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

[Shortfusepsb]

Last of the prosecution witnesses... Where is the smoking gun?

 

[whiskia]

If Erin had planned to poison but not kill her relatives (not sure why she would do this other than for some twisted pleasure on her part, some pleasure in hurting them and even more so the feeling of getting away with it perhaps), the defence could say she did make separate meals and that it was a case of FAFO and then she panicked. She could then get away with reckless endangerment and manslaughter.
She might not have wanted to tell anyone about the true source of the mushrooms so she could do it all again (next time she felt the need to) and hadn't figured on them dying...
The posts about her not having diarrhoea don't take into account how effective drugs like immodium can be.
Finally the takeaway meal could well have been purchased as a special meal for Simon and if any DC mushrooms were ever suspected in his resultant illness, it could potentially have been explained by the pub's proximity to where they had been found...?

 

[tmar]

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.

The prosecution should use this, in summing up, as so good.

 

[katydid23]

Last of the prosecution witnesses... Where is the smoking gun?

There are a few smoking guns. The dehydrator, the repeated lies about the dehydrator, the traces of Death Caps on the dehydrator, the cctv of her tipping the dehydrator, the pictures of it on her FB page and the pictures of freshly picked Death Caps on her devices, The sudden rapid illness of her 4 guests and the lack of illness for EP, the kids and the dog. The search for Death Caps on her computer, the location map for two local sightings of Death Caps, her alleged trips to those locations and the verified purchase of that dehydrator on one of those foraging trips.

 

[Shortfusepsb]

There are a few smoking guns. The dehydrator, the repeated lies about the dehydrator, the traces of Death Caps on the dehydrator, the cctv of her tipping the dehydrator, the pictures of it on her FB page and the pictures of freshly picked Death Caps on her devices, The sudden rapid illness of her 4 guests and the lack of illness for EP, the kids and the dog. The search for Death Caps on her computer, the location map for two local sightings of Death Caps, her alleged trips to those locations and the verified purchase of that dehydrator on one of those foraging trips.

Mostly circumstantial. Compelling, but circumstantial all the same. And, what looks like a pretty sloppy, lazy investigation by police.

 

[Two SCents]

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.

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.

Maybe it had eased off? We don't know. 3 hours away from a toilet? You don't think there are public toilets between Leongatha and Tyabb?

 

[katydid23]

Mostly circumstantial. Compelling, but circumstantial all the same. And, what looks like a pretty sloppy, lazy investigation by police.

What type of proof would there be besides traces of Death Caps from her kitchen appliances that she tried to secretly dispose of ?

What kind of smoking gun are you expecting them to have in a potential poisoning case?

 

[katydid23]

Maybe it had eased off? We don't know. 3 hours away from a toilet? You don't think there are public toilets between Leongatha and Tyabb?

"Explosive diarrhoea' and 'public toilets' should not be used in the same sentence...

 

[Scooby-Doo]

Your questions, answered on the Mushroom Case Daily podcast​

Court reporter Kristian Silva and producer Stephen Stockwell are answering all your burning questions about the Erin Patterson case on the Mushroom Case Daily podcast.

Q: Does the prosecution need to prove motive at all or just evidence that the crime occurred? Maybe I've missed something, but I haven't really heard why Erin Patterson would do this, and that is my biggest question in this case. - Emma

A: It is a really great question.

It is a topic that was addressed at the very start of this case when the judge was taking the jury through some instructions about what they'll need to consider in this trial.

He took them to the four elements of the charge of murder, and spoiler alert, motive is not one of them.

