Australia - 3 dead after eating wild mushrooms, Leongatha, Victoria, Aug 2023 #5 *Arrest*

[Neet_Mc]

Imagine a scenario where Simon had attended and got severely sick or died. Would we have ever heard about the dehydrator?

Given there are CCTV cameras visible at the tip from images I have gleaned printed in the media, quite possibly. I would still imagine that cctv would be used by LE to corroborate EP’s own statement about her whereabouts and retrace her steps.

 

[kittythehare]

Who decides if a excuse is acceptable when people are dead and she has blatantly lied?

She is the only named person of interest in 3 deaths and one who nearly died!

I decide for me because I am here a few years now and it has taught me some critical thinking skills.

As I said there is no factual information connecting the kitchen utensil to the deaths at this point in time.

 

[kittythehare]

So, by her own omission, GP, DP and SP do not fall under that category!

not necessarily, no.

 

[jjleroche]

'And her family'
So.... the husband and children ALLEDGEDLY forage too?
MAYBE the in laws as well? Interesting. That's the first time I've heard that.

Hmmmm. How very interesting (JMO). (First I'd heard of it also - thanks for the heads-up Investikater.)

 

[Salah11]

deleted as quoted wrong post

 

[jjleroche]

Well the facts are she got accused of a horrendous act and her reaction to that accusation was to throw away evidence into a murder investigation!!

You don't know her back ground at all, and you do not know what demons she may have been dealing with, either at that moment, or long-term.

If I were a betting person, I'd lay big $$$ on her having been in situations/relationships for years in which there have been power imbalances (with her being the one with less power). To be absolutely clear here, I am not suggesting that this comment relates to her ex-husband. People interact with others throughout their lives - workplace colleagues, parents, siblings, children, neighbours, tradesmen - all manner of people.

If such power imbalances were something she had experienced frequently, (and within this dynamic, she was often blamed for things which were not of her doing,) tossing the dehydrator could well be a result.

Another thought, not necessarily related to power imbalances - IF SP did ask EP the question about the dehydrator, maybe he knew what buttons to press to scare her, which in turn, may have been just one of several possibilities regarding reasons for tossing the dehydrator. JMO

 

[jjleroche]

Yes, it stands out to me that her ex-husband voiced suspicion very early on (according to EP’s statement) when he asked, “is that what you used to poison my parents?”
I don’t understand why he would suspect that if things were amicable?

IMO he knew how to push EP's buttons to upset her.

 

[SouthAussie]

RSBM

If such power imbalances were something she had experienced frequently, (and within this dynamic, she was often blamed for things which were not of her doing,) tossing the dehydrator could well be a result.

I think there was a power imbalance happening right at that time.

Baptist church members said that SP's parents did not want a reconciliation (as reported in the Under Investigation show).

EP said she didn't see her in-laws so much since her marriage breakdown. Link

This was a family who she was apparently close with, and now she didn't see them so much ... but SP likely did.
It may be that SP and the children still all attended family events, but EP was no longer invited.
Her own mother and father had passed, she was now completely "motherless and fatherless".
I think her support systems were now very weak.

Prior to that, I don't see her as a weakened woman. Eg: she was happily confiding to strangers on the internet that she snuck in a cleaning woman to do the heavier cleaning, and SP didn't know.

 

[katydid23]

This is actually one thing that's nagging at me (other than the absence of facts, but that will improve).
I cannot see a motive I would believe.

Of course, not all crimes make sense. Therefore it's also annoying to me as I work in mental health, that I cannot see a mental health background I would think as more likely than the others. And my theories vary wildly (from something Munchausen-like to just being depressed and being bad with social stuff, from experiencing psychotic symptoms to being a domestic abuse victim).

What would be the reason for EP to (try to) kill DP, GP, HW & IW? What would EP gain from killing them?

Please do not lynch me - I am not saying she must be innocent. She might be guilty, it is not unlikely. But I just cannot piece it together and it is not something I feel too often in these stories.

I feel like her original plan was to get rid of her husband. Probable motives would be child custody and division of assets and perhaps some anger/resentment, which is often present when couples separate.

At the time of the luncheon date, EP appeared to have full custody of the 2 children and she seemed to be in control of the real estate holdings. [which were purchased with her inheritance]

However, the divorce has not been finalised. It was a critical time for her to try and preserve her hold on the property and the children. Reportedly the luncheon was designed to be a mediation of some sort concerning the couples separation.

