this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2023
19 points (100.0% liked)

Melbourne

1861 readers
107 users here now

This community is a place created for the people of Melbourne and Victoria. We are a positive, welcoming and inclusive community. We might not agree about everything, but we always strive to stay civil and respectful.

The focus of our discussions is based around things that effect Victoria, but we are also free to discuss our local perspective on wider issues. Or head to the regular Daily Random Discussion thread to talk about anything.

Full Community Guidelines

Ongoing discussions, FAQs & Resources (still under construction)

Adoption Certificate for Nellie, the Daily Thread numbat (with thanks to @Catfish)

Feedback & Suggestions

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Welcome to the Melbourne Community Daily Discussion Thread.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Seagoon_ 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

New mushroom theory.

The ex-husband did it and set up his ex-wife. He has most to gain. She had nothing to gain.

[–] CEOofmyhouse56 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Nah I reckon she tried to off the husband and in laws for inheritance purposes. Plus they were probably interfering busy bodies. The meal apparently was a beef Wellington. Who doesn't love a beef Wellington?

[–] Seagoon_ 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

How would she inherit anything? They are divorced.

[–] baconmash 3 points 1 year ago

if they're all dead her children would inherit everything and she'd get to spend it

[–] CEOofmyhouse56 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They are separated. She doesn't want to go halvies in the house. Kill him, kill the in laws. The house is all hers.

[–] heyheyitskay 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm loving these juicy theories. I don't know that much but I know if the cops are willing to put this out in the public then they're most likely onto something. I was really curious why the food dyhydrator was seized. So what if they find traces of those mushrooms if she claims she "didn't know"? I must be missing something here.

[–] CEOofmyhouse56 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not sure where the dehydrator comes in only that it was discarded the day after the poisonings.

[–] heyheyitskay 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah I feel like unless there's other evidence to suggest she planned to murder them or stand to gain from their deaths it's all circumstantial or manslaughter at best. It's a tricky one because it's very hard to prove what someone knows or doesn't know. I mean this wasn't sleeping pills or rat poison.

[–] RosaliePreistley 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] CEOofmyhouse56 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They love them. They just choose not to partake. Haha.

[–] RosaliePreistley 2 points 1 year ago