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

[Baby baby Jane]

OOOHH, very slick. Very smooth...." Oh, I just saw some mushrooms and tried a bit of one , and fried it up, NO PROBLEM.... I didn't get sick"

OBJECTION!!!!!

So is she going to say she just picked some wild mushrooms in the paddock near her home, LIKE SHE HAD DONE BEFORE WITH NO PROBLEM, and oh wow, everyone died but me this time?

… and she’s built up a tolerance to death caps? Sowing seeds of doubt?

Tho having difficulty picturing a person sauté-ing one mushroom and tasting a small bite and then waiting to get sick. especially a person who worries about cancer & illness all the time

 

[Lord Peter Flimsy]

Her defence have versed her well. She's going to walk, I'm telling you.

The Prosecution have been presented with an open goal and would have to be pretty inept to fail to get a conviction in this case.

 

[Lord Peter Flimsy]

So far nothing I have heard makes me think she is an awful person. It just makes her human.
Just a human being with all our complexities and imperfections.
I'm not interested in throwing stones.

Maybe some on the jury might have the same opinion.
I would not be surprised.

Apart from lacing a meal with the most deadliest of toxic fungi there is.

 

[katydid23]

Again respectfully, I think a lot of emphasis has been put on those comments. Her description of the group and their familiarity made it seem highly likely that she was just having a rant, something that a lot of people do over a drink with a friend that isn't then enshrined 'in ink' for all to see.

I think it was more than an innocent meaningless rant. FIVE people sat down to eat the lunch she served and she was the only one that walked away unscathed.

Her explanations for that 'accidental poisoning' makes no sense to me. It doesn't sound believable. IMO

 

[SouthAussie]

That’s what I thought it would be. That was a very dangerous photo for Erin. Tom May was very credible

She is stepping in very dangerous territory. Either she is lying, or a whole bunch of people who have testified have told big errors. The number of people is adding up.

I guess she knows the concept of throwing enough mud (doubt) at the wall and hoping some of it sticks.

imo

 

[katydid23]

i also think its quite telling that as someone who overshared her medical anxieties with her ex-husband ad-nauseam and seemly most minute day-to-day interests or activities with him/the family, that she failed to mention this "hobby" of mushroom foraging with them...

I would be angry if someone served me and my family foraged mushrooms without telling me beforehand. I think that is an unfair risk to expect someone to take when they eat at your table.

ESPECIALLY if they are dried and powdered. They weren't even served fresh, delicious ----but dried/powdered. What a risk for someone to take for no good reason. IMO

 

[Detechtive]

Apart from lacing a meal with the most deadliest of toxic fungi there is.

I personally think she is a terrible person even if she didn't murder her family.

At best she's highly manipulative, duplicitous, a malingering hypochondriac, a gaslighting narcissist and toxic. IMO

 

[Scooby-Doo]

Having her on the stand also raises the possibility of bringing up the times Simon was hospitalised with a mysterious gastro illness, crippling pain which many are saying was some fauna poisoning.

How did that get into his system?


If there's any mention of her caring for him when he was ill, the prosecution will be allowed to raise it and possibly bring in further witnesses

At this stage, it's been off-limits as the prosecution didn't pursue the attempted murder charges against Simon.

There are no tears for her in-laws.

She didn't lift a finger to help her victims while they lay dying in the hospital, no phone calls even to the hospital, to Simon. Checking on Mr Wilkinson.

She was only interested in saving her neck. She is a compulsive liar

If she were innocent, and this was just a horrible mistake. She would be genuinely upset, terribly distressed, and not talk about her life history. To get sympathy from the jury

She hasn't shown any hint of remorse or emotion.

She is talking about using her dehydrator now, but originally, she told police she didn't own one.
She raced down to the tip to dump it.

Earlier in the trial, Facebook friends of Erin Patterson told the court that Erin had divulged that she was an atheist.
But now she is a Christian, another 'Brownie points' for the jury

I hope the prosecution request answers regarding her bowel movements or explosive diarrhea, which will certainly give her the sh***..!!
There was a lot of misleading information from her.

What she's been eating as well... including any of the hotdogs, dim sims, sour confectionery, a ham, cheese, and tomato sandwich, a sweet chilli chicken wrap, and plenty of coffee, while racing around in her cream coloured pants

 

[katydid23]

I am really interested to see what she says but plausibly she could claim that she didn't want to be blamed expecting them to recover and wanting to have a closer relationship with them without that colouring all their future interactions. If she didn't say anything and they recovered, no one would have ever known. Given that death caps were the problem, it makes it less likely that she expected a recovery unless she really didn't know they were death caps....

So she'd just let them die instead of quickly asking the doctors to give them the antidote?

The hospital was begging her for information to help them treat her loved ones. And she continued to LIE. And her excuse is she didn't want to be blamed?

And it's OK because if they all died no one would know? Does that make it OKAY?

 

[katydid23]

We're probably not going to see any further evidence today at least. Disappointing.

I'm okay with that because I think the prosecution has some research and studying to do. They are figuring out what her new explanation is going to be and I want them to have a chance to prepare before she continues her song and dance.

 

[JBowie]

I'm wondering what their objection is based on? [I'm behind so haven't gotten there yet]

Just wondering if she is now saying things that have not been in Discovery----like she never admitted before that she regularly fed wild mushrooms to hr children since 2020?