That brings the 4 victims into the middle of the divorce issues. In my opinion, they were trying to leverage some kind of influence in SP's favour----maybe more custody time with the kids and a more beneficial property settlement?

And that doesn't even open the can of worms concerning religion. EP claims to be a proud Atheist while her ex and his family were devoutly religious. Were they pressuring her to send the kids to church or to a religious school, or to spend more time with them in the future? Were they judgmental about how she was as a mother?

I can see a scenario where EP just wanted to be rid of those people that she thought were trying to wrestle control of her children and her inheritance. Maybe she wanted to be free and clear to move where she wanted and do what she wanted with her new single life---without interference.

Her original target was probably her ex, and she saw an opportunity to take out his family at the same time, when the luncheon meeting was planned. After she had already planned her toxic menu and began cooking, she got the cancellation from SP. She had a big decision to make. Should she continue with the toxic menu if he was not going to be there?

I am kind of surprised that she did. Which makes me think that maybe much of the motive was anger/resentment and rage. JMO

 

[katydid23]

duplicate

 

[Lady Bug]

I still cannot fathom why she disposed of it, according to her explanation.

If she had not used it to process something poisonous, why be afraid of losing custody? Just makes no sense to me. What would they do?

But as you quite rightly say, we have discussed it repeatedly.

Just thinking out loud here....

Could it be that she sensed she was going to be blamed for making her lunch guests ill and it was going to be used against her by SP? Did she throw all the dehydrating equipment out to thwart any accusations he might make?

 

[MsMarple]

Just thinking out loud here....

Could it be that she sensed she was going to be blamed for making her lunch guests ill and it was going to be used against her by SP? Did she throw all the dehydrating equipment out to thwart any accusations he might make?

Wouldn’t the best way to thwart any accusations SP could make be by handing the dehydrator over to LE to test and therefore exonerate her?

After all she’s claiming she bought the mushrooms used in the meal from a supermarket and a grocery store. The dehydrator would not have been involved in the meal prep at all.

Instead she trashed the dehydrator then lied about it to LE. Does that not seem suspicious?

 

[katydid23]

I have no knowledge of any actual facts to support either the marrital assets being divided or the assets being un-divided - but in either case, how could killing her in-laws and 2 church members change anything in regards to dividing assets with her ex-husband? How would that plan make sense? I don't see how that would change anything (especially for the better).

I think it was about more than financial assets, although that was part of the issue. The luncheon was supposed to be a mediation---but then her ex dropped out. So it became a 'negotiation. And it was probably about the financial settlements and custody. Those 4 were there to negotiate a better outcome for her ex.

I think she was possibly sick and tired of 'judgemental family interference' and feeling she was being unfairly scrutinised.

I think she wanted total independence in the future and she saw her ex and his meddling family as a threat to her future happiness and to her financial stability. In her mind, he sent his family to try and pressure her to give him more time with the children and perhaps a better financial settlement.

She had already been complaining [online] that he was never spending time with the kids and she was the only left with all the family responsibilities. So maybe it angered her that his family was trying to get involved and leverage the situation.

The 2 church members may have been collateral damage, although she may have been a bit angry with them has well. I think she may have felt they were judging her, and her ability to raise the children, as she was an atheist. And they may have wanted her to send the children to church or to religious school, etc.

This is all speculation on my part bus based upon the articles we have all seen.

 

[Lady Bug]

So, by her own omission, GP, DP and SP do not fall under that category!

Sorry, I should have provided the full context.

She also said Gail was the mother she didn't have, and she was mixed up about who had died and who was in hospital when she made those statements to the media. She thought Ian had died and Don was still in hospital. There was no omission of any guests as I saw it.

Even though the police stated EP and SP were separated but remained amicable, I do think some of her statements hint at a less than amicable relationship, which is why her comment of re Ian and Heather never doing anything wrong to her makes me wonder who did do something wrong to her in her eyes.... was it SP?

 

[SouthAussie]

Just thinking out loud here....

Could it be that she sensed she was going to be blamed for making her lunch guests ill and it was going to be used against her by SP? Did she throw all the dehydrating equipment out to thwart any accusations he might make?

If EP did throw the dehydrator out on a Saturday morning (as may have been alluded to, by the rubbish tip worker who said he didn't work that Saturday morning to the PI on the Under Investigation show), then she either threw it out prior to the noon arrival of her lunch guests - or she threw it out the following Saturday morning, prior to the police executing their search warrant of her Leongatha property that day (I don't know when on that following Saturday they searched her house).

imo

 

[katydid23]

Yes, this is the main direction in which I can sense a glimmer of a motive. We don't have enough facts to really theorize anything, but if she did not want her ex to be around the children and if this meeting was about the ex seeing more of the children, then I can see how something that was said could make her angry and cause to act irrationally.

