TootsieFootsie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 13,613
- Reaction score
- 91,463
Australia - 3 dead after eating wild mushrooms, Leongatha, Victoria, Aug 2023 #5 *Arrest*
- Thread starter TootsieFootsie
- Start date
New Posts
-
Japan - Miyazawa family of 4 murdered, Setagaya, Tokyo, 30 Dec 2000 #3
- Latest: BatataPoha
-
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #187- Latest: girlhasnoname
- Status
Mushroom-Identifier Apps. Accuracy? Help Wanted.
Trying a couple apps to identify mystery flowers sprouting up without invitation in my yard, I've not had much luck w them (but some blame may be laid on user
) . Anyway I wondered about accuracy of M-I apps; article below reinforces my No-Eating-Foraged-Mushroom thinking.
In a scientific article* specific to Victoria, authors** reviewed three M-I apps & found:
--- accurate identification rates of 49%, 33%, and 40% for 78 species of mushrooms.
Sooo the best of three apps equates to a coin flip?
--- accurate identification rates of 67%, 60%, and 27% re specimens of Amanita phalloides.
Okay, better results from two of the apps.
The abstract concludes the apps are “not reliable enough to exclude exposure to potentially poisonous mushrooms when used alone.”
Agreeing w ^.
HELP WANTED in interp'ing one sentence in "Results" below:
"Amanita phalloides was falsely identified, twice by Picture Mushroom and once by iNaturalist."
Does this ^ mean---
A. Some AP mushrooms were falsely identified as other species (presumably edible/safe), twice by one app and once by another app?
Or
B. Other mushroom species were falsely identified as APs, twice by one app and once by another app?
Thoughts, anyone?
I'm curious, but not curious enough to pay $62 for full text*** of article to find out.
Anyone with a subscription or other access?
BTW, if my post misinterprets info from abstract, I welcome correction. TiA.
_____________________________________
* Not so briefly but still just the abstract.
"A comparison of the accuracy of mushroom identification applications using digital photographs"
"Objective: To compare the accuracy of three popular mushroom identification software applications in identifying mushrooms involved in exposures reported to the Victorian Poisons Information Centre and Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria.
"Background: Over the past 10 years, an increasing number of software applications have been developed for use on smart phones and tablet devices to identify mushrooms. We have observed an increase in poisonings after incorrect identification of poisonous species as edible, using these applications.
"Design: We compared the accuracy of three iPhone™ and Android™ mushroom identification applications:...using digital photographs of 78 specimens sent to the Victorian Poisons Information Centre and Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria over a two-year period, 2020-2021.
"Results: Picture Mushroom was the most accurate of the three apps and correctly identified 49% (95% CI [0-100]) of specimens, compared with Mushroom Identificator (35% [15-56]) and iNaturalist (35% [0-76]). Picture Mushroom correctly identified 44% of poisonous mushrooms [0-95], compared with Mushroom Identificator (30% [1-58]) and iNaturalist (40% [0-84), but Mushroom Identificator identified more specimens of Amanita phalloides correctly (67%), compared to Picture Mushroom (60%) and iNaturalist (27%). Amanita phalloides was falsely identified, twice by Picture Mushroom and once by iNaturalist.
"Conclusions: Mushroom identification applications may be useful future tools to assist clinical toxicologists and the general public in the accurate identification of mushrooms species but, at present, are not reliable enough to exclude exposure to potentially poisonous mushrooms when used alone."
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
** Authors & Affiliations:
Sarah E Hodgson 1 2, Christine McKenzie 1, Tom W May 3, Shaun L Greene 1 2
1 Victorian Poisons Information Centre, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia.
2 Emergency Department, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia.
3 Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria, Melbourne, Australia.
*** to access text, to buy, etc.
Trying a couple apps to identify mystery flowers sprouting up without invitation in my yard, I've not had much luck w them (but some blame may be laid on user
) . Anyway I wondered about accuracy of M-I apps; article below reinforces my No-Eating-Foraged-Mushroom thinking.In a scientific article* specific to Victoria, authors** reviewed three M-I apps & found:
--- accurate identification rates of 49%, 33%, and 40% for 78 species of mushrooms.
