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

[katydid23]

What makes you believe that they didn't?

It is customary in Australia to bring food and/or beverages, and very unusual not to.

Even if they did, they would have told the medical experts exactly what they brought to the lunch, when they arrived at the hospital.

Any food or beverages would have been discussed and investigated from the start. And the focus still ended up on the Beef Wellington as the most likely source of the toxins.

 

[katydid23]

It's been linked several times already.
Here is one.

Patterson and her estranged husband, Simon, had an acrimonious relationship, and had been living in separate homes for several years before formally separating in 2021

Mushroom cook says she bought fungi from Asian grocer and her children ate the lunch leftovers

Erin Patterson told police she, too, was sick from the beef Wellington lunch that police suspect killed her former in-laws and another relative.

www.theage.com.au

But if they did not formally separate until 2021 , and her mother died 3 years previously, then her inheritance is partially up for grabs, IMO.

 

[MsMarple]

Guest-Provided Food? More.

@MsMarple Thanks for responding. Pls reread my post.

No, not saying I suspect the guests brought DC mushrooms or any other harmful food to EP's luncheon. Nope, nope, nope.

AFAIK, LE hasn't said anything about testing food from other sources. IDT they've said anything much since in the past couple weeks or more (but I could have missed it).

If EP is charged, yes, questions about guest-provided food are likely, imo to be raised at trial.

Part of Crim.Def. 101 = LE had tunnel vision & rushed to arrest our client, did not fully explore possibilities other than our client; leaving the real killer out there.
Hence my thought that LE are checking possibilities to rule out other explanations for these tragic deaths and injury. So the def team cannot make headway w ReasDoubt, by arguing it was a sloppy investigation.
jmo
[ETA: I reread my post and realized that not much of this came thru there.]

Thanks for clarifying @al66pine! I understand better now.

 

[al66pine]

Guest-Provided Food. More.
IF EP was charged, would def. team say ---> LE did sloppy investigation, rushed to arrest EP, and then try to use the guest-provided food as possible cause of death & injury? Trying to estab. ReasDoubt?
IDK, but possibly. And to be absolutely clear, IDK if LE is likely to arrest her. Making no predictions, just spitballing possibilities.

Slipping into hypothetical interview w LE mode, in an effort to explore possibility ^ and to try to fend it off.

Q’s for EP.
Q: What food did the guest(s) bring?
Q: Did they say it was home made? Or bought at store?
Q: Was the guest-supplied food CONSUMED? *
Q: Was ALL of it consumed? *
Q: Did all four have some? A polite sized bite or more?
Q: Did EP consume some? A bite or more?
Q: Were there any leftovers?
Q: Were they left at EP's home?
Q: Did she eat (more)?
Q: Did the children eat some? Did they become sick?
Q: Did (adorable ) doggo eat any? Did dog become sick?
Q: If any remained, did EP dispose of the rest?
Q: Or did some remain in EP's home, avail. for lab tests?

I would be curious about how EP would answer these ^ questions. And about how any other interviewee answered. Maybe what SP had heard from parents, or aunt, before or just after lunch, while in hosp.

LE might also be interested in asking EP---
Q: Were any leftovers of guest-provided food sent home w the guest(s)?

And then asking her about whether she later talked or texted w guests, before they went to hosp or while in hosp. LE could compare her answers about talking or texting to phone records, could pick up discrepancies (lies?) EP may have told.

Q: Did the guests consume the rest of the leftovers?
Q: Did their pets eat any?
Q: Did some remain in guests' home, avail. for lab tests?

LE might have posed these or similar questions to the guests/victims while they were in hosp.

Just thinking aloud.
That''s why, imo, any guest-provided food is/may be relevant, to LE now or to the prosecutor later.
Not saying anything here is likely.

___________________________________
* Different kinds of communal gatherings?
1.Some, which I know as "potluck dinners" (or known to "Prairie Home Companion" fans
A Prairie Home Companion - Wikipedia as "covered dish dinners" )
are communal meals where ppl bring "bring a dish" to contribute to a meal, and where the guest & hostess expect that the food will be CONSUMED by everyone at that gathering.

2. In other types of gatherings, in some circles, or on some occasions, when asked, the hostess may tell inquiring guests --- no, just, bring yourselves, and then guests bring something which they leave w there, UNOPENED, for the hosting household to consume or enjoy by themselves LATER. Some ppl would be characterize this as a "hostess gift."

 

[HongKongPhooey]

It is notable that any dish the guests may have contributed (perhaps a sweet or dessert?) did not make EP or her children ill.

DI Thomas says the children ate a separate meal. But if Nanna and Grandad brought lemon meringue pie, one would think they would have had some.

RSBM

Absolutely agree with you. Why did only the four become ill?

I don’t believe they brought anything but if they did, grandparents are unlikely to bring something the children dislike.

