Welcome to the Melbourne Community Daily Discussion Thread.

  • CEOofmyhouse56@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?

        • heyheyitskay@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

            • heyheyitskay@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              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.

      • Bacon@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

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