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

[LordCyrus]

The amount of disagreement on this thread points to reasonable doubt and no conviction.

 

[Ellery84]

The amount of disagreement on this thread points to reasonable doubt and no conviction.

Well, with respect, we are just mainly spitballing in the dark with no evidence in front of us and a handful of flimsy news clippings.

It’s very easy to disagree when we have a limited anoint of facts and hardly any agreed evidence.

Jmo

 

[Lady Bug]

She gave her children leftovers of the beef wellington for dinner the next day.

That to me is not the actions of a woman who made beef wellington with the intention of causing harm.

She packaged up the remainder and gave it to the Health Dept when she could easily have said there was nothing left.

Was there something else with mushrooms in it, a sauce for example? Hopefully IW will be able to shed lite on everything served at the lunch.

It wasn't just the dehydrator which was taken to the tip, I think there were also microwave dishes?

Taking items to the tip and lying about it are actions are of a guilty conscience, but guilt of what? It couldn't have been guilt of murder as at the time she went to the tip all her guests were very unwell but still alive. Guilt then of a mistake which made her guests ill?

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

The problem for EP is that the medical experts interrogated all 4 victims in the hospital, specifically about ANY thing they all ate and drank before they got sick.

So IF there was a side dish or dessert or beverage they all shared, the medical team knew about it. It would have been investigated if it was relevant. If it contained mushrooms it would have been mentioned already.

The chances of any of the victims bringing a mushroom dish to a Beef Wellington luncheon are pretty slim. And if they brought dessert or hot rolls or something, what are the chances they'd all be dying?

If they all had eaten snacks or beverages with someone else, the investigators would know about it already. I doubt it happened because of the timing. Maybe they all had coffee and sweet rolls that morning before they left for lunch, who knows. But the chances of that ending up mimicking death cap poisoning seems unlikely.

If they had gone to eat a meal with SP right after the lunch, the medical team would know about that already too. If any mushrooms were involved they would be focusing on that as well. Again, I think the chances are pretty slim. JMO

I agree with all your points but until we have this info verified by LE and scientists then it's a quite vague and grey area. I think it's been officially confirmed that the poison / toxin was DC mushrooms, then obviously that's to be respected.

But there's many ways to put juice of a DC mushroom (which I see from a link someone posted here ages ago is enough to kill) -or- powdered DC mushroom in or on something that would seem innocuous, especially say in a cup of coffee.

I guess detectives are way more clever than me (phew!) and they're looking at all possibilities so these things will certainly be addressed but I would worry before EP is roundly blamed for this situation that serious consideration needs to be given as to whether the foursome could have been subjects of a 'hit' by another disgruntled party, nothing to do with EP or SP and their situation, maybe, or that they may have been victim of their own misadventure?

I will say one thing though with regard to EP - the saying 'it's not the crime, it's the cover up' could easily be applied to her if we are to believe she a) blamed 'an asian food store'; b) threw away the mushroom dehydrator; c) changed her story a few times. Not looking good.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Well, with respect, we are just mainly spitballing in the dark with no evidence in front of us and a handful of flimsy news clippings.

It’s very easy to disagree when we have a limited anoint of facts and hardly any agreed evidence.

Jmo

So true, we don't have enough facts and we don't know what LE has established or are researching. Maybe they're keeping quiet or maybe it's a long slow process.

If EP is still separated from her children then that would be a very serious matter involving human rights of herself and her children, plus their long term welfare, so one would imagine there must be something pretty legally solid supporting that court order, unless it's a voluntary agreement.

 

[ch_13]

Well, with respect, we are just mainly spitballing in the dark with no evidence in front of us and a handful of flimsy news clippings.

It’s very easy to disagree when we have a limited anoint of facts and hardly any agreed evidence.

Jmo

I agree, and the cops obviously know a lot more than we do even if the toxicology and forensic reports aren't back yet.

