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

Status
Not open for further replies.
So it seems to me that there is quite a story here. The deaths occurred in late July and early August 2023, is that right? And it was only the Spring before that when Simon may have been attacked? In Australia Spring is September - November. He likely wasn't well again till about Christmas. Did Erin start her mushroom experiments on the children about then, as Plan A hadn't worked? She discovered that the children didn't notice the mushrooms in the brownies, etc, and Plan B was born. In April she picked Death Caps, bought a dehydrator, and dried them. By June/July she was planning a fancy lunch. If this is how it went, she is truly diabolical. If this is how it went, she is obsessed.
 
She said she needs to be able to lip read when she is listening to people speak, so her staring intently is one of the few things that there is definitely an innocent explanation for in this case.
I find the accused's behaviour with the prosecutor so fascinating. She would have always thought she was the most intelligent in the room, and now she is up against an intellectual heavyweight in Dr Rogers. I think a lot of her behaviour in the courtroom (asking Dr Rogers to repeat a question, pointing out double negatives) is geared to controlling the narrative, and also trying to gain an upperhand in her responses. I agree with so many here who have said that she comes across as arrogant, but I also think she is incredibly controlling. I don't believe for a second any of the claims she has made about Simon, and in fact, do think it was Erin who dictated the terms of their relationship. IMO

If Simon was such a 'deadbeat' or abusive, the defence would have gone to great lengths to show evidence of this. And of course, there has been nothing of the sort presented. I hope the prosecution will display the aggressive texts sent to Simon's parents, which would further demonstrate the 'two faces' of the accused.
 
Would the jurors really believe EP's version of events over the sole survivor?

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
 
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
It’s not just Ian who mentions the gray plates. One of the women - I think Gail? - also talked about it.
 
It’s not just Ian who mentions the gray plates. One of the women - I think Gail? - also talked about it.
Yes, i think it was Heather, Ian's wife.

But Erin's son who cleaned up, said they were white plates.

I think the matter of plates will be a very difficult piece of the puzzle to prove, for the jury. I doubt they'll be able to, from the evidence.
 
I was reading the Austin Clinic's guidelines for treating Death Cap poisoning. Just going to put it here, for anyone who is interested.
They really needed the knowledge to jump on the treatments right away, because in 1-7 days a victim could be dead.


View attachment 592714

Thanks for posting this. I noticed the second to last sentence, under the “Disposition” subheading:

If symptomatic, but LFTs/ renal function normal at 48 hours post exposure, then this excludes amatoxin-related mushroom poisoning.”

It sounds as though Monash doctors were confident Erin had not suffered death cap mushroom poisoning. IMO.

Monash emergency doctor Varuna Ruggoo assessed Patterson on August 1 and found she was “clinically well” after performing several tests.
Patterson had been cleared of potentially suffering from death cap mushroom poisoning by another doctor, Laura Muldoon, she said.
She wrote in her notes that there was no concerns about that type of poisoning because ... Ms Patterson’s liver function tests were all within normal limits,” Dr Ruggoo told the jury.
Dr Ruggoo then deemed Patterson was fit to be discharged, at 1pm that day.


 
Yes, i think it was Heather, Ian's wife.

But Erin's son who cleaned up, said they were white plates.

I think the matter of plates will be a very difficult piece of the puzzle to prove, for the jury. I doubt they'll be able to, from the evidence.
Agreed. But I don't believe for a second she used a plate that was made or 'decorated' by her daughter for a 'very special lunch'. All of those types of novelty crockery decorated by kids is only ever used for Sunday night chips and nuggets in front of the TV- there is no way Erin would have brought that specific plate out for a fancy Saturday lunch where she had outlaid $$$. But as mentioned, no way to prove that.
 
Agreed. But I don't believe for a second she used a plate that was made or 'decorated' by her daughter for a 'very special lunch'. All of those types of novelty crockery decorated by kids is only ever used for Sunday night chips and nuggets in front of the TV- there is no way Erin would have brought that specific plate out for a fancy Saturday lunch where she had outlaid $$$. But as mentioned, no way to prove that.
Actually... it might be exactly for this situation that she'd pull a plate like that out. If anyone questioned her, she'd say, with her concern for the children with her pending Stage 4 nonsense, she just wanted to be able to remember the children, because you know her time might be limited (and not because she needed to remember which BW was hers).

Erin has a story for everything.

JMO
 
White or gray, there was a difference in color between these plates and Erin’s plate.
Yes, i think that was the evidence from Ian and also Simon's second hand evidence.

Erin’s son...
“I collected all the plates. I collected all the glasses, put them next to the sink. They were white plates that were 15 centimetres in diameter, they were raised on the edge. Slightly curved up,” he said. “Dinner plates

Erin
“Just the dinner plates I had, a couple of black ones, a couple of white ones, one that's red on top and black underneath and a plate I've got that [child] made at kindergarten,” said Erin

Ian
“Yes, there were four large, grey dinner plates and one smaller plate, a different colour. It was an orangey-tan sort of colour,” said Mr Wilkinson


I guess my point is, it's probably a very difficult piece of evidence to use, in order to show intent, since you would need to assume various factors, which the jury won't be allowed to do. They can 'infer' certain things, but i doubt they will be able to here.

