KallMeKris

And he described Erin as someone who, quote, just seemed like a normal person, unquote.

And the relationship had been, quote, unquote, friendly and amicable, but without, quote, much depth, more like acquaintances, unquote.

And he told the court what he had told the police.

He had been happy about the lunch invitation,

hopeful it might improve the relationship with Erin.

Defense counsel Colin Mandy SC offered a simpler story.

What happened was a tragedy, a terrible accident.

Erin's lies, he argued, had been born from shock, not planning.

She panicked because she was overwhelmed by the fact that these four people had become so ill because of the food that she'd served them.

Not buying it, but keep going.

And on motive, he pointed to its absence.

She had no money issues, lived in a big house and had almost full-time custody of her two young children.

But in the closing, Rogers, the prosecutor, told the jury they did not need to know why.

Quote, "'You do not have to be satisfied what the motive was "'or even that there was one,' unquote.

"'The why was unnecessary to convict.'"

Because guilty beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't necessarily mean that they have to have a motive.

There just needs to be evidence as to if they did it, right?

Motive helps, but it is not necessary.

So on July 7th, 2025, the jury came back and all 12 members were in agreement.

Guilty on every count.