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

[silvercrown]

maybe the children were removed so she couldnt influence any memories they may have when or if questioned by police, plant fake memories if shes guilty?

I’m not sure this would be enough of a reason to remove children from their (primary?) parent.
I’m sure the children have given statements to police as best they can. Even if she’s charged and there’s a trial, the children are unlikely to be called as witnesses moo imo

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Erin Patterson had a 'collection of mushroom books' at her home

Deadly cook Erin Patterson had a collection of books about mushrooms she kept at her home where three people died, Daily Mail Australia has been told.

www.dailymail.co.uk

And on Friday, a false claim that Erin's own parents had died due to poisoning was exposed as a lie. The pair actually died of natural causes.

According to a neighbour of Ms Patterson's mother, the death of Dr Heather Scutter from cancer in 2019 was not quick.

'It took her slowly. She went to Melbourne for treatment and came back. Then she died,' a neighbour told Daily Mail Australia.

Her husband had died in 2011 after his own battle with cancer - with his ashes sprinkled on the beach.


Ms Patterson is now represented by a prominent Melbourne criminal barrister..

 

[Ellery84]

The kids probably have the clearest information about her day to day behaviors, quirks, and how she really feels about all the inlaws.

Yes, absolutely. I’m sure they will be able to assist police a lot, imo.

Maybe the children are being protected in three ways: From their own parents, from the media and from public scrutiny.

All JMO.

 

[silvercrown]

Yes, absolutely. I’m sure they will be able to assist police a lot, imo.

Maybe the children are being protected in three ways: From their own parents, from the media and from public scrutiny.

All JMO.

Yes, I agree.

If they’re not with EP or SP, then that speaks volumes imo

 

[Ellery84]

Even if she’s charged and there’s a trial, the children are unlikely to be called as witnesses

Why is that, silvercrown? Children are called as witnesses all the time. The Patterson children are high-school kids, but even if they were younger and the Crown needed to call them, they would.
Jmo

At the end of the day, it’s a homicide investigation. Maybe it’s an accident, maybe it’s mass murder. Maybe manslaughter…. I’m not sure. Either way, imo the children may be some of the strongest witnesses available.

Sometimes child witnesses give evidence with a curtain so that they don’t have to see the defendant, sometimes the defendant has to leave the room whilst they give evidence…often a support person is provided to the children. But it would still be so difficult for them, or for any child witness in a homicide case.

IMO.

 

[Ellery84]

Yes, I agree.

If they’re not with EP or SP, then that speaks volumes imo

It really does, Silvercrown.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

I have only seen it stated officially that they were removed from her care. That could easily be interpreted as being taken into state care and I think that is the origin of talk of them having been taken. The statement itself isn’t clear. Removed from Erin’s care could mean many things.

I thought the original words used were "removed from the home"

 

[Ellery84]

I thought the original words used were "removed from the home"

It’s probably illegal to identify anyone as being a foster child…. Hence why the language was “removed from the home.”

IMO

 

[silvercrown]

I agree that if they really needed to call them, they would. However, they weren’t present during the lunch and really anything they testified to would be hearsay imo.

If she’s guilty, I’d think the physical evidence would be able to speak for itself, potentially including but not limited to traces of death caps, potential examination of stomach contents upon admission, liver toxicity at time of death would negate the need to call the children as witnesses. I’m thinking toxicological experts would be quite convincing to a court.
Also, Ian may recover enough to give evidence. Hopefully! If she did do it, of course.

Perhaps they may read a sworn statement to the court.


Also the question of reliability of child witnesses. Many reasons are published below.

Children as reliable witnesses | ALRC

Assumptions of unreliability14.15 The common law in Australia has traditionally viewed children as unreliable witnesses. The perception has been that children are prone to fantasy, that they are suggestible and that their evidence is inaccurate. The following statement by a prominent legal...

www.alrc.gov.au

All of this is totally moo and if proven wrong it will be no skin off my nose

ETA: of course if the children had given statements that EP told them she was going to ‘off’ the in laws at lunch so please leave the house, I’d probably change my tune moo

 

[bearbear]

i wonder if while foraging awhile ago for mushrooms with her children one of them accidentally picked a dc mushroom and added it to the haul, took them home and she let them do the dehydrating without knowing about the dc?
then when she realised people were sick and her exs poisoning comment remembered the children and thoughtt they could get in trouble so she got rid of the dehydrater??

