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

[Sjöberg]

But beyond that what relevance is there in questioning whether a different fungus is the cause of the illness and deaths?

I think DC as a cause of the poison not being confirmed was simply specified because of that earlier post saying they think it's been confirmed. And then people just specified, that it has not been actually confirmed, just to avoid false information, not because it's especially important to the case.
It was this post that started the discussion:

I think it's been officially confirmed that the poison / toxin was DC mushrooms, then obviously that's to be respected.

And then this article was pointed out:

“The good news is that detailed forensic tests have come back and confirmed the cause of the three deaths is indeed mushroom poisoning,” he said in an article in The Age on September 27. But police have declined to confirm or deny The Age report and have instead said there will be no running commentary.

Police 'no comment' on reports it was mushroom poisoning - South Gippsland Sentinel Times

Members of the media have been warned not to enter the Patterson property in Leongatha. VETERAN ‘Age’ crime reporter John Silvester reported on Wednesday this week that there has been “a breakthrough” in the case of the alleged mushroom...

www.sgst.com.au

 

[investikater]

Hey there.

I would start googling Wayne Flower, Daily Mail and have a read through of his articles on the topic so far, he’s really been chasing down this story hard.

Maybe start at the beginning of the thread, the first 50 pages or so are quite interesting x

Ellery


IMO

Thanks a bunch.

Has anyone posted the analysis of the driveway interview done by The Bahviour Panel on YouTube? As usual I am confused about the rules and not sure if it is allowed?

 

[SouthAussie]

And then this article was pointed out:

Police 'no comment' on reports it was mushroom poisoning - South Gippsland Sentinel Times

Members of the media have been warned not to enter the Patterson property in Leongatha. VETERAN ‘Age’ crime reporter John Silvester reported on Wednesday this week that there has been “a breakthrough” in the case of the alleged mushroom...

www.sgst.com.au

The police are really keeping the pressure on EP. When they refuse to confirm or deny.

They could easily say "we don't know yet, and there will be no running commentary" .... or "no, it's not DC poisoning, and there will be no running commentary".

When they don't say either of those easy things, there is only one thing left.

 

[AussieIan]

Thanks a bunch.

Has anyone posted the analysis of the driveway interview done by The Bahviour Panel on YouTube? As usual I am confused about the rules and not sure if it is allowed?

That was posted in a previous thread but it was awhile ago and I'm sure some people missed it, can't hurt posting it again it was very interesting.

"I really want to repeat that I had absolutely no reason to hurt these people whom I loved"

Just such weird phrasing to me from EP, people do terrible things for no reason all the time, why not categorically deny involvement instead of making an appeal to emotion like that.

 

[jjleroche]

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.

Really insightful post Sjoberg, (and I wouldn't dream of lynching you, although I do understand your concern.)

For what it's worth, I think there are two possibilities -

1. Accidental poisoning, either from the meal prepared by Erin Patterson (by way of either foraged or
store-bought mushrooms, or from food brought to the lunch, or consumed later by the victims
eg mushroom salad,)

or

2. She's been set up to be "the patsy." (I'm sure that that option will be poo-poo'd, but I don't think it would be difficult to set her up, if the "setter-upper" knew what meal was being planned, (or even suggested it), and had access to the pantry (which could be via the children).

I do not believe that she had any motive to kill the victims. She had already extricated herself successfully from an unhappy marriage but, IMO was genuinely very fond of her in-laws, and feeling their loss deeply.

I doubt very much that there were custody issues, as there have been comments from various people that her ex-husband was away a lot. Sounds as though he wouldn't be in a position to have custody of the kids.

Despite assertions from some posters that division of assets was a motive, IMO that was "done and dusted" some time ago, and there have been numerous posts to support this view.

IMO she has not done anything nefarious at all. She may have her faults (as we ALL do), but I do not believe that she is a murderer.

I am not a psychologist, but during the course of my employment, I have interacted with 100's (probably 1,000s) of people (mainly women) experiencing distressing circumstances, and frankly, do not consider her demeanour to be unusual given the situation. I have wondered whether she may have been suffering from long-term Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and or Major Depression (or similar conditions).

