Australia - 3 dead after eating wild mushrooms, Leongatha, Victoria, Aug 2023 #11 *Arrest*

[Bats]

What are you anticipating, @Bats ?

I'm not too sure except that I know there will be scratching of heads.

Things like ....all of Erin’s actions after the meal not being able to be considered. The phones, the dumping of the dehydrator...etc..

I guess we'll soon find out South.

 

[SouthAussie]

I'm not too sure except that I know there will be scratching of heads.

Things like ....all of Erin’s actions after the meal not being able to be considered. The phones, the dumping of the dehydrator...etc..

I guess we'll soon find out South.

Maybe. I tend to think that whatever evidence cannot be considered has already been stomped on - during their (seemingly) many legal arguments, where the jury has been removed from the court room.

There are also the Sec 193 hearings that they had, pre-trial. I think some evidence was probably ruled out (as perhaps being prejudicial) at that time.

But you never know. In the Greg Lynn trial the prosecution seemed set upon only proving murder and agreed to take manslaughter off the table. If it is a choice only between murder and acquittal, I can't begin to guess at the verdict. Juries have surprised me before.

imo

 

[ch_13]

I'm not too sure except that I know there will be scratching of heads.

Things like ....all of Erin’s actions after the meal not being able to be considered. The phones, the dumping of the dehydrator...etc..

I guess we'll soon find out South.

If the jury isn’t supposed to consider Erin’s post-meal actions, then why wouldn’t it have been excluded from the trial in the first place?

I can’t speak to Australian law, but in the U.S. the admissibility of evidence would have been covered in pre-trial motions. It seems backwards (not to mention a waste of time) to allow a jury to hear evidence and then tell them to ignore it.

 

[Scuffy35]

Maybe. I tend to think that whatever evidence cannot be considered has already been stomped on - during their (seemingly) many legal arguments, where the jury has been removed from the court room.

imo

Yes, I think there was a lot of this happing.

It will be interesting to find out more of those details at the conclusion of the trial when sub judice should no longer apply (or at least opened up more) to those times during the trial each time the jury has been ushered out of the court room.

The ABC pod cast hosts said they would include some of this in their post trial podcasts.

 

[Bats]

If the jury isn’t supposed to consider Erin’s post-meal actions, then why wouldn’t it have been excluded from the trial in the first place?

I can’t speak to Australian law, but in the U.S. the admissibility of evidence would have been covered in pre-trial motions. It seems backwards (not to mention a waste of time) to allow a jury to hear evidence and then tell them to ignore it.

Yes good question. I am no expert in law, but I know this is common in trials and leaves people wondering why, like yourself.

My guess is that some evidence is able to be heard because the jury needs to understand the full picture of what happened. It may be impossible to exclude some evidence in the trial without excluding evidence that should be admissible.

So, in the end, the judge rules on how the jury can and can't use certain evidence, for that reason.

For example, and I have no idea if this may happen or not...
They wouldn't be able to exclude the dehydrator completely from evidence as it is an important piece of evidence for the prosecution. What eventually happened to that dehydrator is also important for the complete picture. If that part was excluded from evidence, the jury would be wondering what happened to it and why didn't they test it and were the police doing their jobs?

However, the judge may rule on using the dumping of the dehydrator when considering how it can be used to show that Erin intentionally killed her guests.

MOO.

 

[Scuffy35]

Even if the defence recommended that Erin requests a plea deal, she could just tell them no, then they would have to put on the best defence they could think of.

imo

Yes she could. As this case has no smoking gun and lots of not-so-strong circumstantial evidence to prove intent, I would be very surprised if the prosecution would not have been receptive to a plea deal.

I have seen too many real crime TV episodes (mostly American crimes I guess) where there were smoking gun type of evidence, in yet the prosecution still offered a deal and a lot of them were against the wishes of the victim's families. Probably more about saving costs than ensuring justice.

 

[Detechtive]

Yes discrediting that was odd.

But can anyone shed light on why the subway CCTV was relevant? I know she was absent for 11 minutes while her son was ordering food but what are they alleging she was doing in that time?