Sooo the best of three apps equates to a coin flip?
--- accurate identification rates of 67%, 60%, and 27% re specimens of Amanita phalloides.
Okay, better results from two of the apps.
The abstract concludes the apps are “not reliable enough to exclude exposure to potentially poisonous mushrooms when used alone.”
Agreeing w ^.
HELP WANTED in interp'ing one sentence in "Results" below:
"Amanita phalloides was falsely identified, twice by Picture Mushroom and once by iNaturalist."
Does this ^ mean---
A. Some AP mushrooms were falsely identified as other species (presumably edible/safe), twice by one app and once by another app?
Or
B. Other mushroom species were falsely identified as APs, twice by one app and once by another app?
Thoughts, anyone?
I'm curious, but not curious enough to pay $62 for full text*** of article to find out.
Anyone with a subscription or other access?
BTW, if my post misinterprets info from abstract, I welcome correction. TiA.
_____________________________________
* Not so briefly but still just the abstract.
"A comparison of the accuracy of mushroom identification applications using digital photographs"
"Objective: To compare the accuracy of three popular mushroom identification software applications in identifying mushrooms involved in exposures reported to the Victorian Poisons Information Centre and Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria.
"Background: Over the past 10 years, an increasing number of software applications have been developed for use on smart phones and tablet devices to identify mushrooms. We have observed an increase in poisonings after incorrect identification of poisonous species as edible, using these applications.
"Design: We compared the accuracy of three iPhone™ and Android™ mushroom identification applications:...using digital photographs of 78 specimens sent to the Victorian Poisons Information Centre and Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria over a two-year period, 2020-2021.
"Results: Picture Mushroom was the most accurate of the three apps and correctly identified 49% (95% CI [0-100]) of specimens, compared with Mushroom Identificator (35% [15-56]) and iNaturalist (35% [0-76]). Picture Mushroom correctly identified 44% of poisonous mushrooms [0-95], compared with Mushroom Identificator (30% [1-58]) and iNaturalist (40% [0-84), but Mushroom Identificator identified more specimens of Amanita phalloides correctly (67%), compared to Picture Mushroom (60%) and iNaturalist (27%). Amanita phalloides was falsely identified, twice by Picture Mushroom and once by iNaturalist.
"Conclusions: Mushroom identification applications may be useful future tools to assist clinical toxicologists and the general public in the accurate identification of mushrooms species but, at present, are not reliable enough to exclude exposure to potentially poisonous mushrooms when used alone."
A comparison of the accuracy of mushroom identification applications using digital photographs - PubMed
Mushroom identification applications may be useful future tools to assist clinical toxicologists and the general public in the accurate identification of mushrooms species but, at present, are not reliable enough to exclude exposure to potentially poisonous mushrooms when used alone.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
** Authors & Affiliations:
Sarah E Hodgson 1 2, Christine McKenzie 1, Tom W May 3, Shaun L Greene 1 2
1 Victorian Poisons Information Centre, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia.
2 Emergency Department, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia.
3 Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria, Melbourne, Australia.
*** to access text, to buy, etc.
Last edited:
Point of my long post above?
Can foragers depend on Mushroom-Identifying apps to help them make the right choices?
A user may use app (to try) to select:
--- edible/safe mushrooms.
OR
--- toxic mushrooms, likely to be fatal.
Seems even experienced mushroom foragers w one or more M-I apps and a shelf full of mushroom books may not pick the category of mushrooms they actually want.
Did EP's Beef Wellingon contain mushrooms she had foraged? IDK.
Can foragers depend on Mushroom-Identifying apps to help them make the right choices?
A user may use app (to try) to select:
--- edible/safe mushrooms.
OR
--- toxic mushrooms, likely to be fatal.
Seems even experienced mushroom foragers w one or more M-I apps and a shelf full of mushroom books may not pick the category of mushrooms they actually want.
Did EP's Beef Wellingon contain mushrooms she had foraged? IDK.
I am not going to go by what she claims unless police verifies it.
