Australia - 3 dead after eating wild mushrooms, Leongatha, Victoria, Aug 2023 #10 *Arrest*

[MrJ]

Key Event
2m ago
Don and Gail's phones also handed in

By Mikaela Ortolan

The court is told Simon Patterson handed in his parents phones along with his.

LSC Eppingstall says Gail's phone underwent a full extract. We've seen some of the text messages they discovered from that in evidence already.

He says Don's phone was fairly empty.

"I don't think he used his phone that much," he says.

Mr Mandy asks about the Signal messages and whether or not the detective knew about those messages at the time the phones were collected.

Then we move on to phone towers.

 

[Yh5r]

It's all of these pieces put together that tell me she didn't really have diarhhea.

Yes fair enough. I just try to keep an open mind and stay objective as much as possible - it's a bit of a witch hunt overall (not specifically in here) with EP being scrutinised over her choice of pants, drink, purchasing take away food, complaining about prices, lack of make up. These points to me don't necessarily point to guilt (but can see how they complete part of the picture). It's innocent until proven guilty so there is no point to scrutinise the miniscule detail like colour of pants and make it mean something.

 

[MrJ]

2m ago
Phone tower line of site

By Mikaela Ortolan

On phone towers, Mr Mandy is asking about "line of site". They're exploring whether a phone is likely to ping off a tower if you can see it.

LSC Eppingstall explains that if you can see a tower you're more likely to get a connection unless it's over a hill and you can't see it.

He says even though one of the experts in the investigation suggested exploring "line of site" he told them he wasn't interested in that at that stage of the investigation.

"Line of site doesn't guarantee connection," he says.

 

[Yh5r]

Key Event
2m ago
Don and Gail's phones also handed in

By Mikaela Ortolan

The court is told Simon Patterson handed in his parents phones along with his.

LSC Eppingstall says Gail's phone underwent a full extract. We've seen some of the text messages they discovered from that in evidence already.

He says Don's phone was fairly empty.

"I don't think he used his phone that much," he says.

Mr Mandy asks about the Signal messages and whether or not the detective knew about those messages at the time the phones were collected.

Then we move on to phone towers.

Just for my understanding so that I'm following this correctly - did the defence request to access Simon's and his parents' phones? As the police officer is now being questioned by Erin's defence lawyer, correct?

 

[MrJ]

Just for my understanding so that I'm following this correctly - did the defence request to access Simon's and his parents' phones? As the police officer is now being questioned by Erin's defence lawyer, correct?

It would appear that way, but I'm not really sure! Someone else could chime in about that, just posting updates on the ABC live blog

 

[Scooby-Doo]

Just for my understanding so that I'm following this correctly - did the defence request to access Simon's and his parents' phones? As the police officer is now being questioned by Erin's defence lawyer, correct?

Simon Patterson's phone was handed to police during the investigation and later handed back to him.

 

[Yh5r]

Simon Patterson's phone was handed to police during the investigation and later handed back to him.

Yes I understand that but am confused that it seems the prosecution didn't produce any of these messages as evidence but the defence is now doing it.

 

[MrJ]

9m ago

We quickly look at SIM cards and then we take a break​

By Mikaela Ortolan​

Mr Mandy asks a few questions about SIM cards.

Yesterday, we heard that a SIM card was swapped out into a different device during a police search of Erin's home.

He's asking LSC Eppingstall about how accurate the data collected is that suggests the times the SIM card was swapped.

"My understanding is that once a SIM card is placed in the device and we start seeing the new IMEI we're confident the SIM card is in that device," he says.

IMEI stands for International Mobile Equipment Identify and is a unique serial number assigned to devices.

He then asks a few questions about the iNaturalist website we've previously heard about and then the jury is sent out for a break.

 

[katydid23]

I'm also trying to keep an open mind until we've heard it all, not easy is it?

