Australia - 3 dead after eating wild mushrooms, Leongatha, Victoria, Aug 2023 #4

[kittythehare]

And to have that child and family forever talked about as though they are abnormal or part of something demonic.

That is not ok.

it is not okay at all, particularly when the only detail added to the second printing of the story pinpointed the artist who is a minor child, on the word of a painter...

Erin Patterson has not been charged with a crime.

The causative agent has not been confirmed to be death cap mushroom.

The lunch they consumed together has not been definitively confirmed as the source of the poisonings.

Erin Patterson remains to be the mother of the two children, she is completely within her rights to take any legal action necessary to protect them.

Nobody is in possession of all the facts, except possibly LE and they're not confirming anything. .

 

[jjleroche]

I do much of my job in peoples homes and yes, have taken photos of bizarre or amusing things. My clients trust me very well and know I’d never abuse the privilege however if any had suspicious deaths surrounding the home you bet I’d chat it up!

It sounds like you're only considering each item in isolation, but I am talking about the totality of the circumstances.

I can only speak to U.S. law. But here, intent can be inferred:

A basic principle taught in law school is that intent can be inferred from the circumstances. Juries routinely look at the surrounding evidence to determine if the accused had the intent to commit a crime.

And if it can be proved that there was death caps in the food, then the totality of the circumstances could lead a jury to believe that she intended murder: She was the cook, she tried to hide evidence, she lied to the police on multiple occasions, she didn't become ill herself, expert testimony will show the mushrooms couldn't have come from the store, she may have had motive that her ex will testify about, she had past experiences as a forager, etc.

A recent case in Utah, much discussed on WebSleuths, is Kouri Richins alleged murder of her husband. The prosecution says she gave him a cocktail laced with fentanyl but she claims he was a drug abuser who took the fentanyl himself. No one else was present at the time of his death except for the two of them. Eventually it will be up to a jury to consider all the circumstances and determine whether or not she intended to kill him.

Again, I'm not claiming to know the standard under Australian law. If the accused can assert some sort of plausible deniability—no matter how flimsy—is that enough to thwart a murder charge? Perhaps someone familiar with the criminal justice system in Victoria can weigh in.

In Victoria, murder is a common law offence, which means its elements are defined by the courts, rather than having basis in legislation or statute.
To prove a charge of murder, the prosecution must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused:

• Voluntarily committed acts which caused the victim’s death;
• Had no lawful justification or defence for those acts.
• Voluntarily committed acts which caused the victim’s death;
• Had the intention to kill, or cause really serious injury or knowing it was probable that death or serious injury would result; and
• Had no lawful justification or defence for those acts.

IANAL but IMO on the face of official information available at the moment, proof of intention, beyond a reasonable doubt, does not jump out at me. At this point, it does not appear that there is PROOF - granted lots of speculation, mainly via tabloid media, but no proof.

Having said that, there could well be other information which has not been released. Investigators are no doubt wanting to keep their cards close to their chest, in order to not adversely affect the integritry of the investigation (and rightly so IMO).

Crimes Act of 1958: Manslaughter Defence Lawyers Victoria

Our murder & manslaughter defence lawyers are extensively experienced in matters in the Supreme Court of Victoria and work to obtain the best outcome.

sherlawyers.com.au

 

[jjleroche]

A lot of my family biz involves attending residential properties. Taking before and after pics is very much common practice.

But would you sell them to the tabloid media? IMO that takes it to a different level.

 

[jjenny]

I am wondering if there is a police guard on him?

For what purpose? I don't think it's likely she will make it into his hospital with one of her homecooked meals.

 

[ch_13]

3) Claimed Store brought but surprisingly nobody else has fallen sick in the general area of this Asian store

3) Someone might of got sick months ago, thought it was flu. They didnt go to doc, they die and cause of death is old age, natural causes. MOO of what could happen. Family member passed few months ago, she was 63. She was found in yard. They didnt do an autopsy, just said she died of natural causes.