Last edited:
Her claim of dumping the dehydrator after guests got sick is more incriminating though. No reason to lie
Last edited:
SouthAussie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 29,782
- Reaction score
- 181,519
There is a new article out today in The Australian. (paraphrased in case it is paywalled)
Says that it has been 6 weeks now, since the poisonings.
The police and their toxicologists have known for weeks now that death cap mushrooms are the odds-on cause of the deaths. The scientific argument seems to be about how many mushrooms and other precise details ... EP fueled speculation when she stated an Asian grocery store and a mainstream supermarket chain were the suppliers.
The guests arrived at midday on 29th July.
Reason for the catch-up is still unknown (to the media).
In country towns, avoiding ex-family is hard, so everyone tries to get along.
Simon Patterson is well liked in the community. Volunteers as a photographer and basketball coach.
The police have the dumped dehydrator.
Nothing really new in the article, just a rehash of all of the things that we know ... very slow and agonising deaths, probably renal and liver failure, EP's childhood and the driving offences, etc etc. (No mention of a 'death wall', thank goodness.)
Says that it has been 6 weeks now, since the poisonings.
The police and their toxicologists have known for weeks now that death cap mushrooms are the odds-on cause of the deaths. The scientific argument seems to be about how many mushrooms and other precise details ... EP fueled speculation when she stated an Asian grocery store and a mainstream supermarket chain were the suppliers.
The guests arrived at midday on 29th July.
Reason for the catch-up is still unknown (to the media).
In country towns, avoiding ex-family is hard, so everyone tries to get along.
Simon Patterson is well liked in the community. Volunteers as a photographer and basketball coach.
The police have the dumped dehydrator.
Nothing really new in the article, just a rehash of all of the things that we know ... very slow and agonising deaths, probably renal and liver failure, EP's childhood and the driving offences, etc etc. (No mention of a 'death wall', thank goodness.)
TootsieFootsie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 13,613
- Reaction score
- 91,463
The above article says that there is a clearer picture now on whether or not charges will be laid
JBowie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2020
- Messages
- 1,855
- Reaction score
- 14,526
Some other points (paraphrased):
The article (by-line: John Ferguson) says that she owns an apartment in Glen Waverley. All other articles I have read about her property holdings say that she owns a townhouse in Mount Waverley, so is that sloppy writing by Ferguson?
It says that homicide detectives don't usually publicly name a suspect and it is understood they have done so in this case to apply pressure to EP.
Some legal eagles are of the opinion that proving intent will be a hard task.
SouthAussie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 29,782
- Reaction score
- 181,519
I'm glad to hear it is much clearer to the detectives!
The article doesn't make it any clearer. Not even any hints that I can see (that is, if the journos are hearing anything from their police sources, off the record).
JBowie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2020
- Messages
- 1,855
- Reaction score
- 14,526
Agree. I had to laugh at that bit.
I think it is A. At least that's how read it.
TootsieFootsie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 13,613
- Reaction score
- 91,463
Yes I was trying to read between the lines but nothing seems much clearer to me.
Observe_dont_Absorb
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2022
- Messages
- 3,163
- Reaction score
- 23,007
Those apps sound disappointing and far too unreliable to be used in determining whether something could be safe to eat.
As for EP's Beef Wellington, well, that's what we're all here for... who knows what was really in it. However, she does not claim to have included any foraged mushrooms. She states it had store purchased fresh button mushrooms and also an earlier purchased pack of dried mushrooms from 'an asian shop' that she doesn't recall.
In my opinion, if she did deliberately poison her guests, she would have been far better off to claim she foraged mushrooms, thereby making it look like an error.
Proving Intent?
Gotta agree. Proving intent is ususally, or at least often, hard.
Few perps do prosecution the favor of announcing to friends: I'm planning to kill [name(s)] next week by [shooting, stabbing, poisoning, what-ev].
But perps often unknowing leave digital trails which may be enormously helpful in showing their thinking before their dastardly deeds. For ex, online computer or tablet searches about ways of causing deaths. Or
Or more subtle clues in phone usage records?
snipped for focus. @JBowie
Gotta agree. Proving intent is ususally, or at least often, hard.