Just from interviews with the victims, Simon, the children and other friends/family they probably have answers to the following:

1. What other foods were brought to the luncheon?
2. How exactly was the food plated and served?
3. What else did the four victims eat before and after the lunch?
4. What exactly was the lunch topic and how did the discussions go?
5. Where were the children during the lunch and did they eat any of the leftover food?
6. What exactly are EP's true feelings towards her ex and his family?
7. What kind of experience does EP have foraging for mushrooms?

I think if we knew the answers to these questions alone, there would be a lot less disagreement about what transpired on that fateful day.

 

[katydid23]

She gave her children leftovers of the beef wellington for dinner the next day.

We don't know how true that statement is. She said she scraped the mushrooms off and gave the children the beef.

If the mushrooms were toxic then the beef would have been as well because it was cooked together and the juices were intermingled. So if she scraped the mushrooms off and fed the kids the beef, they would have been very ill too, if the mushrooms were toxic.

So did she really feed them the leftovers? IDK if I believe that. If it is true that the kids ate the beef, then the mushrooms she scraped off were not death caps, imo.

That to me is not the actions of a woman who made beef wellington with the intention of causing harm.

It could be, if she lied about giving her kids the same meal.

She packaged up the remainder and gave it to the Health Dept when she could easily have said there was nothing left.

True. But maybe she gave them toxic free leftovers, purposely. Who knows?

Was there something else with mushrooms in it, a sauce for example? Hopefully IW will be able to shed lite on everything served at the lunch.

I think that is a very good possibility. She could have easily made a toxic mushroom sauce/gravy, that she and the kids didn't eat. It would be easy to dispose of, and then she could give the leftovers and there'd be no incriminating evidence.

It wasn't just the dehydrator which was taken to the tip, I think there were also microwave dishes?

Taking items to the tip and lying about it are actions are of a guilty conscience, but guilt of what? It couldn't have been guilt of murder as at the time she went to the tip all her guests were very unwell but still alive. Guilt then of a mistake which made her guests ill?

If it was a mistake, why did she, her 2 kids and her Labrador escape being poisoned while everyone else was severely ill?

 

[Neet_Mc]

She gave her children leftovers of the beef wellington for dinner the next day.

That to me is not the actions of a woman who made beef wellington with the intention of causing harm.

She packaged up the remainder and gave it to the Health Dept when she could easily have said there was nothing left.

Was there something else with mushrooms in it, a sauce for example? Hopefully IW will be able to shed lite on everything served at the lunch.

It wasn't just the dehydrator which was taken to the tip, I think there were also microwave dishes?

Taking items to the tip and lying about it are actions are of a guilty conscience, but guilt of what? It couldn't have been guilt of murder as at the time she went to the tip all her guests were very unwell but still alive. Guilt then of a mistake which made her guests ill?

Someone who that thought their cooking made guests sick and happily supplied leftovers to health dept would have happily supplied the dehydrator too as, seemingly, they have nothing to hide.
EP did not do this, and went to great lengths to dispose of it (versus her own garbage bin), so it must be assumed there is a reason why.

 

[katydid23]

The amount of disagreement on this thread points to reasonable doubt and no conviction.

Not necessarily. We are not a jury with all the witness testimony, expert reports etc, at our finger tips.

I think if the jury gets the medical reports and expert testimony, etc, there will be a consensus. JMO

 

[Forest_Wood]

Was there something else with mushrooms in it, a sauce for example? Hopefully IW will be able to shed lite on everything served at the lunch.

You make a very good point about possibly something else with mushrooms in it. As a possibility, what about a mushroom gravy mix that comes already prepared; the kind that you mix with other ingredients to make a gravy. Or perhaps someone else brought the gravy as their contribution to the meal. MOO.

 

[Neet_Mc]

Not necessarily. We are not a jury with all the witness testimony, expert reports etc, at our finger tips.

