Australia - 3 dead after eating wild mushrooms, Leongatha, Victoria, Aug 2023 #2

[Ellery84]

My involvement in churches in Australia ended years ago but yes my experience is that some families were very involved with their church and consulted closely with church leaders and elders in all matters of their lives.

At the moment I imagine it being something as follows:
Simon is concerned about the children while they are in the care of Erin. He relays his concerns to his parents.
His parents consult with the minister at their church and together they decide to meet with Erin to see if they can better understand what is going on and/or get better support for the kids.

I think the wider circumstances surrounding this intervention are potentially quite complex. Someone else posted about having suspected other things at play with the family and I think I agree. Because this relates to the children, I don’t think it’s right by them to speculate publicly in greater detail.

I am leaning towards the “intervention” being about custody or a critique of Erin’s parenting. If she felt as though they were trying to take her kids away from her, maybe she took drastic action?

This seems really feasible to me. More feasible than, say, the in-laws discussing a possible reconciliation between the couple…

All JMO

 

[Ellery84]

The teenage daughter who reportedly painted on the wall isn't implicated in poisoning is she?.

She had an alibi, didn’t she? And afaik, she’s not a person of interest. And afaik she’s a child in care, so I’m loathe to point the finger at her.

All MOO.

 

[k-mac]

'Impossible': Leading industry body disputes mushroom lunch cook's claim

Claims made by the woman at the centre of Victoria’s triple-fatality mushroom poisoning have been disputed by a national peak industry body.

www.skynews.com.au

Headline.

'Impossible': Leading industry body disputes mushroom lunch cook's claim

Claims made by the woman at the centre of Victoria’s triple-fatality mushroom poisoning have been disputed by a national peak industry body.

www.skynews.com.au

The organisation said it was a mandate for grocery retailers to cultivate commercial mushrooms in an “environmentally controlled” indoor environment, to fulfill food safety and hygiene protocols.

Not seeing any 'disputable' or untrue claims in this article.

Are you referring just the headline impossible??

Doesn't a mandate mean just that. Not possible?

 

[jepop]

She had an alibi, didn’t she? And afaik, she’s not a person of interest. And afaik she’s a child in care, so I’m loathe to point the finger at her.

All MOO.

Ofcourse and agree entirely. I was responding to another poster who appeared to connect the wall drawings with the poisonings somehow and compared the wall drawings with the more socially accepatble murals of a parent and child team that was known to them. Moo

 

[JBowie]

And with poisons, I think a lot of people do get away with murder. Some poisoners have a whole bunch of victims before the crime is even suspected. And some presumably get away with it because the crime is not suspected.

Not sure how many of those stealthy poisoners would hypothetically poison an entire party of guests resulting in all of them presenting at hospital from the same event and with similar serious symptoms.

 

[jepop]

'Impossible': Leading industry body disputes mushroom lunch cook's claim

Claims made by the woman at the centre of Victoria’s triple-fatality mushroom poisoning have been disputed by a national peak industry body.

www.skynews.com.au

The organisation said it was a mandate for grocery retailers to cultivate commercial mushrooms in an “environmentally controlled” indoor environment, to fulfill food safety and hygiene protocols.

Not seeing any 'disputable' or untrue claims in this article.

Are you referring just the headline impossible??

Doesn't a mandate mean just that. Not possible?

EP never claimed that she bought death caps from a super market or Asian Grocer. Additionally, the AMGA are not disputing any claims of EP, rather just saying regulations make it impossible that death caps could be sold commercially. I've already explained the issue from my POV in previous posts just now so happy to agree to disagree. Moo

 

[Charlot123]

Idk - possibly as a reaction to her estranged husband accusing her of poisoning her in-laws when she was at the hospital. If this happened as per her statement then I think it would have been early on ie the Monday or Tuesday after the lunch when EP herself was in hospital in Melbourne.Moo.

We don't know the reality of her relatoinship with the ex. We don't know, for eg, if there were custody disputes privately between them. We don't know anything. Most of what we 'know' has come from Simon P's friend informing the press and what EP herself has said in her statements, some of which counters the apparent knowledge of Simon's friend. Moo. Who knows if there were continuing toxic relationship issues between them beneathe a facade. Moo

It suddenly came to my mind that we have to flip the situation and look at the other side as well.

- we read that E wanted to get back with S but he was not interested in it. Logically, it could be possible, but this information comes from S’s side.

- E. said that she was asked to nurse S. after his stint at the hospital, and she didn’t want to, but took him in for a while.

- So two things come to mind. E. said that she wasn’t interested in getting S. back, but more importantly, S. was not scared of E. at that time.

- So the theory about E. being the source of S’s poor health must have emerged later - whose idea was it?