When first confronted by the media, she may still have been in shock, was likely grief-stricken, and I imagine, saw her children experiencing grief.
It had been inferred (she claims) by her ex-husband that she had poisoned the victims. (Her children, who were allegedly present, could confirm or refute this.) This would all be very distressing.

Since then, when the media have confronted her, it has been whilst they have been trespassing on her property, and her children have not been with her. I think most people would be feeling (and appearing) pretty wretched in such a situation.Thank goodness for BL (aka Beautiful Lab.)

All JMO

 

[Oona]

“I really want to repeat that I had absolutely no reason to hurt these people whom I loved."

If I was to try to speculate on a reason for EP to intentionally poison her guests I would probably frame it in the context of an acrimonious separation with her ex husband and issues following their separation regarding child custody and the division of their asset pool.
EP has said that her mother-in-law was like the mother she didn’t have. I imagine that she might have felt an expectation of loyalty from her in-laws and felt betrayed by them if they were supporting her ex (their son) in their separation disputes.
“Erin’s in-laws and several church elders had reportedly gone to her home on the 29th to discuss new arrangements for Simon to see the former couple’s children.”
Sometimes in a relationship breakdown (without court orders) a parent might try to control, or even deny, the access the other parent has to the children.I’m not saying this happened but I could understand the in-laws and extended family wanting to intervene to help resolve the situation…..and this might trigger a very hostile response from EP.
Also, in some instances where separated parents cannot agree on a parenting schedule or there are issues with parental competence, other family members (such as grandparents) can apply for a parenting order in the Family Court, though these must be agreed to by both parents.
Obviously there is no evidence that things were heading that way but it could be a possible motive for not wanting them around.
There is also the probability that SP was also a planned target of the poisoning, if it was in fact an intentional poisoning.

*This is all just speculation and me trying to understand why it might have happened.

The bold text is quoted from:

Inside the mushroom-lunch death mystery that’s gripping Australia

An alleged poisoning is captivating Australia, where authorities suspect Erin Patterson intentionally laced a lunch of mushrooms and beef Wellington for her former in-laws, killing three and sicken…

nypost.com

 

[Sjöberg]

Despite assertions from some posters that division of assets was a motive, IMO that was "done and dusted" some time ago, and there have been numerous posts to support this view.

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).

 

[jjleroche]

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 agree. I can't see how this could realistically be a motive.

 

[Salah11]

I still can not escape the fact nobody is coming out and defending her publicly.

 

[Sjöberg]

EP has said that her mother-in-law was like the mother she didn’t have. I imagine that she might have felt an expectation of loyalty from her in-laws and felt betrayed by them if they were supporting her ex (their son) in their separation disputes.
“Erin’s in-laws and several church elders had reportedly gone to her home on the 29th to discuss new arrangements for Simon to see the former couple’s children.”

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.

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?

 

[SouthAussie]

I think it was in the Under Investigation show about this case that the former homicide detective said that to murder someone like this you have to really not like them.

 

[HongKongPhooey]

I think it was in the Under Investigation show about this case that the former homicide detective said that to murder someone like this you have to really not like them.

I’m also thinking of the way-too-many cases where people murder out of spite. Often estranged partners, who murder children, exes, family of exes.

 

[imstilla.grandma]

*I missed this part:
*A surviving piece of the meat dish is said to have been sent to the Health Department for examination, to determine if it contained the deadly death cap mushroom

Which is why Reverend Wilkinson’s recollections will be vital for police. They will ask many questions, which will include:

• Did other guests bring a plate? Did any include mushrooms? Was there an entree or nibbles? Was there more than one beef Wellington? Was there a sauce?
• Did any of the lunch guests have a history of foraging for wild mushrooms?
• What was the purpose of the lunch? Was it a regular event? Were Erin and Simon’s two children present? If so, what did they eat? Was their future discussed over the meal?
• Did he discuss with his ex-wife the likely cause of the poisoning before they collapsed in hospital?

For police, time is on their side. In homicide, they have a saying: “The case can only get stronger.” They will check Erin Patterson’s internet search history and her reading and television habits; they will talk to her friends and family. They will also examine the hospitalisation of her ex-husband, who posted on Facebook saying he nearly died from an unexplained gastrointestinal complaint 14 months before the fatal mushroom lunch.

