Australia - 3 dead after eating wild mushrooms, Leongatha, Victoria, Aug 2023 #12 *Arrest*

[CityKid]

I'm still catching up so don't know if someone's already responded.

Controlling someone else's food wouldn't be an 'eating disorder' per se as it's inflicting control on others, not what one is doing to self. However, the phenomena of 'feeding' (over-feeding another or rendering them dependent on your feeding them / supplying them) is definitely a real thing.

Also if anyone's ever known someone severely anorectic, they're often obsessed with trying to dominate and manipulate other people's food choices, as well as often extremely interested in catering and preparing food for others where they themselves won't eat it. Just my observation, don't know what it's called but it's pretty unwell behaviour and often boundary violating or manipulative and feels off beam.

JMO MOO

BBM. I've seen this in a number of Instagram "chefs." Super slender yet making every dish with a thick layer of cheese and several sticks of butter, then pretending to take a bite.

 

[CityKid]

This is where the maths of the meat doesn't add up... it's so confusing. TBH I think she had extra steak(s) and just gave them that.

MOO you're correct. Why bother with the pastries and duxelles and the extra work when the children were happy with the steak by itself?

 

[Megnut]

Did son clear dessert plates … or dinner plates? He thinks dinner, but would he know which plates are dinner and which are commonly called salad/desert/side plates? 15cm is not a dinner plate, is way too small.

He should not be confused about 15 cm, as most kids school rulers are 20cm. All school students are doing things with that 20cm ruler which fits in a pencil case.

Pretty sure those BW plates were already long gone. Maybe Erin had her guests clear their own plates. No way did she let her child touch the BW plates, IMO.

And I seriously doubt they were still on the table when the son bussed it. Likely the BW plates were cleared to make way for dessert plates. Times five. All the same.

Why? Nobody was poisoning anybody with tainted dessert.

JMO

 

[JennieM]

Pretty sure those BW plates were already long gone. Maybe Erin had her guests clear their own plates. No way did she let her child touch the BW plates, IMO.

And I seriously doubt they were still on the table when the son bussed it. Likely the BW plates were cleared to make way for dessert plates. Times five. All the same.

Why? Nobody was poisoning anybody with tainted dessert.

JMO

I agree with you she wouldn’t let them touch those plates. That’s why I think she got rid of them herself, and then her son put the cake plates in the dishwasher.

 

[Moll]

Erin Patterson's week on the stand in her mushroom murder trial​

Joseph Dunstan - ABC News​

A sketch of Erin Patterson in court in late April. (ABC News)

Erin Patterson's week on the stand in her mushroom murder trial

The 50-year-old, who has pleaded not guilty to three charges of murder and one of attempted murder, admitted several times she had used lies and exaggeration in the past.

www.abc.net.au

That sketch was actually done in April 2024 - they used it then.

Erin Patterson, accused of killing three people with mushrooms, faces Victorian court

Erin Patterson's lawyers tell a regional Victorian court they are prepared to wait until next year for the case to progress to a committal hearing, despite an offer from the magistrate to have the matter fast-tracked to a Supreme Court trial.

www.abc.net.au

I noticed because I had just been looking at the reports from that time about EP changing lawyers, and her insistence on continuing in the small court when it would have been quicker, more convenient for everyone else and more normal to transfer such a high-interest case to the much larger court in Melbourne.

As I wasn't following the case on here then I hoped they might explain a bit more than they did. I'm sure it was discussed on here then and I've seen comments more recently that she must have been hoping a jury of small-town folk would be more amenable to her story.

But does anyone know of any other case in Australia or any other jurisdiction where a murder accused has dictated the place of their trial, overriding everyone else? Were there comments from Australian lawyers? it seems like more power tactics but very likely to misfire.

 

[BigT]

She.s on a “Hail Mary” defence strategy, where every inference in her testimony leads to a “reasonable doubt”. What’s interesting is, would this such pragmatic and all about the law type defence be better presented to a judge alone trial or will a jury be able to “really” understand about the reasonable doubt “at law” -

So the question is “what is a reasonable doubt”. Is it reasonable that, some foraged mushrooms may have ended up in the dried mushrooms stores she chose only after the taste test was “bland?