I have no proof of cases occurring that is why i said MOO of what could happen, someone could get sick and not go to the doc thinking its the flu and die. MOO of what could happen.

sure does, stomach flu, every symptom. have no idea how to post a link, im sorry for that, but just google it.
forgot MOO

I'm snipping these posts because I just want to talk about the likelihood of their being multiple cases of poisoning due to toxic mushrooms at the market that somehow went unnoticed by the authorities.

IMO, it's not very likely.

The later stages of amanita poisoning lead to symptoms like jaundice, seizures and coma. I would expect that most people who experience jaundice and seizures would seek medical attention. And of course if someone falls into a coma, then immediate hospitalization is required.

Furthermore, a doctor must indicate the cause of death on the death certificate. (It looks like in Victoria, the certificate can be filled out by a doctor, EMT or registered nurse.) If someone who is in otherwise good health does die unexpectedly, questions are certain to be raised. A medical professional shouldn't just chalk up a death to 'natural causes' without a good idea for why it happened. Although in most cases an autopsy is not necessary as the doctor is already familiar enough with the patient's medical history to know why they died.

Could it happen? Could a person be that seriously ill and not seek medical attention and then the doctor be negligent in filling out the certificate? I suppose. But not for multiple cases of poisoning from store-bought mushrooms.

And we'd have to add it to the long line of coincidences and unfortunate choices that seem to bedevil Erin in this case: dumping the dehydrator for no reason, lying to police for no reason, avoiding illness when consuming the same lunch as her guests, having the incident happen during a 'contentious' meal, and so on.

 

[Charlot123]

Just going to put a bit here from the Under Investigation show (from about the 38:50 mark). It is about intent.

John Chalfin, Former County Coroner in Indiana USA, was online on the show. 3 years ago he investigated the baffling death of software entrepreneur David Fout.

Toxic mushrooms were found in David's stomach. They knew, systemically, that they were the cause of death.

But they couldn’t prove the wife fed the mushrooms to her husband (she had a motive). Even though they think they know how it was done.

Was it the wife? Was it her boyfriend (a former police officer)?

The Fouts had two homes .. when police searched the summer home, they found a pizza box, toxic mushrooms are believed to have been used to dust the pizza.

Officially the case was “homicide by unspecified means”.

Wife was later tried and sentenced for conspiracy to murder (not murder), as she had relevant google searches on her phone. (Her boyfriend died before his court date.)

The reason for the piece about this poisoning is to illustrate how demanding it is for police to investigate possible poisonings. Because they have to prove intent to kill. What was the motive.

Under Investigation Season 5 Ep 9 The Last Lunch, Watch TV Online

Liz Hayes and her team of investigators probe the mystery gripping Australia and the world. Three dead, another clinging to life, after a mushroom lunch in small-town Victoria.

www.9now.com.au

I am not sure they need to prove the intent. If they find searches of amatoxin, or fine grinders for sale, it is great, but you don’t need it if you read Christie’s books. Or, the recipe for a grinder but no grinder in the house. (SP could be the source as well. Did ER like that pepper set? Use in on SP’s food? Where is it?) I think it is the means or the method that are hard to prove. We are talking about finding the spores of amanita phalloides in the victims’ stools, or the tiny amounts of amanita phalloides in the house. Or, as we still don’t know, traces of what else killed the three people. No one in his right mind should be keeping such toxin in a powered form in the house, where the kids live. It might come up to involuntary manslaughter, but if indeed the origin of amatoxin is traced to her house, I’d view it the same way like some mad dads who leave loaded guns in full public view in the house where kids live. Maybe worse, as with guns, there is a reason to obtain them, with amanita phalloides, none.

 

[SouthAussie]

.

I am not sure they need to prove the intent. A very different case, the murder of

"In Victoria, murder is recognised as the intentional and unlawful killing of another person. To prove a charge of murder, the prosecution must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused:

• Voluntarily committed acts which caused the victim’s death;
• Had the intention to kill, or cause really serious injury or knowing it was probable that death or serious injury would result; and
• Had no lawful justification or defence for those acts."