Maybe this evidence won't matter for the jury, who knows.

JMO
 
Last edited:
The fact that the plate's colour was discussed in the car on the way to the hospital at the first sign of getting sick and in pain shows that they were already assuming it was not just accidental food poisoning, but possibly an intentional poisoning.

That is not a normal assumption most people would make, so to remember that Erin had a different coloured plate certainly stood out in their memory, in all the pain, vomiting they were suffering.

They still remembered the different coloured plate Erin had, compared to their ones


I hope Dr Rogers brings this up in the trial...



*** The evidence of Erin Patterson is at odds with what Ian Wilkinson said on Day 6 of the trial under questioning by prosecutor Jane Warren.

“Can you describe the plates please?”

“Yes, there were four large, grey dinner plates and one smaller plate, a different colour. It was an orangey-tan sort of colour,” said Mr Wilkinson.

“What colour were the four large dinner plates?” she repeated.

“They were a grey colour.”

He said Erin picked up the smaller, odd coloured plate and took it to her place at the table.

And despite a terrible night of vomiting and diarrhoea at her Korumburra home in the early hours of Sunday, July 30, 2023, according to Simon Patterson, his late aunt Heather summoned up the strength to also ask him about the plates.

“'I noticed Erin served herself her food on a coloured plate, which was different to the rest,” she is alleged to have said to Simon on his evidence.

She allegedly repeated it on the way to the Leongatha hospital.

“She mentioned the coloured plate again. She asked me, 'Is Erin short of crockery? Is that why she would have this different kind of coloured plate that she served herself with?” Mr Patterson told the court on the third day of the trial.

The truth about the conflicting accounts is a matter for the jury.

But what credibility does Erin still have??
 
Last edited:
I find the accused's behaviour with the prosecutor so fascinating. She would have always thought she was the most intelligent in the room, and now she is up against an intellectual heavyweight in Dr Rogers. I think a lot of her behaviour in the courtroom (asking Dr Rogers to repeat a question, pointing out double negatives) is geared to controlling the narrative, and also trying to gain an upperhand in her responses. I agree with so many here who have said that she comes across as arrogant, but I also think she is incredibly controlling. I don't believe for a second any of the claims she has made about Simon, and in fact, do think it was Erin who dictated the terms of their relationship. IMO

If Simon was such a 'deadbeat' or abusive, the defence would have gone to great lengths to show evidence of this. And of course, there has been nothing of the sort presented. I hope the prosecution will display the aggressive texts sent to Simon's parents, which would further demonstrate the 'two faces' of the accused.
I definitely thought it was a bit of a power move when Erin asked for Dr Rogers to adjust her microphone!
I completely agree that Erin was likely controlling in her relationships, and I would add highly manipulative and passive aggressive. I imagine anyone that knows/knew her well had some sense of her two sides.

I believe the defence strategy is to try to downplay any negative feelings Erin may have harbored toward Simon and his family as they do not want her to appear to have any motive to harm them.
I believe she has now denied she ever called Simon coercive or controlling.The defence have tried to contextualize her angry texts and Facebook messages as “venting” and “frustration”. Oh and we mustn’t forget, Simon, is not her ex-husband and she still believes he is a good person. Maybe next she’ll be saying she wants them to get back together 🙄🙄

I hope this coming week, we will see Erin’s nonsense excuses and inconsistencies picked apart a bit more by the prosecution.

IMO.
 

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

https://www.abc.net.au/news/joseph-dunstan/7538700

A sketch of Erin Patterson wearing a blue jumper and thin framed black glasses with her hair tied back.

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

 
Yes, i think that was the evidence from Ian and also Simon's second hand evidence.

Erin’s son...
“I collected all the plates. I collected all the glasses, put them next to the sink. They were white plates that were 15 centimetres in diameter, they were raised on the edge. Slightly curved up,” he said. “Dinner plates

Erin
“Just the dinner plates I had, a couple of black ones, a couple of white ones, one that's red on top and black underneath and a plate I've got that [child] made at kindergarten,” said Erin

Ian
“Yes, there were four large, grey dinner plates and one smaller plate, a different colour. It was an orangey-tan sort of colour,” said Mr Wilkinson


I guess my point is, it's probably a very difficult piece of evidence to use, in order to show intent, since you would need to assume various factors, which the jury won't be allowed to do. They can 'infer' certain things, but i doubt they will be able to here.

Maybe this evidence won't matter for the jury, who knows.

JMO
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
191
Guests online
547
Total visitors
738

Forum statistics

Threads
625,478
Messages
18,504,577
Members
240,809
Latest member
10 :)
Back
Top