The lunch wasn't suspected until the medical staff recognised through test results that they weren't dealing with a gastro type infection. This was late in the day on Sunday.
Simon's sister or cousin said he called her about her parents being taken to hospital and during the phone call he said to her Erin is soldiering on at home.
Erin and Simon's son said Erin didn't want to go to church, but thought it ok to go to flying lessons as there would be less people. That could be taken to mean less chance of infecting others with a gastro infection.
During Sunday it appears it was thought to be a gastro infection by everyone who attended the lunch even if we don't believe Erin.

Just editing to add....This doesn't fit with intent to poison I know, but feeding the children leftovers would be a perfectly reasonable thing to do if you thought you had gastro as opposed to food poisoning.

That's not very convincing to me. If I had 4 relatives over to my home on Saturday afternoon, and late Saturday night they fall ill, and are soon hospitalised, I am going to be on alert.

On alert for myself and especially my children. So even if the doctors had not pointed to the lunch just yet, I would still have considered it could have been something I served or exposed them to.

ESPECIALLY If I was also feeling unwell, as she claimed. If we take her at her word, she was dizzy, nauseous and had diarrhioa. So the last thing I'd do was serve my children the rest of the last meal my relatives ate before they went into the hospital. Especially if I was unwell too.

Even if it was possibly the flu or something, I'd toss out anything my unwell guests had consumed just in case.

 

[katydid23]

If I had been to the toilet 10 times in the early morning as stated by her daughter and the trip for the flying lesson wasn't until 2.30pm - I might. I can't assume anything about the light coloured pants, she seemed to wear them frequently. We know she drank coffee and claims she had cereal at dinner time, we don't know who ate the other food items.

If I had been to the toilet 10x that morning and I had been told that my 4 lunch guests had fallen seriously ill and were admitted to the hospital, I wouldn't assume I was done with my own illness already. I think I'd be bracing for it to possibly get worse.

And I would probably stay close to home and keep an eye on my kids in case it was something contagious.

 

[Yh5r]

I'm also trying to keep an open mind until we've heard it all, not easy is it?

The lunch wasn't suspected until the medical staff recognised through test results that they weren't dealing with a gastro type infection. This was late in the day on Sunday.
Simon's sister or cousin said he called her about her parents being taken to hospital and during the phone call he said to her Erin is soldiering on at home.
Erin and Simon's son said Erin didn't want to go to church, but thought it ok to go to flying lessons as there would be less people. That could be taken to mean less chance of infecting others with a gastro infection.
During Sunday it appears it was thought to be a gastro infection by everyone who attended the lunch even if we don't believe Erin.

Just editing to add....This doesn't fit with intent to poison I know, but feeding the children leftovers would be a perfectly reasonable thing to do if you thought you had gastro as opposed to food poisoning.

Thank you, yes this storyline makes sense. If they all only suspected gastro then the actions by EP still seem reasonable thus far.

The big question mark for me is why she didn't get anywhere near as sick as the guests and the dehydrator. I really hope she takes the stand!

 

[Yh5r]

If I had been to the toilet 10x that morning and I had been told that my 4 lunch guests had fallen seriously ill and were admitted to the hospital, I wouldn't assume I was done with my own illness already. I think I'd be bracing for it to possibly get worse.

And I would probably stay close to home and keep an eye on my kids in case it was something contagious.

Yes I agree, I would likely act in the same way. BUT only because EP acted unlike most people would, doesn't automatically make her guilty in this regard.

 

[HoneyBunOne]

If I had been to the toilet 10 times in the early morning as stated by her daughter and the trip for the flying lesson wasn't until 2.30pm - I might. I can't assume anything about the light coloured pants, she seemed to wear them frequently. We know she drank coffee and claims she had cereal at dinner time, we don't know who ate the other food items.

You're game!
Let's say she got up at 5am, that's more than 1 trip an hour. Wouldn't you think there's more to come, or would you assume you're empty by that stage? 3 hours away from a toilet is a brave move IMO.

