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

[JLZ]

Do you think it’s a possibility that Simon was teasing her when he said is that what you used to poison them?

We don’t know what tone of voice he used but thinking of the timeline, would that fit in with before DC mushrooms were suspected?

Knowing she was a keen forager he might have assumed she’s used foraged mushrooms and accidentally used the wrong ones or teased her about her ability to pick safe ones.

Am I grasping here or is this reasonable?

It might depend when he said it. If it was before he realized it was anything more than gastro? Then he could have been joking.

If it was after his parents died he might have said it in the bitter paranoia of early grief (drawing on my own experience). But that doesn't fit with investigators finding the dehydrator on Friday 4th August. At least, it does, if Erin is lying about him saying it before she dumped it.

Just personally, I can't imagine him saying the thing at all after he knew their lives were threatened but before they died.

 

[ch_13]

I'm not sure what you mean. Who dished them out then? I guess you mean she didn't take an empty plate from a person and then hand them back food? instead she served onto plates the way a chef does in a kitchen of a restaurant and the people chose their plates like servers would, except they were serving themselves. That in itself does not strike me as odd.

rsbm.

To me it's a little odd. The usual method would be to serve people when they're seated, or in more informal situations hand them a plate directly. I'm really hard pressed to think of a social situation where plates are first laid out and then people come by and grab one.

I've seen caterers do it occasionally, but they have to serve dozens or hundreds in a short period of time, and even then it's usually just for dessert. Maybe if you're barbecuing and you take a bunch of burgers off the grill at the same time and yell, "Come and get it!"

But there is one advantage of this method. The portions are ostensibly doled out randomly, which would allay any possible suspicion that you could have adulterated the food on purpose.

 

[jepop]

It certainly may be that she deliberately poisoned them. I just feel uncomfortable that she is a bit weird or odd, not named a suspect, and there are all these tabloids declaring her guilty and then every single thing she does is evidence that she is guilty, even if they are things people do--like have people pick up pre-served plates of food or send your kids to the movies while the adults talk. And the drawings on the wall--wasn't the wall going to be painted? I could see kids doing that and especially if it was during covid, drawing funny (to them) sketches about death and RIP as a way of coping with fears. My kids used to draw those smiley faces with x's for eyes and making morbid jokes when they were quite young! A lot of intelligent kids might have a darker sense of humor as a way to deal with things they may understand are going on in the world but aren't emotionally mature enough to process. IMO MOO

Exactly this. Well expressed. Moo

 

[JLZ]

To me it's a little odd. The usual method would be to serve people when they're seated, or in more informal situations hand them a plate directly. I'm really hard pressed to think of a social situation where plates are first laid out and then people come by and grab one.

I think it works in open plan living where the kitchen is separated from the dining area by a bench.

 

[AmandaSkis]

IMO we have already seen several half truths from Erin. When she claims to take the remaining plate, we have no information whether she ate lunch. She could have set the plate with poisoned mushrooms in front of her and not eaten it. If anyone noticed, she could say "Oh, I snacked all morning in the preparation of this dish. Silly me." And if all four guests had dined, then no one could claim otherwise. Heck, Ian might not have even noticed if Erin was eating.

 

[JLZ]

IMO we have already seen several half truths from Erin. When she claims to take the remaining plate, we have no information whether she ate lunch. She could have set the plate with poisoned mushrooms in front of her and not eaten it. If anyone noticed, she could say "Oh, I snacked all morning in the preparation of this dish. Silly me." And if all four guests had dined, then no one could claim otherwise. Heck, Ian might not have even noticed if Erin was eating.

That might have been the thing that was said to the paramedic: "I did think it was strange that she wasn't eating."

 

[RickshawFan]

I agree with you it’s a Showpiece dish one of the most complicated to make well so she wouldn’t have just cut it up into slices and said …


“Take your pick” it’s not that type of Dish imo

The notion of "she plated it up and each person chose their plate" is on EP's say-so, yes? This story-line would work if all 4 were dead. There's no way to contradict this unless the surviving guest happens to recall.

There could have been some version of it that would have played into EP's hands and could be twisted to a version of truth. It goes like this: I offer you a slice of lovely apple pie. My specialty. Cinnamony-lemony-appley-fresh-pastry. Warm from the oven. You take the plate with said pie, ooh and ahhh, and in an act of politeness, you give it to your neighbor, who hasn't been served yet. In BS-speak this could be described as "I plated it, and each person chose their plate." Note: the plating part might be correct, but the choosing part never exactly happened, although there's some form of selection going on.

Whatever the scenario, IMO, the guests were not in a position to decide which piece EP would have.

 

[JLZ]

The notion of "she plated it up and each person chose their plate" is on EP's say-so, yes? This story-line would work if all 4 were dead. There's no way to contradict this unless the surviving guest happens to recall.

Or if the children witnessed it.

 

[Oona]

“The friend told the publicationthat Mr Patterson’s family was worried about Ms Patterson’s “mental state” so they accepted the lunch invitation to “make sure she was in the right mental health to resume a relationship with Simon”.

“This wasn’t just a lunch, it was an intervention with the pastor as mediator. That’s why this lunch happened,” the friend said.

Here’s the quote about the family being concerned about EP’s mental health that was mentioned earlier.

https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/fifth-person-went-to-hospital-after-mushroom-lunch/news-story/2d830a63eb508e58b0ce82d3e57a3585

 

[Stunned]

“The friend told the publicationthat Mr Patterson’s family was worried about Ms Patterson’s “mental state” so they accepted the lunch invitation to “make sure she was in the right mental health to resume a relationship with Simon”.

