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

[drsleuth]

11m ago01.53 EDT
Rogers says Patterson wanted her lunch guests to believe she would be having cancer treatment.

“Yeah, I agree with that,” Patterson says.

Rogers says she told her lunch guests she had a cancer diagnosis.

“I don’t agree,” Patterson says.

Rogers says Simon gave evidence he saw Don and Gail at Korumburra hospital the day after the lunch - 30 July 2023. Simon said Don recalled that at the lunch Erin told her guests she had undergone medical tests and ovarian cancer had been detected. Simon said Don told him Erin was not sure how to tell her children.

“I don’t remember saying I’d had a diagnosis,” Patterson says.

Patterson says she did not tell her guests she was unsure how to tell her children.

Erin Patterson trial day 27 – as it happened

This blog is now closed

www.theguardian.com

 

[katydid23]

now05.40 BST
Patterson asked about ‘mushrooming’ and ‘foraging’

Rogers says Patterson lied to Stuart at Monash Health when she said she did not go “mushrooming.” Patterson says she would have asked Stuart what she meant by the phrase. She says it is not a phrase she would have used.

She says “mushrooming” could mean a couple of things, including “foraging” and “other uses of mushrooms” that are not eating.

Under questioning by Rogers, Patterson says she uses the word “foraging” to refer to picking and eating.

Patterson denies she deliberately used foraged mushrooms in the beef wellington meal on 29 July 2023.

She says she did not deliberately put death cap mushrooms in the lunch meal.

Erin Patterson trial day 27 – as it happened

This blog is now closed

www.theguardian.com

I think she is trying to deflect by changing the focus to the definition of mushrooming.

She is probably trying to argue that ' 'shrooming' could her to ingesting psilocybin for a drug trip.

Just another way to weasel out of the real questions.

I have heard the word "crafty" being used to describe intelligent women before.
More than once.

Probably because intelligent people, both male and female can sometimes be manipulative.

They may try to achieve their aims or goals by using deceitful means.

Erin is a crafty person. She is a proven liar. She deceives others to gt what she wants and admits to doing so.

 

[MrJ]

wtf?

Key Event
1m ago
Prosecution suggests Erin wanted her in-laws to get involved with marital dispute

By Joseph Dunstan

Erin is taken to messages from this late 2022 period, when she and her estranged husband were in disagreement about how financial support should be offered to their children.

Dr Rogers suggests Erin was flagging to her parents-in-law in one of the messages that school fees were in dispute.

"It seems to be that cancelling the school fees ... has been a punishment to me for claiming child support, which is unconscionable," Erin wrote in one of the messages.

"Both parents have a duty to financially support the children they made."

Dr Rogers suggests Erin was canvassing for support from her parents-in-law.

"Weren't you in effect seeking support from Don and Gail to get Simon to pay some of the school fees?" Dr Rogers asks.

"No, no, I wouldn't put it like that," Erin says.

"I really, what I wanted from them, whether I communicated it well or not, was, I wanted Don and Gail to help Simon and I communicate better about it and in some ways I think I was ... I thought that if Simon knew that Don and Gail knew how Simon was behaving he might change his behaviour."

 

[drsleuth]

1m ago16.04 AEST
Rogers takes Patterson to evidence by child protection worker, Katrina Cripps, that Patterson told her she invited her lunch guests over for advice about approaching a medical issue with her children on 1 August 2023.

Patterson says she “wouldn’t have put it like that because that wasn’t the reason I invited people”.

“Cripps is wrong, is she?” Rogers asks.

“Yes,” Patterson says.

Patterson says she told Cripps a medical issue had been discussed at the lunch. But she says she did not tell her a discussion of a medical issue was the reason for the lunch.

Rogers says Ian Wilkinson’s evidence was that Patterson told her guests she was anxious about sharing her medical news with her children.

She asks if Patterson told her lunch guests she was anxious about telling her children.

“I think it’s more accurate that I had been talking to them about how to manage the children,” Patterson says.

