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

[MrJ]

I just hope that every member of the jury has had personal experience with narcissism and personality disorders.

Because unless you’ve seen it firsthand—how the manipulation works, how the lies pile up, how reality gets twisted to suit the story—you might not see it at all.

It’s subtle. It’s sneaky. And from the outside, it can even look like innocence. But to those who’ve lived through it, the red flags are all too clear.

this is an interesting point. Because at one point I remember reading that apparently EP said to her friends IIRC that her son hated his dad. Did he actually or was it something that EP constantly talked badly about him to her children? Plus the mother’s day text seems innocent enough but later on the chats with her friends. of course opinions could have changed over time. but most of all other than poor Ian I feel for her children because if she does have a narcissistic personality living with her would have been a terrible experience IMO

 

[Yh5r]

Sure. You could explain it all away -

A bored SAHM with an interest in mushrooms and DC mushrooms, who just wanted to go see them in real life one autumn day...

Sure, she bought a dehydrator - merely interested in mushrooms and hoping to start a hobby of picking and drying safe ones...

Sure, she threw it away, but it was just a fleeting moment of thoughtless, needless panic, could happen to anyone, couldn't it...

Sure, she got a bit over-anxious about cancer fears and got carried away with wanting to talk to the in-laws about it...

You  could explain it all away - except for one thing.

They're dead. Of deathcaps.


(Allegedly.)

Well put!

I would add "They're dead. Of deathcaps." .. Yet she wasn't affected despite having supposedly eaten the same meal.

 

[Bats]

Help me out again please?! If the defence are pleading an accident then why is manslaughter off the table?

The defence are saying its an accident but again, you need to concentrate on the prosecution proving guilt for murder and attempted murder (which are the charges).

It doesn't matter if the argument that the defence are using is that it was an accident, blind unlucky, could have been an intruder that laced the meals... it doesn't matter.

 

[Lisa4]

Well put!

I would add "They're dead. Of deathcaps." .. Yet she wasn't affected despite having supposedly eaten the same meal.

Oh yes! I just edited it to add that point. Thanks!

 

[Lisa4]

The defence are saying its an accident but again, you need to concentrate on the prosecution proving guilt for murder and attempted murder (which are the charges).

It doesn't matter if the defence's argument is that it was an accident, blind unlucky, could have been an intruder that laced the meals... it doesn't matter.

Ok, thanks, that's very interesting and helpful.

 

[SouthAussie]

Thanks @SouthAussie !

The reason I am presuming it's not on the table is that i think we would have heard it was available for consideration at the start of the trial.

Also, i think the trial may have been presented a little differently in terms of the evidence, if manslaughter was on the table.

Totally my opinion only. I may be incorrect here.

Well, I didn't know it was on the table in the Greg Lynn trial. Until they removed it. He was only charged with murder.

Another member then informed me that it is always on the table, in a murder trial in Victoria, unless it is formally removed.

We will no doubt hear at the judge's summing up what the jury are and are not allowed to decide as a verdict.


When the jury was out of the courtroom on June 7, Crown prosecutor Daniel Porceddu, Lynn's barrister Dermot Dann KC and Justice Michael Croucher spoke about taking manslaughter off the table.
A verdict of manslaughter was ruled out in Greg Lynn's murder trial after all evidence had been heard.
Prosecution and defence lawyers agreed the only options for either charge were murder or acquittal.

The reason why manslaughter wasn't an option for the Greg Lynn murder trial jury

At the end of a five-week trial, prosecution and defence arguments differed so vastly that the jury were left with just two options: murder or acquittal.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Lord Peter Flimsy]

Not sure how many past murderers have used poisonous mushrooms as a chosen way to kill their victims but one such guy was Frenchman Henri Girard. His motive was the insurance money.

Just 30g of a death cap mushroom is enough to kill. Just how lucky was EP avoiding eating that quantity!

But as we all know this wasn’t some game of Beef Wellington Russian Roulette. The odds were most certainly stacked in her favour.

 

[MrJ]

Just 30g of a death cap mushroom is enough to kill. Just how lucky was EP avoiding eating that quantity!