We aren't told what the objection was. Need to be in court to know what was being discussed when they raised it -- assuming it was a question put by the defence or maybe a statement made by EP.

Or maybe -- as I hope -- the prosecution wants the judge to rein in the sob saga the jury has been forced to endure for two days.

 

[katydid23]

No she is not but she '"doesn't trust the hospital system" (justifiably in her mind from what she says)

SO? Her loved ones were very very ill. How does her distrust of 'the system' prevent her from helping them survive?

and she doesn't want to get in trouble.

Does that make it OK? Why would she get in trouble if it was an innocent mistake?

It is possible ignorance (thinking she'd made herself vomit and no mushrooms on kids' dinners made them safe) and self preservation from blame drove those behaviours...?

All of the above sounds vile and selfish. UGH

She vomits to save HERSELF from the poisons she baked into the meal she served?

Self preservation? Sounds more like Pre-meditation to me.

 

[katydid23]

We aren't told what the objection was. Need to be in court to know what was being discussed when they raised it -- assuming it was a question put by the defence or maybe a statement made by EP.

Or maybe -- as I hope -- the prosecution wants the judge to rein in the sob saga the jury has been forced to endure for two days.

the objections happened while she was describing the mushrooms she picked and fried in butter, and she never got sick. And they objected again when she said she began feeding wild mushrooms to her kids.

I think she was telling stories about things that were not included in Discovery and not agreed upon as true statements not needing proof etc.

So I think tomorrow the Prosecution will have a clear picture of what their cross examination will be like, when it happens.

 

[BreakingNews]

I grew up in the country and was told explicitly ad nausea to NEVER touch ANY mushrooms EVER. "You just don't know which ones are poisonous, so NEVER take the risk". Just like we were taught not to EVER eat berries from trees unless our parents gave them to us (eg Mulberries or Blackberries), or not to touch snakes even if they looked harmless, or not to put our fingers under rock surfaces at the beach, because of blue ringed octopus, or not to swim outside the flags due to the risk of rips. Or to be very cautious at Dusk on rural roads due to the kangaroos and deer coming to the side of the road to feed.

Australia is a very deadly country when it comes to our Flora and Fauna and natural environmental dangers. Most of us got the memo without really being conscious of it. It's absolutely crazy to me that anyone would forage for mushrooms, let alone feed them to unsuspecting guests without discussion.

Where my family comes from in Sweden, everyone forages because there's basically nothing harmless over there. But here? No way! Nearly everything here is deadly! lol

Mushrooms, berries. We learnt all about bush tucker. And we lived on snake highway, so knew exactly what to do. We lived off the land. No electricity for the first 6 years of my life. The best life ever. Fresh field mushrooms cooked in butter on toast is the best.

 

[MrJ]

Tomorrow is going to be absolutely wild, I can just tell. All she had to do was stick to whatever story she had but with the dehydrator, then the Asian grocer, then foraging, her "alibi" or whatever it is is all over the place. Prosecution cross-examination is going to be juicy and I can't wait for it all.

 

[BreakingNews]

I hope you're right. I don't have much faith in juries, I'm afraid...

It's the best system we have. Don't blame the jurors, they only do what the judge tells them.

 

[katydid23]

Nothing wrong with a thirst for knowledge.

No, of course not. But some people are 'professional' students. I've seen people who collect degrees but never actually put any of their knowledge to use. The two people I know firsthand are both 'rich kids' who went off to college and continued the college life well into their late 30's.

One friend has a law degree, a business degree, and then studied to become a Chiropractor and finally went on to become a day trader, but with disastrous results. She has never practiced law or been a practicing Chiropractor. She is 39 and has never had a real career in any of those fields.

So I could say she had a thirst for knowledge. But I also saw that she never really put much of that acquired knowledge to practical use. She never followed through and became any of those professions.

 

[katydid23]

3 minutes ago - 04:04 PMMax Corstorphan

Patterson accepted “death cap mushrooms” were in fatal lunch​

Erin Patterson has returned to the witness box to discuss the fatal lunch that left three people dead.

Ms Patterson was asked if she accepted that “death cap mushrooms” were in the lunch.

“Yes, I do,” she said.

Asked where the mushrooms came from, Ms Patterson said: “The vast majority came from the local Woolworths in Leongatha,

Ms Patterson said there were also mushrooms from an “Asian grocer” in Melbourne.

Accused mushroom killer testifies about fatal lunch

RECAP: Erin Patterson has returned to the witness box to discuss the fatal lunch that left three people dead.

thenightly.com.au

Asked where the mushrooms came from, Ms Patterson said: “The vast majority came from the local Woolworths in Leongatha,

Ms Patterson said there were also mushrooms from an “Asian grocer” in Melbourne.

[Did she admit she added foraged ones too?]

 

[Detechtive]

Nothing wrong with a thirst for knowledge.
​

No but a thirst [or hunger] for murder is wrong. IMO

 

[katydid23]

That's why her defences claim that she accidentally picked Death Caps doesn't wash. She said just earlier that she had identified one species of mushrooms to avoid and she had done some research on mushrooms.

She told the jury she felt confident enough about her research that she began feeding wild mushrooms to her children, cutting them up really small so they couldn't pick them out.