 

[Yh5r]

You're game!
Let's say she got up at 5am, that's more than 1 trip an hour. Wouldn't you think there's more to come, or would you assume you're empty by that stage? 3 hours away from a toilet is a brave move IMO.

'Brave' does not mean guilty though.

 

[Kemug]

Yes, I meant to add that despite not being poor, she seemed to make money an issue. Maybe she was just tight, maybe she grew up poor, maybe she was greedy, but money seemed to be a focal point in a lot of her dramas and life choices.

So she was not going to throw away some perfectly good (and harmless) expensive beef.

 

[katydid23]

'Brave' does not mean guilty though.

Not necessarily, but it is important to look at all of her actions, as a whole. We can easily give innocent explanations for one thing at a time. It's when you put it all together that it stops appearing as innocent coincidences, imo.

All of the lying, all of the excuses, all of the coincidences, it's all too much , IMO.


In this one specific detail, about her actions Sunday afternoon, we can justify it easily. Sure, she thought she'd be fine, so she went ahead and put on cream coloured pants and took a 3 hour drive. Not a big deal.

But we have to add context to it. She had told her son she was feeling dizzy and nauseous and had diarrhoea. She had also been told her 4 lunch guests had been hospitalised for those same symptoms early that morning. And they had not yet determined the cause or the diagnosis.

So she decides to take a 3 hr ride for her son's flying lesson? She does not know what her lunch guests are suffering from. Or if it might be something contagious or something she served them. And she feels unwell herself.

Does it make sense to go on that 3 hr trip when she doesn't know if she or her kids are going to suddenly have same illness as their relatives? She was already feeling unwell herself supposedly.

It makes me suspicious that she probably was not concerned about any of the above because she already knew why her guests were unwell. And she knew her kids were not in any danger and neither was she. So cream pants, coffee and a road trip it is.

 

[HoneyBunOne]

That's not very convincing to me. If I had 4 relatives over to my home on Saturday afternoon, and late Saturday night they fall ill, and are soon hospitalised, I am going to be on alert.

On alert for myself and especially my children. So even if the doctors had not pointed to the lunch just yet, I would still have considered it could have been something I served or exposed them to.

ESPECIALLY If I was also feeling unwell, as she claimed. If we take her at her word, she was dizzy, nauseous and had diarrhioa. So the last thing I'd do was serve my children the rest of the last meal my relatives ate before they went into the hospital. Especially if I was unwell too.

Even if it was possibly the flu or something, I'd toss out anything my unwell guests had consumed just in case.

Yes. YES. Y.E.S!

So she was not going to throw some perfectly good (and harmless) expensive beef.

Maybe, maybe not. I would always err on the side of caution, unless I know for sure the meat is perfectly safe, and potentially the mushrooms that were touching the meat.

But that's just me.

 

[Kemug]

If I had been to the toilet 10 times in the early morning as stated by her daughter and the trip for the flying lesson wasn't until 2.30pm - I might. I can't assume anything about the light coloured pants, she seemed to wear them frequently. We know she drank coffee and claims she had cereal at dinner time, we don't know who ate the other food items.

If it was me suffering like this in the morning, I know for a fact that I would be feeling so drained and crap, that I would not be driving anywhere.

 

[HoneyBunOne]

'Brave' does not mean guilty though.

True, but I feel it's suggestive of her knowledge of the situation.

Not necessarily, but it is important to look at all of her actions, as a whole. We can easily give innocent explanations for one thing at a time. It's when you put it all together that it stops appearing as innocent coincidences, imo.

All of the lying, all of the excuses, all of the coincidences, it's all too much , IMO.

Totally agree. How many oddities can occur to the one person, in relation to the one event, before it starts to paint a damning picture?

 

[Jake18]

I would be

If it was me suffering like this in the morning, I know for a fact that I would be feeling so drained and crap, that I would not be driving anywhere.

Plus, it’s dangerous to drive if you’re vomiting. You can’t vomit and keep your eyes on the road at the same time. Very unusual to make that choice to drive with a child in the car as well