Wow, how incredibly lucky:

• she
• her kids
• her Labrador

were completely fine, even with them scraped off!

 

[ChatteringBirds]

Was there testimony regarding how much of the meal she was observed eating? Did she eat a decent-sized portion?
(Sorry if discussed. This thread is moving too quickly for me.)

 

[Kemug]

Sure. You could explain it all away -

A bored SAHM with an interest in mushrooms and DC mushrooms, who just wanted to go see them in real life one autumn day...

Sure, she bought a dehydrator - merely interested in mushrooms and hoping to start a hobby of picking and drying safe ones...

Sure, she threw it away, but it was just a fleeting moment of thoughtless, needless panic, could happen to anyone, couldn't it...

Sure, she got a bit over-anxious about cancer fears and got carried away with wanting to talk to the in-laws about it...

You  could explain it all away - except for one thing.

They're dead. Of deathcaps.

And she's not.


(All allegedly.)

Brilliant post!

 

[Yh5r]

Was there testimony regarding how much of the meal she was observed eating? Did she eat a decent-sized portion?
(Sorry if discussed. This thread is moving too quickly for me.)

Half her serving according to Ian's testimony (the same amount as Gail who passed away from half a serving).

 

[Kemug]

So no "character witnesses"? Or does that only apply to some alleged crimes, and not others?

 

[katydid23]

They will still get their massive paycheck for their work. It is not really personal for the defence. They do the best they can, given the circumstances, then go home each night and live their lives.

Probably are pretty good mates with the prosecutors also. It is a tight legal fraternity.

imo

Yes, they are often good social friends behind the scenes. Often knowing each other since University or Law School days.

My Dad and older brother were defense attorneys and they did go home at night and live their lives, except if their clients were truly innocent. Then it was very stressful for them.

I know they did their best for all clients but if a client was sent to jail, if they were guilty, then maybe justice was served. But if the client was falsely accused it was a devastating situation and my father could barely sleep at night from the pressure.

 

[ChatteringBirds]

Half her serving according to Ian's testimony (the same amount as Gail who passed away from half a serving).

Thank you. It's a key piece of information, IMO.

 

[katydid23]

If it was as the defence says a 'tragic accident', why would EP go to the lengths to:

• look up death caps sighting on iNaturalist and around the same time in early 2023 buy a dehydrator;
• throw said dehydrator out at the tip with DC samples in it;
• make up a bogus cancer story, persist that lie in texts and bring the guests to the lunch with that ruse knowing full well it was a lie;
• insist she didn't forage for the mushrooms when she did;
• say in her police interview that she loved her relatives when she was repeatedly disparaging them in her FB friends' group chat;
• and most importantly, lie to health staff about where she sourced the mushrooms, leading them and council on a wild goose chase to Asian grocers/Woolworths when she later admitted she foraged them herself? Not only that, but ensuring the right treatment to her ill guests was given instead of not being transparent.

A lot of things just don't add up to me. JMO

Yes, and one of the biggest things for me was her behaviour after learning her 4 lunch guests were hospitalised. They were supposedly her loved ones whom were like 2nd parents to her. And the last time there were feeling healthy and good was at her dining table.

I would think she'd rush her kids to the doctors at that time, to be examined for any of the same symptoms, since they did not know what had happened. Maybe it was the meat, and her kids weren't sick yet because they ate it 24 hours later than the guests.

But EP said she was feeling unwell too. So wouldn't she want to go to the hospital and make sure that she was not coming down with same mystery illness?

And if she had foraged mushrooms but hadn't told anyone, but it was an innocent accident, then go to the doctors and have them give the antidote to the victims immediately. If it was accidental then she could explain what happened and save their lives if possible.

But she doubled down on the lies. And inexplicably she served those leftovers to her kids AFTER she already knew her lunch guests were very ill.

And I do not accept the excuse that 'they didnt know it was because of mushrooms yet.' That is not a valid excuse not to divulge her dangerous secret and not a valid excuse to go ahead and serve a meal made with 'funny smelling' mushrooms that you scraped off the meat to your young kids, after you are also supposedly unwell.