Specifically she had said that he was never around and she did all the heavy lifting with the family. So she would be upset, most likely, if he began fighting for partial custody. Especially if she thought it was his parents who were forcing the issue.

The other big issue was her possibly feeling judged by the 4 of them as they were all devoutly religious and she was a proclaimed atheist. I think they were planning to all try and hash that out, in terms of the children's future teachings. That could get very heated, in my opinion. If she felt they were trying to wrestle control of that situation I could see her acting irrationally in response.

But then she must have had a poison at hand for use (for whatever reason). Because had there been any pre-meditation, it just falls apart. How would she get to have more custody of children if she kills the messengers? And why kill the other couple anyways?

If SP's accusation was true, that she had tried to poison him earlier in the year, then it could make sense that she had some dried mushrooms on hand to try it again.

 

[Lady Bug]

Wouldn’t the best way to thwart any accusations SP could make be by handing the dehydrator over to LE to test and therefore exonerate her?

After all she’s claiming she bought the mushrooms used in the meal from a supermarket and a grocery store. The dehydrator would not have been involved in the meal prep at all.

Instead she trashed the dehydrator then lied about it to LE. Does that not seem suspicious?

At the time she threw the dehydrator out, no-one had died. Police were not involved. She didn't know she would be a triple murder suspect and need to provide evidence to investigators to prove her innocence.

<modsnip - opinion stated as fact>

 

[MsMarple]

I think it was about more than financial assets, although that was part of the issue. The luncheon was supposed to be a mediation---but then her ex dropped out. So it became a 'negotiation. And it was probably about the financial settlements and custody. Those 4 were there to negotiate a better outcome for her ex.

I think she was possibly sick and tired of 'judgemental family interference' and feeling she was being unfairly scrutinised.

I think she wanted total independence in the future and she saw her ex and his meddling family as a threat to her future happiness and to her financial stability. In her mind, he sent his family to try and pressure her to give him more time with the children and perhaps a better financial settlement.

She had already been complaining [online] that he was never spending time with the kids and she was the only left with all the family responsibilities. So maybe it angered her that his family was trying to get involved and leverage the situation.

The 2 church members may have been collateral damage, although she may have been a bit angry with them has well. I think she may have felt they were judging her, and her ability to raise the children, as she was an atheist. And they may have wanted her to send the children to church or to religious school, etc.

This is all speculation on my part bus based upon the articles we have all seen.

And while we’re speculating based upon released articles I wonder if the alleged mediation that was supposed to happen during the lunch was some sort of intervention due to alcohol or othe substance abuse?

That would certainly impact child custody issues and not in EP’s favor. JMO of course but IMO it’s significant that she was driving drunk as an adult of 29 as opposed to a youthful mistake.

REVEALED: Mushroom cook’s past run-ins with police

The woman who remains a suspect in a deadly mushroom beef wellington investigation has been revealed to have fled the scene of a drunken car crash and failed to provide information to police.

www.perthnow.com.au

 

[MsMarple]

At the time she threw the dehydrator out, no-one had died. Police were not involved. She didn't know she would be a triple murder suspect and need to provide evidence to investigators to prove her innocence.

<modsnip - opinion stated as fact>

So why did the mention of the dehydrator make her concerned about custody if she hadn’t used it in some nefarious way?

What was the connection between the dehydrator and a crime?

 

[Lady Bug]

If EP did throw the dehydrator out on a Saturday morning (as may have been alluded to, by the rubbish tip worker who said he didn't work that Saturday morning to the PI on the Under Investigation show), then she either threw it out prior to the noon arrival of her lunch guests - or she threw it out the following Saturday morning, prior to the police executing their search warrant of her Leongatha property that day (I don't know when on that following Saturday they searched her house).

imo

It couldn't have been before the lunch because she said she threw it out the day after it was spoken about at the hospital when the children and SP were there. I could be wrong, but I feel that was when she herself was in hospital which was the Monday/Tuesday.... as I don't feel she would have been at the hospital the guests were at.... again, I could be wrong.

If that's the case I think the tip worker was meaning he wasn't working on the Saturday when the police came?

The police questioned her on the Saturday. She lied to the police about the dehydrator. It appears the police had been to the tip prior to going to her house. They returned to her house later that evening and she chose not to answer further questions.