Crimes Act of 1958: Manslaughter Defence Lawyers Victoria

Our murder & manslaughter defence lawyers are extensively experienced in matters in the Supreme Court of Victoria and work to obtain the best outcome.

sherlawyers.com.au

 

[ch_13]

In Victoria, murder is a common law offence, which means its elements are defined by the courts, rather than having basis in legislation or statute.
To prove a charge of murder, the prosecution must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused:

• Voluntarily committed acts which caused the victim’s death;
• Had no lawful justification or defence for those acts.
• Voluntarily committed acts which caused the victim’s death;
• Had the intention to kill, or cause really serious injury or knowing it was probable that death or serious injury would result; and
• Had no lawful justification or defence for those acts.

IANAL but IMO on the face of official information available at the moment, proof of intention, beyond a reasonable doubt, does not jump out at me. At this point, it does not appear that there is PROOF - granted lots of speculation, mainly via tabloid media, but no proof.

Having said that, there could well be other information which has not been released. Investigators are no doubt wanting to keep their cards close to their chest, in order to not adversely affect the integritry of the investigation (and rightly so IMO).

Crimes Act of 1958: Manslaughter Defence Lawyers Victoria

Our murder & manslaughter defence lawyers are extensively experienced in matters in the Supreme Court of Victoria and work to obtain the best outcome.

sherlawyers.com.au

I agree. There is not yet proof beyond a reasonable doubt, at least not from what we've seen reported to date in the media.

However, I think even without the forensic results back there's a lot that the police would have learned by now which can add to the circumstantial evidence.

Just one example: How did EP really feel about her in-laws? Did she love them as much as she claimed in that video? Through interviews with Simon, the kids, her friends I think the police by now should have a pretty good idea of her true feelings.

And that could easily be exculpatory. If through her words and behaviors, EP really was that close to her in-laws I think a jury would have a hard time believing she could intend to do them harm. On the other hand, if she really disliked or resented them...well that's another piece of the puzzle.

I've been thinking about a couple of cases recently: Harold Henthorn pushed his wife off a cliff and said she fell, while Larry Rudolph killed his wife on an African safari and claimed she shot herself by accident.

GUILTY - CO - Dr. Toni Henthorn, 50, dies in cliff fall, Rocky Mountain NP, 29 Sept 2012 *husband arrested*

A Highlands Ranch man indicted in the murder of his second wife, who plunged to her death in Rocky Mountain National Park in 2012, also faces an investigation into the 1995 death of his first wife...

www.websleuths.com

GUILTY - Zambia - Bianca Rudolph, 57, safari trip, fatally shot, 2016 Oct, PA dentist husband and gf arrested 2021

Pennsylvania dentist, 67, is charged with murdering his wife on 2017 African hunting trip | Daily Mail Online 1/11/2022 A Pennsylvania dentist has been charged with murdering his wife during a 2016 African hunting safari as part of an insurance scam and to get out of his marriage to be with...

www.websleuths.com

In both cases the only person present at the time of death was the husband and they had plausible justifications for their spouses deaths. There was very limited direct evidence. But the police were able to build cases by discovering a plethora of circumstantial evidence and eventually were able to convince juries of what really happened.

If Erin really was responsible for poisoning her guests, I hope the authorities can do the same in this case.

 

[al66pine]

Suing the Painter for Releasing Pic to Media?

And to have that child and family forever talked about as though they are abnormal or part of something demonic.
That is not ok.

@TootsieFootsie

Suing the painter is not likely to prevent ppl from talking about EP & her children. Ppl talk.

If ppl say they are abnormal, part of something demonic, seems that reflects more on their own extreme beliefs than the drawing itself.