I think it’s because she said she was sick that night, but she was driving around at Subway.

Also I think it shows the son ate subway for dinner, not leftovers.

 

[Detechtive]

It seems such a risky and desperate strategy to settle for confusion. It would be better to take a plea deal if one was available, in my opinion.

It might be a bit early to say though, as the defence's turn to present witnesses (if they have any), and maybe tell a narrative through them, has not begun yet.

It’s evidence there isn’t a plea deal on offer, IMO

 

[mamamama9873]

I'm just trying to get around my head around what the defense is actually claiming. Presumably they have some kind of story to tell about how the mushrooms got where they were and why Erin was unharmed. But for the life of me, I can't figure out what they contend actually happened.

Yes has me confused too but to my understanding they don’t need to have an actual storyline but just poke holes into and create doubt on the prosecution’s storyline

 

[mamamama9873]

I think it’s because she said she was sick that night, but she was driving around at Subway.

Also I think it shows the son ate subway for dinner, not leftovers.

She said she was sick from midnight and the leftovers were eaten by both kids on the Sunday night (the following night), so that can’t be it.

 

[Spectrix]

It seems such a risky and desperate strategy to settle for confusion. It would be better to take a plea deal if one was available, in my opinion.
It might be a bit early to say though, as the defence's turn to present witnesses (if they have any), and maybe tell a narrative through them, has not begun yet.

The most fascinating part of this case to me is the lies, and the new lies covering the old lies.
And although I doubt it's going to happen, I am still hoping that Erin takes the stand, because hearing her attempt to explain away the massive list of lies and suspicious behaviour would just be the icing on the cake.

 

[Scuffy35]

The most fascinating part of this case to me is the lies, and the new lies covering the old lies.
And although I doubt it's going to happen, I am still hoping that Erin takes the stand, because hearing her attempt to explain away the massive list of lies and suspicious behaviour would just be the icing on the cake.

And also how long she kept up these lies for. They were not just limited to a moment of panic.

They were repeated in the police statement and also the other statement she made about regretting not answering some question, only to go on and repeat those lies. IMO

 

[Kemug]

Does Australia use lie detectors?

 

[Bats]

Does Australia use lie detectors?

Yes, but only on 60 minutes

I'd be confident they're not used by police @Kemug. I could be wrong though.

It would be interesting wouldn't it.

 

[SouthAussie]

Does Australia use lie detectors?

"It is doubtful that results from lie detector tests will ever be held admissible in Australian criminal courts.

While proponents of polygraph evidence claim that test results are a definitive indication of the veracity of an accused's denial of guilt, such the results are hearsay and amount to a self-serving statement which is inadmissible at both common law, and pursuant to statutory rules of evidence.

Further, there does not appear to be any general acceptance of the validity and reliability of polygraphs within the Australian scientific community."

(NSW is the only state with polygraph legislation. New South Wales Lie Detectors Act (1983), which prohibits the use of polygraph results in criminal trials and in other specific situations - such as employment.)

austlii - Trial By Ordeal? Polygraph Testing In Australia

 

[Kemug]

Still, I'd like to see her reaction if she was asked if she would be willing to take one.

 

[SouthAussie]

Still, I'd like to see her reaction if she was asked if she would be willing to take one.

The most common answer I have seen in true crime books is ... "my lawyer has advised me against taking a polygraph test".

imo

 

[Old Soul]

I think it’s because she said she was sick that night, but she was driving around at Subway.

Also I think it shows the son ate subway for dinner, not leftovers.

Apparently the “cork” incident was the SATURDAY evening, on the same day as the lunch.

“She said she had begun to feel unwell that evening and her son had a friend over. She said she dropped him off.

“She said her son had to run into the shops (after they dropped off his friend) and she had to stay in the car (because she had diarrhoea).

“(Patterson explained) it would provide a cork (to prevent the diarrhoea), if she stayed sitting down.”

Under cross examination, the defence quizzed the child protection worker about the timeline of Patterson’s reported loose bowel movements.

During their discussion, the worker reiterated that Patterson had reported suffering diarrhoea on Saturday, and that evening during an outing, “she stayed in the car to act as a cork so she didn’t have an accident.”