“This wasn’t just a lunch, it was an intervention with the pastor as mediator. That’s why this lunch happened,” the friend said.

Here’s the quote about the family being concerned about EP’s mental health that was mentioned earlier.

https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/fifth-person-went-to-hospital-after-mushroom-lunch/news-story/2d830a63eb508e58b0ce82d3e57a3585

“The friend”. Again.
If all this is true, why would the children be home? According to LE they were.

 

[JBowie]

Police will probably now use some specialist officer to communicate with the media.

Yep.

I've noticed many times that some police officers tend to not think well enough before they speak, off the cuff, in front of media scrums.

It takes practice to prepare yourself before making public statements and to be ready for some questions with the response "our investigations are continuing, so no further comment at this time".

 

[JBowie]

Does anyone know what this means, to “hardly have their cue in the rack”??

Thanks in advance x

It's an unusual expression. With the games of pool, snooker or billiards, if your cue stick is in the rack (on the wall) it means that you're not participating.

So, in his round about way, he's saying that they are on the job. Communication is not this guy's strong suit.

 

[JLZ]

“The friend told the publicationthat Mr Patterson’s family was worried about Ms Patterson’s “mental state” so they accepted the lunch invitation to “make sure she was in the right mental health to resume a relationship with Simon”.

“This wasn’t just a lunch, it was an intervention with the pastor as mediator. That’s why this lunch happened,” the friend said.

Here’s the quote about the family being concerned about EP’s mental health that was mentioned earlier.

https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/fifth-person-went-to-hospital-after-mushroom-lunch/news-story/2d830a63eb508e58b0ce82d3e57a3585

I want to quote some of that with the paragraph before:

“They went to her house for a mediation to talk to the family. Simon was supposed to go there for lunch but he pulled out in the last minute otherwise he would be in that death bed too,” the friend said, adding that Simon was not interested in getting back with the mother of his children.
The friend told the publication that Mr Patterson’s family was worried about Ms Patterson’s “mental state” so they accepted the lunch invitation to “make sure she was in the right mental health to resume a relationship with Simon”.

That's the same friend saying that Simon was not interested in getting back with EP and that the family accepted the lunch invitation to make sure EP was in the right mental health to resume a relationship with Simon.

Does the friend mean that EP and Simon were drastically estranged and the question was whether they could have any relationship at all, be in the same room together to pass the children to and fro, with no question of resuming a marital-type relationship?

Otherwise, on its face, it doesn't make sense. Parents don't screen their child's ex's mental health with a view to monitoring the resumption of a relationship the child's not interested in having. How does the friend think it makes sense?

 

[JBowie]

Where does water from the toilet go?

Usually to two places:

To a sewage treatment plant via the sewer main, or
To an on-site septic tank (if not connected to the sewer main)

Aside: regarding the first, sewage in some cities is regularly tested for the presence of illicit drugs, such as cocaine.

The findings from the latest national wastewater drug monitoring report from the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission were based on wastewater testing at 57 treatment plants in capital cities and regional areas from December 2022 to February 2023.

Wastewater tests reveal the most popular drugs in each Australian capital city

Illicit drug use in Australia jumped over summer despite a string of high-profile drug busts

www.theguardian.com

 

[MsMarple]

Yep.

I've noticed many times that some police officers tend to not think well enough before they speak, off the cuff, in front of media scrums.

It takes practice to prepare yourself before making public statements and to be ready for some questions with the response "our investigations are continuing, so no further comment at this time".

Yeah I think what happened was initially a detective said EP was a suspect then a few days later LE backpedaled to say she was a POI.

Then a few days ago the ticked off Deputy Police Commissioner confirmed she was a POI. The commissioner added that EP and her lawyers releasing her statement to the media was “unhelpful” to the case. She also stressed that the statement was not an official police statement.

My opinion only is that LE is going to release only what’s necessary for the public to know going forward.

The links have been posted upthread by me and others, mostly from DM.

ETA one link:

Erin Patterson: Cops break silence on mushroom chef leaked statement

Victoria's second highest ranking police officer has said the leaking of a statement from Erin Patterson about a mushroom meal thought to be linked to the deaths of three people is 'unhelpful'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[LadyL]

If they’re at the movies, EP wouldn’t have to explain why they didn’t get ill after the lunch. Explaining why her immediate family didn’t get poisoned at a lunch where everyone else did would be very difficult. So, she’s claiming her kids weren’t there.

However, LE could easily ask the kids, or, better still, find out from EP who chaperoned at the movies, ‘cos young kids would have had to have a chaperone. No chaperone, no movies. EP wouldn’t be able to lie on this point, because LE can easily verify. She’s not going to be able to disentangle from this one if it’s a lie.

I think they're old enough to go to the movies by themselves or anyone else could've chaperoned.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

EP is said to have dumped the dehydrator at the further away rubbish dump.

Maybe the further away one was free, and the closer one you needed to pay something to enter ?

 

[TootsieFootsie]

The "friend" always seemss to have a lot to say.

 

[JLZ]

The "friend" always seemss to have a lot to say.

They could ask her the inside goss on the royal family.

 

[LadyL]

Except Erin didn't dish out the plates. In her statement she said that everyone chose their own plate and she took the last one.

It's a subtle difference, but an important one.

I took it to mean she put the portions on plates and the guests then chose their plate