So in answer to your question, the prosecution does not have to prove motive but there are a bunch of things that they do have to prove. So let's go through them:

1. 1.There are four elements to the charge of murder that the prosecution will need to prove beyond reasonable doubt for Erin Patterson to be found guilty. The first element is — did Erin Patterson cause the deaths of the lunch guests? If the jury is satisfied of that, they can move on to the second element.
2. 2.The second element is, did she do it deliberately? If the jury is satisfied of that they move on to the next.
3. 3.Did she do it with an intention to kill them or to cause them really serious injury?
4. 4.If they're satisfied of that, we can get to the final point. And that's, did she commit the killing without a lawful justification or excuse? A lawful justification or excuse could be something like self-defense. Evidently that is not something that's relevant in this case.

The judge has said that intent is definitely one of the key things that the jury will have to look at. The defence, through their barrister, Colin Mandy, pointed out to the jury in his openings that Ms Patterson did not deliberately poison the lunch guests with death cap mushrooms.

So two topics there that the jury will definitely have to weigh up.
​

 

[MsMarple]

I would be

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

Which reminds me, was it ever established that Erin was also vomiting? There was much testimony about her diarrhea but I can’t remember if she was vomiting too. A little harder to fake of course.

 

[HoneyBunOne]

Maybe it had eased off? We don't know. 3 hours away from a toilet? You don't think there are public toilets between Leongatha and Tyabb?

Of course there are toilets, but there's also lots of countryside without a toilet in sight. Besides, you're generally not given a lot of notice of when a toilet stop is needed, and running to a public toilet is not ideal. Perhaps she packed some toilet paper and was happy to squat behind a bush or 10 on her way?

 

[Jake18]

I think

Which reminds me, was it ever established that Erin was also vomiting? There was much testimony about her diarrhea but I can’t remember if she was vomiting too. A little harder to fake of course.

she said she vomited at the onset of her so-called gastro symptoms. I can’t remember if that was overnight after the dinner or early the next morning

 

[Lisa4]

There are a few smoking guns. The dehydrator, the repeated lies about the dehydrator, the traces of Death Caps on the dehydrator, the cctv of her tipping the dehydrator, the pictures of it on her FB page and the pictures of freshly picked Death Caps on her devices, The sudden rapid illness of her 4 guests and the lack of illness for EP, the kids and the dog. The search for Death Caps on her computer, the location map for two local sightings of Death Caps, her alleged trips to those locations and the verified purchase of that dehydrator on one of those foraging trips.

Also. The lies around having cancer, the lies re the unproven purchase from the Asian grocer, the individual servings instead of the single one in the recipe she told police she used.

 

[MsMarple]

Of course there are toilets, but there's also lots of countryside without a toilet in sight. Besides, you're generally not given a lot of notice of when a toilet stop is needed, and running to a public toilet is not ideal. Perhaps she packed some toilet paper and was happy to squat behind a bush or 10 on her way?

Well, in fairness she did spend 9 seconds in the servo bathroom when she stopped to pick up some yummy food items.

 

[Detechtive]

Mostly circumstantial. Compelling, but circumstantial all the same. And, what looks like a pretty sloppy, lazy investigation by police.

DNA, Fingerprints - all circumstantial evidence. People talk about circumstantial evidence as though it's not as important as direct evidence, which is entirely untrue. Circumstantial evidence is the majority of evidence used in all murder convictions.

As for smoking guns, I believe the pre-lunch actions are the most damning, because they show planning and intent IMO. This is all my opinion only...

Pre-lunch Smoking Guns (IMO)​

Allegedly luring the in-laws there under false pretences and to arguably apply pressure to Simon to appear.
The financial angst she had with Simon and the obvious disdain she had for his parents.[/ul]
The fact she started using a new SIM 2.5 weeks BEFORE the lunch.
The fact she tried to organise a lunch that Simon was to attend in June, but he pulled out at the last minute, she had to do it again the next month.
Purchasing the dehydrator.
Obviously drying and preserving Death Caps which made it into the fatal lunch without making it into any of the kids 'brownies' she was hiding mushrooms in. We know they are only available around May, so it was clearly pre-planned.
The lies about the illness(es) in the lead up to pressure Simon's family to pressure Simon to attend (IMO).
Buying so much pastry, mushrooms, etc in the days leading up to the lunch - "practising" (IMO)

During-Lunch Smoking Guns (IMO)​

Serving individual beef Wellingtons
Serving on different plates
Banishing the children from the meal to prevent poisoning them (IMO)

Then you go to the post-lunch behaviours which don't satisfy 'intent', but are still powerfully compelling, IMO.