I think if the jury gets the medical reports and expert testimony, etc, there will be a consensus. JMO

Correct. LE will be playing extremely careful game and controlling what material is released to the public arena to ensure a defence team do not run the angle of unfair trial if things come to that (which they are entitled to do, and will do, when up against a wall with facts and evidence).
Conflict between free speech and the right to a fair trial can arise in the reporting of crime, particularly when the report concerns proceedings before and during a trial. A jury must determine the case before it based on admissible evidence before the court, and not on prejudicial information from outside.
Also: Social Media and the Fair Trial
Personally, I think it’s a case of the less we hear now, the more is going on in the background to lock things down in the brief of evidence.
As mentioned before, it seems like the kids are still removed from EP. This suggests to me that there is LE intervention to ensure this remains the case which must be based on their safety and the perceived risk. Obvs with the media circus, SP may want them to remain removed to ensure their rights (and anonymity) are respected.

 

[jjenny]

She gave her children leftovers of the beef wellington for dinner the next day.

That to me is not the actions of a woman who made beef wellington with the intention of causing harm.

She packaged up the remainder and gave it to the Health Dept when she could easily have said there was nothing left.

Was there something else with mushrooms in it, a sauce for example? Hopefully IW will be able to shed lite on everything served at the lunch.

It wasn't just the dehydrator which was taken to the tip, I think there were also microwave dishes?

Taking items to the tip and lying about it are actions are of a guilty conscience, but guilt of what? It couldn't have been guilt of murder as at the time she went to the tip all her guests were very unwell but still alive. Guilt then of a mistake which made her guests ill?

No, she says she gave her children leftovers. It would not be wise to assume that she actually gave them leftovers just because she says it.

 

[jjleroche]

The problem for EP is that the medical experts interrogated all 4 victims in the hospital, specifically about ANY thing they all ate and drank before they got sick.

So IF there was a side dish or dessert or beverage they all shared, the medical team knew about it. It would have been investigated if it was relevant. If it contained mushrooms it would have been mentioned already.

The chances of any of the victims bringing a mushroom dish to a Beef Wellington luncheon are pretty slim. And if they brought dessert or hot rolls or something, what are the chances they'd all be dying?

If they all had eaten snacks or beverages with someone else, the investigators would know about it already. I doubt it happened because of the timing. Maybe they all had coffee and sweet rolls that morning before they left for lunch, who knows. But the chances of that ending up mimicking death cap poisoning seems unlikely.

If they had gone to eat a meal with SP right after the lunch, the medical team would know about that already too. If any mushrooms were involved they would be focusing on that as well. Again, I think the chances are pretty slim. JMO

Yes, I agree that if the victims shared a beverage/side dish, snack prior, or later, the medical team, and accordingly, investigators would know about it.

I disagree however, that "if it contained mushrooms it would have been mentioned already."
I doubt this very much. IMO investigators would be very keen to keep any such specifics quiet in order to avoid the already problematic media storm with which they are having to deal.

Investigators are not there to provide fodder for the general public to consume. They are there to protect the community, in this instance by endeavouring to solve a case (which requires avoiding muddying waters further).

IMO they will only provide information when absolutely necessary. This is standard procedure. No doubt such information will be revealed when appropriate - MOO.

 

[Lady Bug]

We don't know how true that statement is. She said she scraped the mushrooms off and gave the children the beef.

If the mushrooms were toxic then the beef would have been as well because it was cooked together and the juices were intermingled. So if she scraped the mushrooms off and fed the kids the beef, they would have been very ill too, if the mushrooms were toxic.

So did she really feed them the leftovers? IDK if I believe that. If it is true that the kids ate the beef, then the mushrooms she scraped off were not death caps, imo.

It could be, if she lied about giving her kids the same meal.

True. But maybe she gave them toxic free leftovers, purposely. Who knows?

I think that is a very good possibility. She could have easily made a toxic mushroom sauce/gravy, that she and the kids didn't eat. It would be easy to dispose of, and then she could give the leftovers and there'd be no incriminating evidence.

If it was a mistake, why did she, her 2 kids and her Labrador escape being poisoned while everyone else was severely ill?

"We don't know how true that statement is. She said she scraped the mushrooms off and gave the children the beef."

The children would know how true that statement is.

"She could have easily made a toxic mushroom sauce/gravy, that she and the kids didn't eat. It would be easy to dispose of, and then she could give the leftovers and there'd be no incriminating evidence."

Exactly!

"If it was a mistake, why did she, her 2 kids and her Labrador escape being poisoned while everyone else was severely ill?"