 

[silvercrown]

i wonder if while foraging awhile ago for mushrooms with her children one of them accidentally picked a dc mushroom and added it to the haul, took them home and she let them do the dehydrating without knowing about the dc?
then when she realised people were sick and her exs poisoning comment remembered the children and thoughtt they could get in trouble so she got rid of the dehydrater??

Anything’s possible!

 

[LacieL]

I thought the original words used were "removed from the home"

Thank you. I didn’t go back to check.

I think this is even more confusing wording. I’ve definitely heard those words used to describe children being taken into care. In this case I still think it probably quite literally means removed from the house, which is a crime scene.

I think they’re probably with family. I hope the media don’t go looking for them or bothering them.

 

[sapphire blue]

Hey bearbear, imo if the children were removed by child safety, presumably it would be for the purposes of keeping them safe.

From what or whom, I am not sure.

I recall a news article saying the children had been removed as a precaution

 

[SMK777]

I agree with you.... now that I know more about the symptoms. Neighbors have noted that they see her as very private, keeping to herself. I would think that that "joy" would be gained, when you are seen as someone who does do a lot of caretaking, and is more outgoing.

I am the most curious about the children, right now. I remain perplexed as to why the State took them. Why in heavens name are they not with their dad? Many articles have referenced that he was a real hands-on dad.

The kids probably have the clearest information about her day to day behaviors, quirks, and how she really feels about all the inlaws.

As always, LE has so much more information than we will ever see. Drat.

I think the children were removed because law enforcement have good reason to believe EP may have engaged in deliberate poisoning, and that would make her an unpredictable and unsafe mother.

Additionally, they probably wanted to be able to interview the children without the mother (or father) being able to intervene and to coach the children regarding what could and could not be said. [“Now, if you tell them about X, Y, Z, you will never be able to live with me again.”]

To me, it’s an indication that law enforcement already know more than has been released to media and the general public. Recall that they have confiscated her phone and other devices.

 

[kittythehare]

I don’t think we know where they are except that they are not with Erin.

I have only seen it stated officially that they were removed from her care. That could easily be interpreted as being taken into state care and I think that is the origin of talk of them having been taken. The statement itself isn’t clear. Removed from Erin’s care could mean many things.

possibly removed by their other parent?
what is the source of 'removed'?
they're allegedly teenagers acc to dm article on S.

 

[kittythehare]

can you find it at all?
Did it specify who removed them?

 

[jjenny]

Why is that, silvercrown? Children are called as witnesses all the time. The Patterson children are high-school kids, but even if they were younger and the Crown needed to call them, they would.
Jmo

At the end of the day, it’s a homicide investigation. Maybe it’s an accident, maybe it’s mass murder. Maybe manslaughter…. I’m not sure. Either way, imo the children may be some of the strongest witnesses available.

Sometimes child witnesses give evidence with a curtain so that they don’t have to see the defendant, sometimes the defendant has to leave the room whilst they give evidence…often a support person is provided to the children. But it would still be so difficult for them, or for any child witness in a homicide case.

IMO.

Yes, children can certainly be witnesses if there is a trial. Even though they weren't present at the lunch itself, they could have a lot of information.

 

[jjenny]

I wonder if Erin may have been expected to help look after Simon's parents one day.

Why would that be? She and her husband were estranged. Why would she be expected to take care of his parents?

 

[jepop]

I think the children were removed because law enforcement have good reason to believe EP may have engaged in deliberate poisoning, and that would make her an unpredictable and unsafe mother.

Additionally, they probably wanted to be able to interview the children without the mother (or father) being able to intervene and to coach the children regarding what could and could not be said. [“Now, if you tell them about X, Y, Z, you will never be able to live with me again.”]

To me, it’s an indication that law enforcement already know more than has been released to media and the general public. Recall that they have confiscated her phone and other devices.

Just re the kids being potentially interviewed, Imo it wouldn't be legal for police to interview either child without a parent or if not parent, an approved guardian present.At the very least the permission of a legal guardian would be required. Moo

 

[jjenny]

Just re the kids being potentially interviewed, Imo it wouldn't be legal for police to interview either child without a parent or if not parent, an approved guardian present.At the very least the permission of a legal guardian would be required. Moo

I am sure police could ask their father for permission to interview the kids.