- We don’t quite know S’s friends, I can only think of statistical probabilities. It is either, “each time I spend time with her, I don’t feel well afterwards”. Or, “Simon, each time you spend time with Erin, you don’t feel well afterwards”.

- definitely, neither of these theories originate from S’s parents. They trusted E. and ate her food.

- when they got ill, Simon rapidly accused E. or poisoning them. E’s response, indeed, indicates guilt. Not a normal response.

- But a big “intervention group”, indeed, makes me think that the topic of the meeting that day was serious. Custody issues? Quite possible. But, why now? There are many undertones in the situation.

- if S. pulled out of the meeting the last moment, then what does it, essentially, mean? He doesn’t care about the results? Has something more important to do? If he canceled for the fear of being poisoned, he’d probably not let his parents attend, either

I think that E. is culpable. But look at it from her side. Her parents have the money. She marries a man, has two kids, then the marriage dissipates, her parents die, she inherits, either a load or enough to comfortably invest, and her ex lives in her house, despite the opinion that she is not good enough for him. The situation is either very complex, or too simple, but I think I have a feeling where her anger comes from.

 

[silvercrown]

Warning, stream of consciousness incoming!

Why, if she’s innocent, was the ex’s initial response that EP must have used the dehydrator with the mushrooms and poisoned them? Why would that have even been on his radar? There must be further context for him to jump to that conclusion. Why was her response then to ditch it at the tip??

If I was innocent and someone accused me, I’d be saying wtf, you’re crazy. And then been busy grieving my extended family and wondering what on earth could have killed them, and not given the comment a second thought. Not hmm, I’m innocent but I better dispose of this dehydrator at the tip nonetheless because I don’t want my kids taken away from me. It’s just such an extreme response.

IMO she may have threatened/spoken about how easy mushroom poisoning would be in the past (I know I said this was one of many possibilities in the last thread but I keep coming back to that conclusion). He must be extremely suspicious that that was the cause of his hospitalisation last year.

 

[jepop]

It suddenly came to my mind that we have to flip the situation and look at the other side as well.

- we read that E wanted to get back with S but he was not interested in it. Logically, it could be possible, but this information comes from S’s side.

- E. said that she was asked to nurse S. after his stint at the hospital, and she didn’t want to, but took him in for a while.

- So two things come to mind. E. said that she wasn’t interested in getting S. back, but more importantly, S. was not scared of E. at that time.

- So the theory about E. being the source of S’s poor health must have emerged later - whose idea was it?

- We don’t quite know S’s friends, I can only think of statistical probabilities. It is either, “each time I spend time with her, I don’t feel well afterwards”. Or, “Simon, each time you spend time with Erin, you don’t feel well afterwards”.

- definitely, neither of these theories originate from S’s parents. They trusted E. and ate her food.

- when they got ill, Simon rapidly accused E. or poisoning them. E’s response, indeed, indicates guilt. Not a normal response.

- But a big “intervention group”, indeed, makes me think that the topic of the meeting that day was serious. Custody issues? Quite possible. But, why now? There are many undertones in the situation.

- if S. pulled out of the meeting the last moment, then what does it, essentially, mean? He doesn’t care about the results? Has something more important to do? If he canceled for the fear of being poisoned, he’d probably not let his parents attend, either

I think that E. is culpable. But look at it from her side. Her parents have the money. She marries a man, has two kids, then the marriage dissipates, her parents die, she inherits, either a load or enough to comfortably invest, and her ex lives in her house, despite the opinion that she is not good enough for him. The situation is either very complex, or too simple, but I think I have a feeling where her anger comes from.

E's statement is that SP confirmed he wouldn't be eating the day before, still last minute I suppose but, if true, not as last minute as say an hour before or something like that. You make some interesting points. I'm reserving judgement mostly unti lmore info comes to light. Moo

 

[silvercrown]

Also I wonder if somebody specific was her target, and if the others were collateral damage. Tragic

 

[JLZ]

Warning, stream of consciousness incoming!

Why, if she’s innocent, was the ex’s initial response that EP must have used the dehydrator with the mushrooms and poisoned them? Why would that have even been on his radar? There must be further context for him to jump to that conclusion. Why was her response then to ditch it at the tip??

If I was innocent and someone accused me, I’d be saying wtf, you’re crazy. And then been busy grieving my extended family and wondering what on earth could have killed them, and not given the comment a second thought. Not hmm, I’m innocent but I better dispose of this dehydrator at the tip nonetheless because I don’t want my kids taken away from me. It’s just such an extreme response.

IMO she may have threatened/spoken about how easy mushroom poisoning would be in the past (I know I said this was one of many possibilities in the last thread but I keep coming back to that conclusion). He must be extremely suspicious that that was the cause of his hospitalisation last year.