Few perps do prosecution the favor of announcing to friends: I'm planning to kill [name(s)] next week by [shooting, stabbing, poisoning, what-ev].
But perps often unknowing leave digital trails which may be enormously helpful in showing their thinking before their dastardly deeds. For ex, online computer or tablet searches about ways of causing deaths. Or
Or more subtle clues in phone usage records?
Possible Evidence of Intent or Premeditation.
ETA to above post, but got timed out.
I've followed some murder cases where good old fashioned pen & paper notes helped nail premeditation & intent sufficient for a conviction. For ex, (tho not applicable in these VIC. deaths):
- supplies shopping list, like rope,duct tape, tarps;
- hand drawn map to victim's house;
- sketch of floor plan, showing co-conspiritor the room where attack is to occur.
If these VIC. homicides were intended, did the perp make a TIMELINE of planned actions:
- On [day], phone/text [names] to invite for meal.
- [day], grocery shop for ingredients for Beef Wellington, salad, sides, etc.
- On [day], [insert NEFARIOUS action here]
- On day of, yadda yadda,etc
- On [day], prepare ___
^ could be scrawled on a sheet of note paper, just saved in computer file, or printed out.
Just thinking of possibilities, not saying any of this happened.
ETA to above post, but got timed out.
I've followed some murder cases where good old fashioned pen & paper notes helped nail premeditation & intent sufficient for a conviction. For ex, (tho not applicable in these VIC. deaths):
- supplies shopping list, like rope,duct tape, tarps;
- hand drawn map to victim's house;
- sketch of floor plan, showing co-conspiritor the room where attack is to occur.
If these VIC. homicides were intended, did the perp make a TIMELINE of planned actions:
- On [day], phone/text [names] to invite for meal.
- [day], grocery shop for ingredients for Beef Wellington, salad, sides, etc.
- On [day], [insert NEFARIOUS action here]
- On day of, yadda yadda,etc
- On [day], prepare ___
^ could be scrawled on a sheet of note paper, just saved in computer file, or printed out.
Just thinking of possibilities, not saying any of this happened.
One thing that I find surprising is that EP's lawyer allowed her to submit that second statement to the police. She could always claim she was scared and under duress for any untruths in her first statement. But she can't use that excuse for inconsistencies in the second one.
It commits her defense to a very specific delineation of what occurred. Even in the excerpts that made it into the press there were a lot of details in terms of where the ingredients were procured, what foods were prepared and how they were served, what the children ate, and so on.
Wouldn't the usual defense plan be to first let the prosecution make their case, then try to poke holes in the evidence? I understand her attorney has a pretty good reputation. But still, I find it puzzling. It just doesn't seem like good strategy. Either he must really believe her or she was very insistent on putting it out.
It commits her defense to a very specific delineation of what occurred. Even in the excerpts that made it into the press there were a lot of details in terms of where the ingredients were procured, what foods were prepared and how they were served, what the children ate, and so on.
Wouldn't the usual defense plan be to first let the prosecution make their case, then try to poke holes in the evidence? I understand her attorney has a pretty good reputation. But still, I find it puzzling. It just doesn't seem like good strategy. Either he must really believe her or she was very insistent on putting it out.
I get the sense that with EP’s overinflated opinion of herself, she believes her story is so watertight that either it will be (a) completely accepted as a truth or, (b) introduce so many elements that raise doubt or opportunity for someone else to have been involved, that she will get off all together. Going with this, she would have been almost above accepting any advice annd insist her lawyers and put out the statement she did.
SouthAussie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 29,782
- Reaction score
- 181,519
Somewhere along the line EP switched lawyers. I read it in one of the articles about her retaining barrister Bill Doogue. (I have been looking for the link again, but haven't found it yet.)
I think it is most likely that the statement was made in conjunction with the first (unnamed) lawyer. Bill Doogue's team have basically told her to keep quiet.
When asked directly, Ms Patterson said: 'My lawyer has told me not to talk to you.' Link
imo
- Status