Welcome to the Melbourne Community Daily Discussion Thread.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 3 years ago (1 child)

New mushroom theory.

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

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 years 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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    How would she inherit anything? They are divorced.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 years 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.

  • source
  • parent