None of her stories add up. Either she was feeling unwell, which makes me shocked she'd give her kids that food---or she was lying and faking the symptoms, which is very suspicious.

 

[katydid23]

Another recap from Daily Mail while we wait:

Patterson's texts to health officer revealed​

Health officer Sally Ann Atkinson previously told the jury she thought a death cap mushroom poisoning outbreak was 'quite unusual'.
'I then initiated an investigation and immediately notified my manager,' she said.
The health officer said she wanted to get the death cap mushrooms off the shelves if they 'existed'.

Ms Atkinson also notified the Food Safety Unit which co-ordinates food recalls among other actions.

Ms Atkinson said she quickly put together a Problem Assessment Group (PAG) which was set up on August 1.

She later told the jury she mentioned to the PAG what she had discussed with Patterson the day prior.

Ms Atkinson said she attempted to call Patterson again on August 1.

Text messages sent between Ms Atkinson and Patterson were shown to the court.
Ms Atkinson texted Patterson at 3.50pm on August 1.

'Hi Erin, Sally from the Department of Health here,' the message started.
Ms Atkinson asked in the text for specific information including other ingredients and what drinks were served.

'I need to know what drinks were served, I need to know what shallots were used.'
Ms Atkinson also told Patterson that she needed 'more precise information about the packaging' and 'any roads you were parked on or (were) near those stores' and other landmarks.

'Just things to think about when I need to speak to you again,' Ms Atkinson ended her message.

Patterson responded at 4.08pm on August 2:
'Hi Sally I will try to get that information all to you as soon as possible,' she wrote.
'I’m just dealing with trying to manage and look after the kids in hospital here and a bit snowed under trying to manage that.

'I’ll get this info to you as soon as I can but I've just been in a couple of meetings with people at the hospital when you’ve been trying to call.'
Ms Atkinson texted Patterson back barely a minute later and asked about the kids
'Yeah they're fine thank you,' Patterson responded at 4.11pm.
'Very glad to hear that,' Ms Atkinson immediately replied.

Ms Atkinson said she also attempted to ring Patterson back later that evening but got no answer, left a voicemail and received no return call.

Erin Patterson mushroom murder trial LIVE updates

Follow Daily Mail Australia's live coverage of accused mushroom chef Erin Patterson's murder trial here.

www.dailymail.co.uk

So she called the Dept of Health a full day later, only to say she'd try to get to the questions when she can.

She said she was busy with managing her kids in the hospital. OK, Simon was there most of th time as well and her kids were not sick. So she was pretty much sitting there most of the time. IMO

 

[katydid23]

It doesn't... but on second thoughts, wouldn't it be easy enough for defence to argue that she was allowing someone else (eg another family member) to make the purchase using her card details (possibly card details saved in the laptop)?

Right, but then they'd have to say who it was. Is she going to say her son ordered the meals? Or Simon? Also, she'd have to testify, I believe, to get that info into evidence.

Her attorneys can't just say that out of the blue. Either the person who used her card and ordered it has to testify, or EP does, IIUC.

 

[MrJ]

Yes, and one of the biggest things for me was her behaviour after learning her 4 lunch guests were hospitalised. They were supposedly her loved ones whom were like 2nd parents to her. And the last time there were feeling healthy and good was at her dining table.

And if she had foraged mushrooms but hadn't told anyone, but it was an innocent accident, then go to the doctors and have them give the antidote to the victims immediately. If it was accidental then she could explain what happened and save their lives if possible.

SBM BBM

But she said in the police interview she wanted her in-laws in her grandchildren's lives? Was that another lie? jmo

 

[Megnut]

Can the State call the son to identify himself in the Subway video?

The Defense is insulting the jury's intelligence IMO.

JMO

 

[Kemug]

So she called the Dept of Health a full day later, only to say she'd try to get to the questions when she can.

She said she was busy with managing her kids in the hospital. OK, Simon was there most of th time as well and her kids were not sick. So she was pretty much sitting there most of the time. IMO

Oh poor poor me! I'm so so busy, so misunderstood, so sinned against! Poor little me!