Forensic tests confirm mushrooms behind trio’s poisoning deaths

Leongatha lunch survivor Ian Wilkinson’s recollections will be vital for detectives, as they continue the long-haul investigation after tests confirm the mushrooms did it.

www.theage.com.au

 

[Oona]

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.

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?

I agree, it is really hard to speculate on motive with so little information, and we also can’t presume that any motive will seem rational to anyone but the hypothetical perpetrator. Equally, the likelihood of being caught and the consequences, might be evaluated differently by someone not acting completely rationally.

I imagine feelings may have been simmering away for some time so I don’t think premeditation is unrealistic.

I suppose the other couple may have been collateral damage, it would stand out too much if only two guests became ill. But I also think if EP was close to this couple then her feelings of betrayal and hostility may extend to them.

Again, it is just speculation and I think it is good that the families have as much privacy as possible.

 

[Ellery84]

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?

Poisoning [if in fact poisoning even occurred] the in-laws and relatives probably didn’t have any practical value in terms of dividing assets with her ex-husband, apart from maybe a possibility of a sooner inheritance for Erin from her in-laws if her and Simon are still legally married? I wonder if her and Simon were listed as recipients on any of their life-insurance policies and if any claims have been made yet in those policies (if they do exist).??

There may have been financial motive from someone, or Erin may not have worked alone.
IMO

Then there’s the pettiness factor: imo Erin may have not liked them or Simon, and killing them may have made her feel better.

All jmo
I just want to stress that Erin hasn’t been charged, she maybe totally innocent

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

“If people understood the background more, they would not be so quick to rush to judgement….”

What is the background? Is she going to tell us?

And she had no reason to hurt these people who she loved; ok, I get that - then how did they get hurt?

She speaks in riddles IMO. Also IMO people who speak in riddles are not telling the truth, they are alluding to things and hoping the listener will fill in gaps and find in their favour when they haven't actually said anything of substance.

I think there might be something a bit more to this but I can't say what as EP is the only named PoI and my speculations would breach T&Cs

 

[Ellery84]

I think there might be something a bit more to this but I can't say what as EP is the only named PoI and my speculations would breach T&Cs

I guess we need to wait until we have all of the facts.

They will also examine the hospitalisation of her ex-husband, who posted on Facebook saying he nearly died from an unexplained gastrointestinal complaint 14 months before the fatal mushroom lunch

Just some food-for-thought, and I beg your indulgence on this one point as it’s slightly off-topic, but I think estranged husband Simon’s unexplained gastrointestinal complaint might be completely bogus.

According to the many MSM articles written about the case: He made a post about it once on social media. It’s hardly a fact.

Police haven’t mentioned it, have they?

IMHO

 

[Ellery84]

I agree, it is really hard to speculate on motive with so little information, and we also can’t presume that any motive will seem rational to anyone but the hypothetical perpetrator. Equally, the likelihood of being caught and the consequences, might be evaluated differently by someone not acting completely rationally.

I imagine feelings may have been simmering away for some time so I don’t think premeditation is unrealistic

Motive is subjective because someone who kills another person, like a murderer, may not be rational in the same sense that a non-murderer is.

For example, to decide to kill someone in the first place and go through with it, that’s really a divergent and highly inappropriate way of thinking and behaving, and it’s not the way that most people think.

So, to understand the motive of a hypothetical person (not Erin) who is a murderer through the lens and frame of a regular person who does not commit crimes and doesn’t physically hurt others, that can be tricky.

Ahh where’s Xanthe Mallett when I need her? She could explain this so much better; the words allude me.

Imho
Jmo

 

[Ellery84]

I’m also thinking of the way-too-many cases where people murder out of spite. Often estranged partners, who murder children, exes, family of exes.

Yeah they do, and sometimes they even go after the pets of the estranged partner.

Which is why pets are frequently listed on apprehended violence orders.

We live in a sad and disturbing world.

IMO

 

[Oona]

I think it was in the Under Investigation show about this case that the former homicide detective said that to murder someone like this you have to really not like them.

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?