There would have to have been a mistake that death caps had been foraged and dehydrated and stored without knowing

There would have to have been a mistake that mushrooms bought from the Asian grocer in Melbourne would have to to have been mixed with the dehydrated foraged mushrooms

Her evidence is “this is possible” ergo, it is reasonable.

Reasonable doubt?.. this is a jury NOT to be on…..

 

[Megnut]

IMO Erin isn't presenting a credible narrative, and certainly not a cohesive one.

She is so contrary she contradicts herself.

Instead she's got this Choose Your Own Ending flow chart.

No seating chart, didn't need help serving as if that equates to random platings.

She was sick, but not too sick, but was getting better.

Called this luncheon gathering to discuss adult matters, but no, it was just an appreciation luncheon. Featuring two on-laws who hadn't been willing to engage in her coercion tactics against Simon.

Animosity, no animosity.

I submit that the essential conflict is within Erin alone, casting it outward.

JMO

 

[JBowie]

IMO Erin isn't presenting a credible narrative, and certainly not a cohesive one.

She is so contrary she contradicts herself.

I sum her position up this way: "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive."

 

[browneyes]

I know that sounds like a logical approach but it will be a very difficult deliberation for the jury, i think.

For example, Ian said the guests meals were served on 4 grey plates.

Erin said she doesn't own 4 grey plates.

Ian is most probably telling the truth - that he thinks the guest's meals were served on 4 grey plates....but that doesn't mean the meals were actually served on 4 grey plates.

The fact that someone thinks one thing happened and another person thinks a different thing happened, doesn't mean someone must be lying. They both may be telling the truth.

From the evidence, maybe it can't be proven that Erin ate from a different plate to everyone else.

The judge won't allow the jury to assume Erin is lying about some things, simply because she has admittedly lied about other things.

In fact the judge won't allow the jury to assume anything.

JMO

The jury can disregard any testimony they find unbelievable. Just because Erin says something doesn’t mean the jurors can’t dismiss it. Otherwise, they’d never reach verdicts. They use reasonable doubt for the totality of the evidence. They can believe Ian about the plates and disregard Erin’s statement if they so choose.

 

[ch_13]

The judge won't allow the jury to assume Erin is lying about some things, simply because she has admittedly lied about other things.

Unless the court system in Victoria is vastly different than most other common law-based systems, I disagree with what you wrote.

The cornerstone of the jury system is that it's the jury that is the ultimate finder of fact, not the judge. It's their responsibility to assess the credibility of a witness. They can disregard a witness's testimony either in whole or in part. It's completely up to them. And the judge cannot order them to think otherwise.

So, I disagree that a judge can instruct them to believe Erin's testimony. And honestly, that makes little sense. How many defendants in criminal trials get up on the stand and lie their butts off? If a jury had to take a defendant's protestation of innocence at face value, no one would ever get convicted of a crime.

Edit - @browneyes said it more succinctly than I did.

 

[Lord Peter Flimsy]

I know that sounds like a logical approach but it will be a very difficult deliberation for the jury, i think.

For example, Ian said the guests meals were served on 4 grey plates.

Erin said she doesn't own 4 grey plates.

Ian is most probably telling the truth - that he thinks the guest's meals were served on 4 grey plates....but that doesn't mean the meals were actually served on 4 grey plates.

The fact that someone thinks one thing happened and another person thinks a different thing happened, doesn't mean someone must be lying. They both may be telling the truth.

From the evidence, maybe it can't be proven that Erin ate from a different plate to everyone else.

The judge won't allow the jury to assume Erin is lying about some things, simply because she has admittedly lied about other things.

In fact the judge won't allow the jury to assume anything.

JMO

Sadly one of the deceased who spotted the different plates is no longer here to tell her side of the story.

Easier for confirmed liar EP to contradict the only person other than herself to survive that meal.