Perhaps because the poisonous mushrooms were in something other than the beef wellington eg sauce/gravy.

Her actions indicate to me that all her thought processes revolve around custody of the children and keeping a clean sheet for a family court magistrate/judge.

 

[SouthAussie]

"We don't know how true that statement is. She said she scraped the mushrooms off and gave the children the beef."

The children would know how true that statement is.

I have a feeling that the children are the ones who revealed that the dehydrator was dumped.
Unless the rubbish tip workers told someone "hey, that lady who served up a poisoned meal dumped kitchen stuff here around that time".

Because the police knew about the dehydrator very early in the piece. I get the impression that they asked EP why she dumped it in her early no-comment interview, she lied, then clammed up.

imo

 

[jjleroche]

Correct. LE will be playing extremely careful game and controlling what material is released to the public arena to ensure a defence team do not run the angle of unfair trial if things come to that (which they are entitled to do, and will do, when up against a wall with facts and evidence).
Conflict between free speech and the right to a fair trial can arise in the reporting of crime, particularly when the report concerns proceedings before and during a trial. A jury must determine the case before it based on admissible evidence before the court, and not on prejudicial information from outside.
Also: Social Media and the Fair Trial
Personally, I think it’s a case of the less we hear now, the more is going on in the background to lock things down in the brief of evidence.
As mentioned before, it seems like the kids are still removed from EP. This suggests to me that there is LE intervention to ensure this remains the case which must be based on their safety and the perceived risk. Obvs with the media circus, SP may want them to remain removed to ensure their rights (and anonymity) are respected.

Great post Neet_Mc:
Just wondering about "it seems like the kids are still removed from EP." Could you please provide a link?
TIA

 

[Neet_Mc]

Great post Neet_Mc:
Just wondering about "it seems like the kids are still removed from EP." Could you please provide a link?
TIA

No link, just my own Mrs Mangle observation and speculation as they have not been vaguely alluded to in the media or appeared in any footage as either being present at the house or in the company of EP.
It is currently the end of 2 weeks of school holidays here in Victoria. Had they been present at the house or with EP, then presumably they would have been sighted given their Labrador farting almost makes a headline at this point.
I can imagine that if the whole thing protracts out to 2024, and they weren’t residing at home, then I’m certain legal representation can arrange for mediated/supervised visitations etc.

 

[SouthAussie]

Great post Neet_Mc:
Just wondering about "it seems like the kids are still removed from EP." Could you please provide a link?
TIA

I have been looking for the link that I read this week (no luck yet).

There was a media report that the house seemed empty, just the dog was out the back.

Not sure what that means exactly, but it didn't sound like a lively household with a family present.

 

[Neet_Mc]

I have been looking for the link that I read this week (no luck yet).

There was a media report that the house seemed empty, just the dog was out the back.

Not sure what that means exactly, but it didn't sound like a lively household with a family present.

I’ve read something similar at some point.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Someone who that thought their cooking made guests sick and happily supplied leftovers to health dept would have happily supplied the dehydrator too as, seemingly, they have nothing to hide.
EP did not do this, and went to great lengths to dispose of it (versus her own garbage bin), so it must be assumed there is a reason why.

Not least because one would worry it was the beef that was 'off' or contaminated long before thinking of poisonous mushrooms. I used to work in food health and hygiene - there's a pretty standard hierarchy of food poisoning culprits that cause severe food poisoning as they travel through the digestive tract, first with vomiting then diarrhoea, depending on which bacteria it is and the life cycle once digested.

The dinner guests had no reason to think they'd been poisoned by mushrooms and the food safety investigators would be wanting to check a) the meat; b) cross contamination of the food from other sources in EP's kitchen such as poor hygiene surrounding storing and preparation of other types of fish or meat or chicken which are the main culprits. Then they'd be wanting to check everywhere else the four ate or drank also looking for food poisoning or even spread of disease from unhealthy staff.

They wouldn't even be thinking of deliberate poisons or toxic plants for the first few days until it became clear the severe illness wasn't following the usual course of food poisoning.