubt

has she now told enough lies in court to con them into thinking it
was just a 'terrible accident'?

And why she told so many lies and tried to wipe her phone
remotely three times after the cops had grabbed it.

I didn't know that. and that was a newer phone. the phone she had been
using has never been found

and the judge wasn't helping with his instructions to the jury which
were (in essence) that her lies don'ta matter.

Yep, he is a terminal fuckwit

Presumably that stupidity has fooled some of the jury

yes
--
Always tell the truth,
there's less to remember!

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.legal

On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 11:37:08 +0800, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid>
wrote:

On 01-July-25 9:12 am, MightyMouse wrote:

The jury is still deliberating, but what is there to deliberate about?
has she now told enough lies in court to con them into thinking it was
just a 'terrible accident'? and the judge wasn't helping with his
instructions to the jury which were (in essence) that her lies don't
matter.

We've seen plenty of TV dramas where an innocent person inculpates
themself by seeking to hide evidence that might tend to make them look >guilty even though they're not.

Now, of course, they are TV dramas, not real life, but they raise the >question of whether someone could behave that way in reality.

How sure can we be that the accused in this case has not done that?

And remember, the task for the jury is to find guilt beyond reasonable >doubt.

I'm glad I'm not on that jury.

Sylvia.

TV dramas & much else have brainwashed the population into false
expectations on almost everything.
Good people are attractive,
Bad people are ugly and sport all sorts of tics.
Everyone drives the latest cars, and all dwellings are spick and span, containing wives with no blemishes.

And where was populism born?
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.legal

On Tue, 01 Jul 2025 14:14:30 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote

MightyMouse wrote

The jury is still deliberating, but what is there to deliberate about? >>> has she now told enough lies in court to con them into thinking it was >>> just a 'terrible accident'? and the judge wasn't helping with his
instructions to the jury which were (in essence) that her lies don't
matter.

We've seen plenty of TV dramas where an innocent person inculpates
themself by seeking to hide evidence that might tend to make them look
guilty even though they're not.

Now, of course, they are TV dramas, not real life, but they raisethe
question of whether someone could behave that way in reality.

We know that does happen in reality in other trials, including the
one where the airline pilot shot two individuals in the alpine forests
in victoria and tried that route to get away with it and failed to do that

How sure can we be that the accused in this case has not done that?

Certain given that she deliberately didnt poison herself or her kids

And remember, the task for the jury is to find guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.

I'm glad I'm not on that jury.

I'm not, I would convince the fools to find her guilty because that is
what she is

And poison has always been a woman's way; throughout history.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.legal

On Tue, 01 Jul 2025 14:14:30 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote

MightyMouse wrote

The jury is still deliberating, but what is there to deliberate about? >>> has she now told enough lies in court to con them into thinking it was >>> just a 'terrible accident'? and the judge wasn't helping with his
instructions to the jury which were (in essence) that her lies don't
matter.

We've seen plenty of TV dramas where an innocent person inculpates
themself by seeking to hide evidence that might tend to make them look
guilty even though they're not.

Now, of course, they are TV dramas, not real life, but they raisethe
question of whether someone could behave that way in reality.

We know that does happen in reality in other trials, including the
one where the airline pilot shot two individuals in the alpine forests
in victoria and tried that route to get away with it and failed to do that

How sure can we be that the accused in this case has not done that?

Certain given that she deliberately didnt poison herself or her kids

And remember, the task for the jury is to find guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.

I'm glad I'm not on that jury.

I'm not, I would convince the fools to find her guilty because that is
what she is

How soon before a hung jury?
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.legal

Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote

MightyMouse wrote

The jury is still deliberating, but what is there to deliberate about?
has she now told enough lies in court to con them into thinking it was
just a 'terrible accident'? and the judge wasn't helping with his
instructions to the jury which were (in essence) that her lies don't
matter.

We've seen plenty of TV dramas where an innocent person inculpates
themself by seeking to hide evidence that might tend to make them look
guilty even though they're not.

Now, of course, they are TV dramas, not real life, but they raise the
question of whether someone could behave that way in reality.

How sure can we be that the accused in this case has not done that?

And remember, the task for the jury is to find guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.

I'm glad I'm not on that jury.

TV dramas & much else have brainwashed the populationinto false expectations on almost everything.

That almost everything is overstated

Good people are attractive,
Bad people are ugly and sport all sorts of tics.
Everyone drives the latest cars, and all dwellings are spick and span, containing wives with no blemishes.

And where was populism born?