I'm not accepting that he did accuse her of poisoning the group without corroboration.

 

[silvercrown]

Fair enough!

I'm not accepting that he did accuse her of poisoning the group without corroboration.

 

[JLZ]

E's statement is that SP confirmed he wouldn't be eating the day before, still last minute I suppose but, if true, not as last minute as say an hour before or something like that. You make some interesting points. I'm reserving judgement mostly unti lmore info comes to light. Moo

Not a last minute cancellation apparently.

The mother-of-two has since said in her statement that Simon cancelled 'prior to the day'.

The contradictions in the mushroom poisoning case

Don and Gail Patterson, Gail's sister Heather and her pastor husband Ian fell sick after eating beef Wellington pie at Erin Patterson's Leongatha home, in Victoria's Gippsland, on July 29.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[MrJ]

Also I wonder if somebody specific was her target, and if the others were collateral damage. Tragic

Speculation: Maybe EP intended to target Ian. I thought this due to the fact he's a pastor at the local church, and perhaps he had some beliefs about not divorcing one's spouse that angered her (a pastor being a senior authority-like figure, perhaps EP isn't religious and thought he represented something she didn't believe in). But they'd separated a year or so before IIRC so that mightn't stack up. And if she intended one target, she must've not wanted any witnesses to the crime if she was the guilty party. MOO

 

[Mirabel091]

I have a feeling there's quite a bit of cunning in this case. It's not Kouri Richins redux.

Misdirection? Could explain why nothing seems to make sense.

EP says she served beef wellington so here we are discussing whether you can safely scrape death caps off beef wellington and serve it to your kids.

EP says she bought the mushrooms for the beef wellington in shops so here we are discussing if you can buy death caps neatly packaged and dried.

EP chucks a dehydrator away in full view of LE so now we're all thinking that's the smoking gun. (Or maybe that was an actual slip up? Time will tell.)

EP says she handed leftover beef wellington for toxicology testing (after feeding 4 guests and 2 kids, how much did she make?!). Meanwhile the poison went in some other part of the meal and we're still all looking the wrong way.

I could see an alternative motive for EP being the target but my main problem with the idea that someone contaminated her larder is that it's indiscriminate and I don't think anyone would have wanted to risk harming the kids (although, perhaps EP being jailed was an equally good outcome if we run with that). If anything like that did happen that person must be delighted that she keeps talking and taking the focus away from other ingredients.

 

[srper2]

A more accurate and informed report would state something like 'It's Impossible,given regulations, that toxic death caps could have been purchased from supermarkes or Grocers in Australia' or some such. The word claim really has no place Imo but not surprised that the reporting of the AMGA's concerns is spun that way. Moo

I expect that after she has stated several times that the only mushrooms she used were purchased at stores, indicating that she is "insinuating" that if the people died of mushroom poisoning, It can't possibly be her fault, because all the mushrooms she used were store bought, the mushroom growers association would feel the need to make a statement to refute her "insinuations" that people could be at risk of death by mushroom poisoning of they purchase mushrooms at stores.

 

[srper2]

Yes, but then the store would have sold just the one packet?

All the stores visited by a local news agency have made it clear that they either do not sell mushrooms at all or do not sell mushrooms they have packaged thmselves and none sell mushrooms with hand written labels. This story is as believable as all her other ever changing stories.

Asian grocers deny deadly cook 'bought' fatal fungi from their shops

Asian grocers selling mushrooms in the region that supposedly sold the killer fungi to stay-at-home-mum Erin Patterson deny they are responsible for three deaths.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[JBowie]

the mushroom growers association would feel the need to make a atatement to refute her "insinuations" that people could be at risk of death by mushroom poisoning of they purchase mushrooms at stores.

I was at lunch today, ordered a side salad and told the waiter to hold the mushrooms. He rolled his eyes like he hasn't heard that 100 times already.

 

[Kemug]

I truly am trying to keep an open mind about EP, though I must admit I am finding it difficult. Once upon a time I would have been barely able to imagine a young (ish) woman doing something so heinous. But Lori Vallow Daybell has forever ruined my naivety for me.

 

[k-mac]

EP never claimed that she bought death caps from a super market or Asian Grocer. Additionally, the AMGA are not disputing any claims of EP, rather just saying regulations make it impossible that death caps could be sold commercially. I've already explained the issue from my POV in previous posts just now so happy to agree to disagree. Moo

She claimed she made her purchase there. The dried mushrooms.
Nobody is admitting to death caps anywhere that I have seen.
But the insinuation and inuendo is obviously there.

Which is why the AMGA came out to support their industry against this insinuating lie.