Okay, I’ve extracted the key points from the provided text, focusing on the defense’s arguments regarding Erin Patterson’s state and the evidence surrounding the mushrooms:
Key Defense Arguments:
Patterson’s Illness: The defense is emphasizing that Patterson herself was ill after the Beef Wellington lunch. They point too her diarrhea, which didn’t subside without medical intervention, and three specific test results (low potassium, high hemoglobin, and high fibrinogen) as objective evidence of her illness. They cite expert testimony that these results are consistent with dehydration from diarrheal illness. The defense argues that this supports the idea that Patterson also suffered from the effects of the mushrooms.
Dried Mushrooms from asian Grocer: The defense is addressing the prosecution’s argument that patterson was vague about where she bought the dried mushrooms.They highlight that Patterson did eventually describe the packaging to health officials when asked.They also point out that the initial medical personnel didn’t ask about the packaging, only if she still had it. The defense is suggesting that Patterson answered the questions she was asked and shouldn’t be penalized for not volunteering details that wasn’t specifically requested.
* Matching Packaging: A council worker, Troy Schonknecht, identified packaging at an Asian grocer that matched Patterson’s description.The defense is using this to bolster the credibility of Patterson’s claim about where she obtained the dried mushrooms.
In essence, the defense is trying to paint a picture of Patterson as someone who was also a victim of the mushroom poisoning, and that her explanations about the source of the mushrooms are credible and consistent with the available evidence.