Suing the painter may stir more derision toward EP herself rather than deflect criticism of the children, imo. For ex., Flakey Mother sued painter over her kids' goofy drawing. It was awfully silly; he/she/they had probably just read ___ [book] or watched ___ [movie].

Future discussion about the (hypo-atm) lawsuit based on The Wall photo release will, imo, inevitably transmogrify into a convo re the mushroom illness & deaths. Even if charges are not filed, or if tried & found not guilty, EP is may bear the stigma of responsibility in the minds of some. Maybe many?

Painter's release of photo was "not okay," but suing him may cause more antipathy toward EP & children, than ignoring him & his inappropriate action.

imo. icbw
________________________________
Apologies to posters who believe the drawings show the child/children needs treatment for mental health issues.

 

[kittythehare]

Suing the Painter for Releasing Pic to Media?

@TootsieFootsie

Suing the painter is not likely to prevent ppl from talking about EP & her children. Ppl talk.

If ppl say they are abnormal, part of something demonic, seems that reflects more on their own extreme beliefs than the drawing itself.

Suing the painter may stir more derision toward EP herself rather than deflect criticism of the children, imo. For ex., Flakey Mother sued painter over her kids' goofy drawing. It was awfully silly; he/she/they had probably just read ___ [book] or watched ___ [movie].

Future discussion about the (hypo-atm) lawsuit based on The Wall photo release will, imo, inevitably transmogrify into a convo re the mushroom illness & deaths. Even if charges are not filed, or if tried & found not guilty, EP is may bear the stigma of responsibility in the minds of some. Maybe many?

Painter's release of photo was "not okay," but suing him may cause more antipathy toward EP & children, than ignoring him & his inappropriate action.

imo. icbw
________________________________
Apologies to posters who believe the drawings show the child/children needs treatment for mental health issues.

Information for journalists and media outlets

Media outlets and individuals have a responsibility to ensure that identifying information about children and young people known to the Department for Child Protection (DCP) is not published.

www.childprotection.sa.gov.au

 

[SouthAussie]

Information for journalists and media outlets

Media outlets and individuals have a responsibility to ensure that identifying information about children and young people known to the Department for Child Protection (DCP) is not published.

www.childprotection.sa.gov.au

Thanks for doing the research you are doing.

I have the impression that it is not fully understood how much children are protected in Australia. Both ethically and legally.
.

 

[srper2]

Also thought it was odd that the Real Estate Agents arranged for the painter, rather than the homeowner. Is that how it’s normally done in Oz?

Laaaazzzyyyy owner....

 

[kittythehare]

Thanks for doing the research you are doing.

I have the impression that it is not fully understood how much children are protected in Australia. Both ethically and legally.
.

Impressive indeed.

https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/who-we-are/our-legislative-functions

Child Safe Policy - Interacting with children

The purpose of the Child Safe Policy is to ensure that all employees, consultants, contractors or volunteers engaged by the Department of Justice and Community Safety are aware of the department's commitment and obligation to creating a child safe organisation.

www.justice.vic.gov.au

https://providers.dffh.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2017-08/the-best-interests-framework-for-vulnerable-children-and-youth.pdf

 

[Charlot123]

Suing the Painter for Releasing Pic to Media?

@TootsieFootsie

Suing the painter is not likely to prevent ppl from talking about EP & her children. Ppl talk.

If ppl say they are abnormal, part of something demonic, seems that reflects more on their own extreme beliefs than the drawing itself.

Suing the painter may stir more derision toward EP herself rather than deflect criticism of the children, imo. For ex., Flakey Mother sued painter over her kids' goofy drawing. It was awfully silly; he/she/they had probably just read ___ [book] or watched ___ [movie].

Future discussion about the (hypo-atm) lawsuit based on The Wall photo release will, imo, inevitably transmogrify into a convo re the mushroom illness & deaths. Even if charges are not filed, or if tried & found not guilty, EP is may bear the stigma of responsibility in the minds of some. Maybe many?