Bizarre enough IMO that their mother made an elaborate dish which supposedly required her to scrape off a key ingredient they dislike before they would eat it.

 

[HongKongPhooey]

I too hope for answers, and I very much hope that the truth will emerge.

Yes, this is indeed a serious matter - a very serious matter. The lives of Erin Patterson and her children will be forever scarred by this whole episode.

There have been many unfair assumptions made by some posters on this forum.

What makes you think that "it doesn't look (at this time) that the four were poisoned earlier or elsewhere"?
The four were related, and very close. It's entirely possible that dined/had a beverage together later. Additionally, given Australian custom, they likely brought food/beverages to the lunch - the deadly toxin may have been in something which they brought. IMO

Until we learn more, I’m withholding my sympathy for EP being “scarred”. It’s all perspective isn’t it?

One of the few facts we have at this point is that three people are actually dead with no future ahead of them, and the fourth is critically ill and now widowed.

 

[Sjöberg]

I suppose “formally separating” implies their marrriage was irretrievable but not necessarily that any legal property or parenting arrangements had been made.

Interesting, we need an Australian to weigh in about the local language.
To me, formally separated meant that all paperwork was finally finalized. That's what the emphasis of formally, officially or legally would mean in my circles, but the Austrailian lingo might use them differently (especially as legal systems etc also vary).

 

[Oona]

But if they did not formally separate until 2021 , and her mother died 3 years previously, then her inheritance is partially up for grabs, IMO.

It really depends if any binding financial agreement had already been agreed upon since their separation.
If an inheritance was received towards the end of the relationship or even after separation but the property settlement had not been finalised, the inheritance could be taken into account in their final property settlement.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that SP will be entitled to a share of EP’s inheritance, but it may be taken into account when dividing assets and property, and adjustments may be made that take the inheritance amount into consideration.

 

[Oona]

Interesting, we need an Australian to weigh in about the local language.
To me, formally separated meant that all paperwork was finally finalized. That's what the emphasis of formally, officially or legally would mean in my circles, but the Austrailian lingo might use them differently (especially as legal systems etc also vary).

As an Australian it is still ambiguous to me.
I would have interpreted it the same way as you. Without more information we really can’t be sure if it just means just a more decisive end to the relationship instead of an on/off limbo stage that happens with some relationship break-ups.
In Australia a couple need to have been separated for at least 1 year in order to apply for a divorce. A divorce is a “ formal” way of ending a marriage, a separation not so much, though arrangements regarding property and children can be formally agreed on before a divorce.

 

[Sjöberg]

In Australia a couple need to have been separated for at least 1 year in order to apply for a divorce.

This is actually a very interesting rule, that I only learned about very recently, in connection with that same case! It did not cross my mind that filling some criteria such as this one could be still needed for a divorce, and that surely changes the context of the words used, too.
If the legal divorce process was actually still ongoing, many possible motives (for any actions) that I had dismissed, come back to play (for EP of course, but for others as well).

 

[Oona]

This is actually a very interesting rule, that I only learned about very recently, in connection with that same case! It did not cross my mind that filling some criteria such as this one could be still needed for a divorce, and that surely changes the context of the words used, too.
If the legal divorce process was actually still ongoing, many possible motives (for any actions) that I had dismissed, come back to play (for EP of course, but for others as well).

Yes, and during most separations and divorces parties can usually agree to division of property and care and living arrangements for their children without needing to apply to the Family Court. If the relationship breakdown is particularly acrimonious, as theirs might be, it is possible that one party is threatening to take it to the Family Court to resolve their disagreements.
Prior to applying to the Family Court the couple must show that they have made efforts to reach an agreement such as through family dispute resolution or mediation.
I wonder if the lunch, that SP was originally expected to attend, was an effort towards mediation. I know it has been described by various media sources as a mediation.

 

[Auntie Cipation]

I and many Australians would never arrive empty handed when invited to a meal.

I was told absolutely that I didn't need to bring anything to a friends Xmas dinner, that was emphatic.

I think it's instilled in us over the years that it's rude not to take something, either food, flowers or some other gift.

Oh and I ignored my friend and followed my conscience and took the biggest box of Ferrero Rocher chocolates I could find.

Just curious, does this custom apply to family members who presumably host each other for meals often?

 

[Ellery84]

“What I would say is that anything that’s in the media … working on an investigation through the media is unhelpful to our investigation,” Steendam said.


“The matter needs to be dealt with by us, looked at [by] us, and determined by us thoroughly what’s actually occurred, and using the evidence that we have to determine and understand exactly what’s happened and if we can explain what caused the deaths.”

Right, so the police at that time didn’t seem too thrilled with some of the investigative reporting that was occurring, but we do have a free press in this country, and that’s important.

I wonder if the “death wall” pieces in the press were a bit too much for L. E.?