If was around LONG before and TV drama or
even newspapers and even before the romans
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.legal

Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote

MightyMouse wrote

The jury is still deliberating, but what is there to deliberate about? >>>> has she now told enough lies in court to con them into thinking it was >>>> just a 'terrible accident'? and the judge wasn't helping with his
instructions to the jury which were (in essence) that her lies don't
matter.

We've seen plenty of TV dramas where an innocent person inculpates
themself by seeking to hide evidence that might tend to make them look
guilty even though they're not.

Now, of course, they are TV dramas, not real life, but they raisethe
question of whether someone could behave that way in reality.

We know that does happen in reality in other trials, including the
one where the airline pilot shot two individuals in the alpine forests
in victoria and tried that route to get away with it and failed to do
that

How sure can we be that the accused in this case has not done that?

Certain given that she deliberately didnt poison herself or her kids

And remember, the task for the jury is to find guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.

I'm glad I'm not on that jury.

I'm not, I would convince the fools to find her guilty because that is
what she is

And poison has always been a woman's way; throughout history.

Indeed, which isnt surprising given that they are generally
weaker than most men and mostly do the food preparation
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.legal

Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote

MightyMouse wrote

The jury is still deliberating, but what is there to deliberate about? >>>> has she now told enough lies in court to con them into thinking it was >>>> just a 'terrible accident'? and the judge wasn't helping with his
instructions to the jury which were (in essence) that her lies don't
matter.

We've seen plenty of TV dramas where an innocent person inculpates
themself by seeking to hide evidence that might tend to make them look
guilty even though they're not.

Now, of course, they are TV dramas, not real life, but they raisethe
question of whether someone could behave that way in reality.

We know that does happen in reality in other trials, including the
one where the airline pilot shot two individuals in the alpine forests
in victoria and tried that route to get away with it and failed to do
that

How sure can we be that the accused in this case has not done that?

Certain given that she deliberately didnt poison herself or her kids

And remember, the task for the jury is to find guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.

I'm glad I'm not on that jury.

I'm not, I would convince the fools to find her guilty because that is
what she is

How soon before a hung jury?

Hard to predict the timescale with any jury
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.legal

Peter Jason wrote:

On Tue, 01 Jul 2025 14:14:30 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote

MightyMouse wrote

The jury is still deliberating, but what is there to deliberate about? >>>> has she now told enough lies in court to con them into thinking it was >>>> just a 'terrible accident'? and the judge wasn't helping with his
instructions to the jury which were (in essence) that her lies don't
matter.

We've seen plenty of TV dramas where an innocent person inculpates
themself by seeking to hide evidence that might tend to make them look
guilty even though they're not.
Now, of course, they are TV dramas, not real life, but they raisethe
question of whether someone could behave that way in reality.

We know that does happen in reality in other trials, including the
one where the airline pilot shot two individuals in the alpine forests
in victoria and tried that route to get away with it and failed to do that >>

How sure can we be that the accused in this case has not done that?

Certain given that she deliberately didnt poison herself or her kids

And remember, the task for the jury is to find guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.
I'm glad I'm not on that jury.

I'm not, I would convince the fools to find her guilty because that is
what she is

And poison has always been a woman's way; throughout history.

that's true!
--
You have the right not to post. If you give up the right not
to post, anything you post can and will be used against you.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.legal

Peter Jason wrote:

On Tue, 01 Jul 2025 14:14:30 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote

MightyMouse wrote

The jury is still deliberating, but what is there to deliberate about? >>>> has she now told enough lies in court to con them into thinking it was >>>> just a 'terrible accident'? and the judge wasn't helping with his
instructions to the jury which were (in essence) that her lies don't
matter.

We've seen plenty of TV dramas where an innocent person inculpates
themself by seeking to hide evidence that might tend to make them look
guilty even though they're not.
Now, of course, they are TV dramas, not real life, but they raisethe
question of whether someone could behave that way in reality.

We know that does happen in reality in other trials, including the
one where the airline pilot shot two individuals in the alpine forests
in victoria and tried that route to get away with it and failed to do that >>

How sure can we be that the accused in this case has not done that?

Certain given that she deliberately didnt poison herself or her kids

And remember, the task for the jury is to find guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.
I'm glad I'm not on that jury.

I'm not, I would convince the fools to find her guilty because that is
what she is

How soon before a hung jury?

not long now I suspect. third day of delibs isn't it? I suspect her
defence has done their job well, and the idiot judge, and of course all
her lies, and they're all hung up on 'reasonable doubt'. what they
should be thinking tho is how is it reasonable to believe it was
accidental, because there's no way it could have been.
--
You have the right not to post. If you give up the right not
to post, anything you post can and will be used against you.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2