At that point, Justice Christopher Beale chimed in seeking clarification:

Justice Beale: “Was cork her word?”

The worker: “Yes.”

Court hears Erin Patterson decided not to use dried mushrooms in pasta dish due to ‘smell’

Erin Patterson is accused of killing three people with poisonous death cap mushrooms.

7news.com.au

Apparently the onset of symptoms of death cap poisoning generally doesn’t occur until at least 6 hours after ingestion (usually 6-24 hours)….so hopefully Erin has factored this into her story

“As Robert Wasson, the first Westerner to popularise the consumption of hallucinogenic mushrooms, wrote for Harvard University in 1972, “The symptoms of poisoning by the deadly amanitas are distinctive, dramatic and terrifying. To begin with, the lethal amanitas taste good – on this the abundant testimony of victims shows no dissenting voice. Nothing arouses suspicion as the greedy diner consumes his fateful dish; nor does he suspect anything for many hours after.

“Indeed, the distinctive mark of this poison is the period of absolute quiescence that follows the ingestion of the mushrooms, a period that never lasts less than six hours and usually 10 or 12, sometimes 20 or even 40 or more.

“The victim goes about his affairs blissfully unaware that the fingers of death are entwining him.”

Elegant but deadly: why death cap mushrooms are a forager's nightmare

It’s peak season for wild mushrooms but be careful about picking your own. Just one morsel of the wrong fungus can kill.

www.smh.com.au

Warning not to pick or eat wild mushrooms because of deadly deathcap mushroom risk (8 March 2023)

Wild mushrooms are springing up around Australia this Autumn after wet weather, so today the Food Safety Information Council is warning people to be extremely careful around wild mushrooms because of the deadly, deathcap mushroom poisoning risk. Cathy Moir, Food Safety Information Council Chair...

www.foodsafety.asn.au

 

[SouthAussie]

Apparently the “cork” incident was the SATURDAY evening, on the same day as the lunch.

“She said she had begun to feel unwell that evening and her son had a friend over. She said she dropped him off.

“She said her son had to run into the shops (after they dropped off his friend) and she had to stay in the car (because she had diarrhoea).

Probably the Subway "drove off for 11 mins" incident. imo

The prosecution says she drove away and came back, Erin says she sat in the car and waited.


CCTV purportedly showing Patterson’s son attending Subway in the hours after the lunch

Lead detective denies police errors in mushroom lunch investigation as Erin Patterson trial continues

Defence argues photos taken by police inside Patterson’s home appear to show computers and a phone that were not seized during search

www.theguardian.com

 

[katydid23]

I'm just trying to get around my head around what the defense is actually claiming. Presumably they have some kind of story to tell about how the mushrooms got where they were and why Erin was unharmed. But for the life of me, I can't figure out what they contend actually happened.

I think they are trying to create a narrative that is kind of loose and flexible.
It seems to be something like :

---she happened to be out in nature, hiking one day last spring, and she came upon some fresh mushrooms. So she collected them. She didn't serve them fresh but decided to dehydrate them and save them for future use.

---she also bought some mushrooms in an Asian market, although she can't remember where it was, but again, she dehydrated them for longer shelf life.

---Apparently one of these tins of dried mushrooms smelled funny, but we don't know whether it was the foraged ones or the Asian market ones.

----Months later while preparing her 6 individual Beef Wellingtons, she decided to use one of the two groups of dried mushrooms. We have not been told which tin of shrooms she used for the luncheon. I guess that is up for debate.

--- She began to feel dizzy and have diarrhoea the night of the luncheon, but she did not know why.
Then when she realised her 4 lunch guests were hospitalised, she panicked and hurried home to tip the dehydrator because?

----Was it because she didn't want anyone to know she had dehydrated some foraged mushrooms?

-----Maybe they will admit that^^^ and say she was worried she had accidentally poisoned her guests, but that they cannot be sure if she really did---maybe it was the Asian mushrooms that were toxic, not her foraged ones?

So if there is reasonable doubt that she was the source of the toxic ones, her Defense will say she should be found not guilty.