Maybe the tradie should’ve gone to them before hocking his Death Wall pics to News Corp or whoever got the exclusive on that one. IDK.

All jmo

 

[Ellery84]

Just curious, does this custom apply to family members who presumably host each other for meals often?

I think it would depend on the context, because context matters

 

[katydid23]

Yes, and during most separations and divorces parties can usually agree to division of property and care and living arrangements for their children without needing to apply to the Family Court. If the relationship breakdown is particularly acrimonious, as theirs might be, it is possible that one party is threatening to take it to the Family Court to resolve their disagreements.
Prior to applying to the Family Court the couple must show that they have made efforts to reach an agreement such as through family dispute resolution or mediation.
I wonder if the lunch, that SP was originally expected to attend, was an effort towards mediation. I know it has been described by various media sources as a mediation.

I wish we knew why SP decided not to attend, reportedly at the last minute.

If he was originally planning to attend, it could have been a mediation effort---the other 4 guests attempting to mediate the separating spouses as they clarify their issues.

But once he dropped out, then what? Does it then become a negotiation, between his family and EP, in terms of the custody of the children and the future?

 

[ch_13]

an alleged 'anonymous friend' of SPs as retold in DM fashion.
I disregarded it almost immediately.
It is interesting that almost all media portrayed her as villian.
Police are furious about media handling .

“What I would say is that anything that’s in the media … working on an investigation through the media is unhelpful to our investigation,” Steendam said.


“The matter needs to be dealt with by us, looked at [by] us, and determined by us thoroughly what’s actually occurred, and using the evidence that we have to determine and understand exactly what’s happened and if we can explain what caused the deaths.”
Steendam said she was uncertain if the statement was handed to the media before it was given to police.

Deputy police chief slams ‘unhelpful’ circulation of mushroom cook’s statement

Victoria Police say their lengthy investigation into the deaths of three people will include examining the veracity of Erin Patterson’s statement about the fatal lunch.

www.theage.com.au

While she doesn't come straight out and say it, I got the impression that the Deputy Commissioner wasn't slamming the media so much as she was upset that the defense team released the statement publicly:

Victoria’s deputy police commissioner said it was unhelpful that a lengthy legal statement from Erin Patterson about how she cooked the mushroom meal believed to have killed three people was widely circulated before detectives could examine its veracity.

Of course the media is going to print any news that comes their way. But they would never have gotten it unless the defense wanted them to have it. Which is why she also added the following:

She stressed it was not an official police statement, but a document taken by and provided by Patterson’s legal team.

 

[Baby baby Jane]

I wish we knew why SP decided not to attend, reportedly at the last minute.

If he was originally planning to attend, it could have been a mediation effort---the other 4 guests attempting to mediate the separating spouses as they clarify their issues.

But once he dropped out, then what? Does it then become a negotiation, between his family and EP, in terms of the custody of the children and the future?

Another potential reason for the meeting, and why SP didn’t attend is the children. Maybe the children have expressed desire to live with grandparents, or with SP & grandparents support. Not sure if they had to change schools and now aren’t happy, maybe a more local person could clarify if they moved far enough to change schools? Just considering a different angle - potential loss of children but due to children’s wishes.

 

[Ellery84]

While she doesn't come straight out and say it, I got the impression that the Deputy Commissioner wasn't slamming the media so much as she was upset that the defense team released the statement publicly:

Victoria’s deputy police commissioner said it was unhelpful that a lengthy legal statement from Erin Patterson about how she cooked the mushroom meal believed to have killed three people was widely circulated before detectives could examine its veracity.

Of course the media is going to print any news that comes their way. But they would never have gotten it unless the defense wanted them to have it. Which is why she also added the following:

She stressed it was not an official police statement, but a document taken by and provided by Patterson’s legal team.

Thank you. All great points!

 

[Ellery84]

Another potential reason for the meeting, and why SP didn’t attend is the children.

Maybe he went with them to the cinemas?

 

[al66pine]

Provided to Media, or a Cloak & Dagger Leak?

Deputy Commissioner wasn't slamming the media so much as she was upset that the defense team released the statement publicly.... she also added the following:
She stressed it was not an official police statement, but a document taken by and provided by Patterson’s legal team

snipped for focus. @ch_13 Thanks for post, link & quote, which clears up the leak issue, at least imo.

In earlier posts, along w others, I said "leaked" stmt.
But after seeing ^ MSM quote of named LE official, seems waaay more believable that EP legal team PROVIDED stmt directly to media.

Conceivably the law firm sent, faxed, or emailed EP's stmt to one or more media outlets w a cover note or letter.
And/or a media outlet may have provided the ^ LE official a copy of law firm's cover note/letter.

imo
______________________________________

Not that it necessarily matters, who FIRST said EP's stmt was "leaked" as if a cloak & dagger matter?
IIRC, abc-australia (maybe a local affiliate), said something like --- obtained exclusively by our network.