Post-Lunch Smoking Guns (IMO)​

Continual lying, hiding, obstructing police and health authorities, tampering with evidence both in the presence of police and during a search warrant.
Lies to hospital staff about her condition.
Going to the car while in the hospital.
Leaving the hospital and spending time "Cleaning up" at home (In my opinion) before police contacting her to return to hospital. I think she wouldn't have returned if not for the police.
Resisting her kids to be seen by medical experts.
Putting out a statement to media full of lies and refusing to cooperate with police.
Feeding the children "leftovers" after her in-laws were gravely ill from the meal.
Disposing of phone A somewhere between the two search warrants (evidence by the tech sniffer dogs not finding it).
CCTV and bank receipt for dehydrator disposal.
Finger prints on dehydrator.
Refusing to answer questions about the lunch by the media, instead being emotionally manipulative with her crocodile tears and feigned care for the family members to shape public perception of her.

I believe she did panic after the lunch, because she didn't expect the Health department, Police, Media, etc to be involved. The scrutiny made her panic and act in a disorganised manner, as nearly all offenders do when they are scrutinised. Panicking isn't a good defence, therefore.

 

[Jake18]

Of course there are toilets, but there's also lots of countryside without a toilet in sight. Besides, you're generally not given a lot of notice of when a toilet stop is needed, and running to a public toilet is not ideal. Perhaps she packed some toilet paper and was happy to squat behind a bush or 10 on her way?

Again, it’s also strange to me that she risked a toileting accident in front of her teen son. Maybe they are all unusually open about each others’ body parts and functions but my teens would be mortified (like, literally die) if I stopped to poo in a bush

 

[Scuffy35]

DNA, Fingerprints - all circumstantial evidence. People talk about circumstantial evidence as though it's not as important as direct evidence, which is entirely untrue. Circumstantial evidence is the majority of evidence used in all murder convictions.

If the DNA or fingerprints places the perpetrator at the scene of a violent crime, then this would be direct evidence, not just circumstantial.

 

[MrJ]

I’m taking a break, if anyone else wants to post the ABC live blog updates:

Defence cross-examines police witness in Erin Patterson trial — as it happened

Erin Patterson is accused of murdering three of her relatives by serving them a beef Wellington lunch which contained death cap mushrooms. Follow the trial live.

www.abc.net.au

 

[MrJ]

I did want to share this though as it stood out:

Key Event
18m ago

Erin allowed to use her phone as her home was searched​

By Judd Boaz​

We return to the day that Erin Patterson’s home was searched, August 5.

LSC Eppingstall says that Erin was allowed to walk around her home while it was being searched, but that she was also accompanied by a police officer. She also had access to her mobile phone during the search.

“We allowed her to retain her phone, she had arrangements to make in relation to her children,” he tells the court.

Erin was then left alone in a room with the door closed in order to call her lawyer, which records show lasted 14 minutes.

 

[Detechtive]

If the DNA or fingerprints places the perpetrator at the scene of a violent crime, then this would be direct evidence, not just circumstantial.

That's not correct. DNA, Fingerprints, blood spatter, murder weapon in your car - they have to be explained circumstantially. That is, they are a link between a suspect and a crime, but the circumstances around that evidence need to be linked.

For example, if your DNA was at a crime scene, you are not necessarily involved in the crime. That could be there for a number of reasons. That is not direct evidence.

Direct evidence is CCTV, witness testimony, and confessions - which are very sparse in the vast majority of criminal convictions.

Sources:

Direct evidence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Circumstantial evidence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org