(no title)
brmgb | 2 years ago
> There's a lot of circumstantial evidence
Hardly. You could arbor doubts for the people who ate at her place but for her husband there is absolutely nothing. I am not proud of HN falling at the level of the tabloid press through not really surprised.
mcpackieh|2 years ago
Somebody dying or being grievously injured after a meal you prepared is circumstantial evidence. Yourself being unharmed is further circumstantial evidence, as is your children being unharmed. Your spouse suffering from some manner of GI-related injury and then his parents being poisoned to death in a separate incident, both after eating meals prepared by you, is circumstantial evidence. This is a lot of circumstantial evidence.
In this case the circumstantial evidence isn't proof of anything. It's probably not enough to convict, I think there is reasonable doubt (mushrooms can be misidentified, the kids may have refused to eat the mushrooms because 'mushrooms are icky', the husband might have been injured by something else, etc) But it's certainly enough circumstantial evidence for casual observers to reasonably suspect murder, and for authorities to start an investigation.