Painter's release of photo was "not okay," but suing him may cause more antipathy toward EP & children, than ignoring him & his inappropriate action.

imo. icbw
________________________________
Apologies to posters who believe the drawings show the child/children needs treatment for mental health issues.

“Medieval”. I think the painter read Malleus Malleficarum one time too much, lol. (Personally, I think if he felt something was wrong, he could have called the CPS.) Now, I have another question. Was he showing the photos to people around? Someone here mentioned the painter being from Korumburra. I have no way to prove, but if so, could it be possible that her in-laws were shown the photo? I have many questions about the course of events leading to the delegation of the four to EP’s house. Older religious people; perhaps they were concerned by these “RIPs” if they saw the photo?

Just thinking…Death wall and “satanic”. I was surprised by the choice of words of DM, but what if the journalists repeated the painter’s words?

 

[kittythehare]

Was the report that Erin's children were taken into CPS ever verified?

https://www.cpmanual.vic.gov.au/policies-and-procedures/critical-incidents/publication-identifying-details

 

[RickshawFan]

sure does, stomach flu, every symptom. have no idea how to post a link, im sorry for that, but just google it.
forgot MOO

The major symptom in amanita poisoning is that it eats out your liver. Then you die. Stomach flu? Belly ache, vomiting, diarrhea. Death would be a complication (e.g. cdiff), not a symptom.

So, if there had been contaminated mushrooms at a supermarket (highly unlikely because of rigorous standards), you'd have a whole lot of unexplained deaths with post mortem findings of dissolved liver. No evidence of anything like that or DM would have dug it up, and half of the Australian mushroom-eating population would be freaked out about it.

 

[Kemug]

For what purpose? I don't think it's likely she will make it into his hospital with one of her homecooked meals.

I would think that a police guard for this victim would be advisable regardless, even if EP is totally innocent. Anyone could potentially sneak into a hospital and smother someone with a pillow, or cause death by some other means, it wouldn't have to be by poisoning. We don't yet know if these poor people were poisoned deliberately, and if so, by whom. But I wouldn't want to be the LE officer who decided that a guard wasn't necessary, and then this surviving victim was attacked.

 

[kittythehare]

I would think that a police guard for this victim would be advisable regardless, even if EP is totally innocent. Anyone could potentially sneak into a hospital and smother someone with a pillow, or cause death by some other means, it wouldn't have to be by poisoning. We don't yet know if these poor people were poisoned deliberately, and if so, by whom. But I wouldn't want to be the LE officer who decided that a guard wasn't necessary, and then this surviving victim was attacked.

Good point, well made.
Thinking outside the box, we don't actually know which if not all of them were targeted much less why.
Sounds like a sensible precaution.
he could well be in danger still from outside influences.
It may not be in the poisoner's interest for any of them to have survived.
Thanks for making me think about this.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I would think that a police guard for this victim would be advisable regardless, even if EP is totally innocent. Anyone could potentially sneak into a hospital and smother someone with a pillow, or cause death by some other means, it wouldn't have to be by poisoning. We don't yet know if these poor people were poisoned deliberately, and if so, by whom. But I wouldn't want to be the LE officer who decided that a guard wasn't necessary, and then this surviving victim was attacked.

Of course he needs to be under police guard - three of his friends were killed in what could be a targeted attack. Whomsoever made that decision needs to be challenged. If EP didn't do this, someone else could have and that puts him at risk.

 

[Charlot123]

Good point, well made.
Thinking outside the box, we don't actually know which if not all of them were targeted much less why.
Sounds like a sensible precaution.
he could well be in danger still from outside influences.
It may not be in the poisoner's interest for any of them to have survived.
Thanks for making me think about this.

It is a Baptist church. Are Baptist priests listening to confessions, like Catholic ones, on a regular basis?

Indeed, they all come from the same family - and church. Anything could have happened, someone stole the church money, someone confided of something "sinful". We really don't know the motive. It is lower on my priority totem than EP's lunch, but still possible.