 

[katydid23]

I read somewhere once that if the accused says absolutely nothing except "I don't know", "I don't remember" and "I wasn't there", then it will be very hard to find them guilty.

Unless of course the prosecution has cctv, solid eyewitness testimony or valid receipts which conflict with the defendants statements of denial.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

First post on this site. I've been to the area of the trial. Korumburra/Leongatha is a nice area. It has a picnic farm the public can go to, and a school camp. It's the place where nothing happens for 20 years.

Having read through much of this thread, I agree with people that her actions and lies are suspicious. If I had been doing a drinking game for every mention of the mysterious "Asian Grocer" I'd be blotto on the floor. She is a mushroom enthusiast. She normally gets her mushrooms from other shops or forages. Surely this one trip to the Asian Grocer she would remember something more than vaguely it was in "Oakleigh". How did it compare to her normal shopping trips for mushrooms? Further away? Closer? You have to conclude surely that there was no Asian Grocer. It was her lie and fantasy.

I can't add a lot to people's excellent posts. Only that I know Dr Tom May and he is an excellent mycologist. Erin Patterson saying she knows more than what he does - that's like knowing more archaeology than Indiana Jones.

Before the trial started, I can remember commenting on this - how many shops do you go to that you can't remember the specific one, especially in an unfamiliar area? I went camping a few weeks ago in Wales, and stopped off in a random convenience store. Without looking it up, I can tell you exactly where it was. Even something like petrol stations, I could have more than a good guess at.

There was a similar situation when she was talking about the meal and the mushrooms etc. I'm someone who cooks regularly, and I would remember doing something out of the ordinary like having to go and get another box of mushrooms. I also suspect I would remember what was in the specific box.

And I've got a terrible memory!

 

[Megnut]

Erin herself is a cautionary tale. She says one thing, then denies she said, pointing her finger at the questioner as if it's the questioner who has the semantics problems.

She did, she didn't, it depends on what you mean by 'did'. She is attempting to gaslight the jury, by creating so much confusion they begin to doubt their reason.

I'll bet Simon has lived with it for decades. Eventually you stop arguing. Because it's pointless. You can't reason with an unreasonable person.

Adults have been poisoned.
Children were fed in that same home.
Reasonable to hurry those children to the hospital, in case of accidental ingestion.
Erin says, no, she doesn't want to worry them. Gas light. Erin cares more about the children than the doctors do. She wants to care for and protect them. Doctors want to distress them. Erin, good. Doctors, bad.

That's insanity.

Erin knows mushrooms. Erin doesn't know what mushrooming is. (Geez, context gives all the clues she needs but clearly Erin would rather such all available oxygen out of the atmosphere debating a self-evident definition than answer the actual question).

Logic, even if Erin foraged for only nontoxic mushrooms, which she pulverized to sneak into mushroomy recipes, which she fed to guests who became deathly ill, it would be reasonable to consider that a death cap mushroom made its accidental way into her dehydrator. More like than store-bought. As possible as a third-party contributor. But nope, Erin is all seeing and all knowing abd wants us to believe the children are absolutely fine and unexposed while simultaneously wanting us to suspend all reason. Renember, she's the one who insisted that she scraped the mushrooms off their portion. No mother I know, if she really did that, would leave their children's health up to chance. Too much risk, we're hauling them in.
I hope the jury recognizes when someone is talking out both sides of her mouth.

JMO

 

[MaxDecimus13]

I think the prosecution is suggesting she co-opted more and more relatives to come to the lunch as a larger lure for Simon to attend. Hence why she branched out to also include Ian and Heather. IMO allegedly

This was when I first doubted her guilt. 2 years ago, I presumed she'd wanted to murder Simon and it would look more like an accident if there were others there.

Then I realised that once she knew he wasn't going to attend, she could have easily made an excuse not to serve the meals. She could have claimed the meat had gone bad, or she'd messed up etc and ordered in a takeaway. She would have had to decide to still poison them.

This gave me significant reason to doubt, something I've rowed back from quite a lot more recently.

 

[Knitty]

This thread is closed. Please continue at Thread #13.