1m ago16.05 AEST
Rogers says: “I suggest you never thought you would have to account for this lie about having cancer because you thought your lunch guests would die.”

“That’s not true,” Patterson replies

1m ago16.05 AEST
Patterson asked about relationship with estranged husband

Rogers turns to question Patterson about her relationship with her estranged husband, Simon.

She says Simon gave evidence in the trial that he noticed a change in their relationship when Patterson discovered he had listed himself as “separated” in his tax return in late 2022.

Patterson says there was a change but it “happened a bit later, a few weeks later”. She says the tax return conversation was in October 2022.

“But I didn’t perceive a change in the relationship until the end of November,” she says.

Erin Patterson trial day 27 – as it happened

This blog is now closed

www.theguardian.com

 

[LinasK]

11m ago01.53 EDT
Rogers says Patterson wanted her lunch guests to believe she would be having cancer treatment.

“Yeah, I agree with that,” Patterson says.

Rogers says she told her lunch guests she had a cancer diagnosis.

“I don’t agree,” Patterson says.

Rogers says Simon gave evidence he saw Don and Gail at Korumburra hospital the day after the lunch - 30 July 2023. Simon said Don recalled that at the lunch Erin told her guests she had undergone medical tests and ovarian cancer had been detected. Simon said Don told him Erin was not sure how to tell her children.

“I don’t remember saying I’d had a diagnosis,” Patterson says.

Patterson says she did not tell her guests she was unsure how to tell her children.

Erin Patterson trial day 27 – as it happened

This blog is now closed

www.theguardian.com

Semantics again. She's misleading the Patterson's into thinking she has Cancer- without saying "I was diagnosed with it". What else are they supposed to think when she's discussing getting biopsies, MRI's, chemo, and surgery???

 

[Doesitmakesense]

I really hope they bring up quantity of beef Wellingtons, and how could it be possible for her children to have eaten the left overs

 

[drsleuth]

4.08pm

‘I did not tell her that’: Two different memories about the purpose of the beef Wellington lunch​

By​

In the cross-examination, accused triple murderer Erin Patterson is facing questioning about conversations surrounding her purported cancer diagnosis, particularly what she conveyed to both her father-in-law, Don Patterson, and a child support worker.

Senior Crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers has directed Patterson to evidence given by her estranged husband, Simon, earlier in the trial. Simon told the jury that his dad had told him at Korumburra Hospital that Erin might undergo chemotherapy and surgery on July 30, 2023.

“I don’t remember saying I’d had a diagnosis,” she said.

Patterson said she disputed that she had said that they had found ovarian cancer, and that she said that she expected to have chemo and potentially surgery.

“I don’t think I was that specific,” she said.

Patterson told the jury that she “might have said it, ” but wasn’t certain. Patterson told the court that there was “nothing to tell the kids” and she never intended to inform them about it.

When Rogers asked whether she had told a child support worker, Katrina Cripps, that she had invited her lunch guests to discuss a medical issue, Patterson said that was incorrect.

Rogers: Mrs Cripps is wrong is she?

Patterson: Yes.

Rogers: Mrs Cripps also gave evidence that you told her that you wanted advice on how to approach this issue with the children.

Patterson: My memory of that conversation is that she was telling me things they had been told by Simon and communicating that to me.

Rogers: I am very unclear about that response. What I am putting to you is the evidence that Katrina Crips gave of what you told Mrs Cripps.

Patterson said her memory of the conversation was different.

Rogers: Did you tell Katrina Cripps that you wanted advice on how to approach this issue with your children?

Patterson: Something like that yeah.

Rogers: To be very clear I am suggesting you did tell Katrina Cripps that you invited [them] to discuss a medical issue.

Patterson said they had discussed the reason for the lunch “because that was not the reason for the invitation”.

Rogers: I am asking you, is it your evidence that at no stage did you tell Cripps that you had the lunch to discuss a medical issue.

Patterson: That’s correct I did not tell her that.

Erin Patterson murder trial day 27 as it happened: ‘You thought the lunch guests would die’: A rare invitation and a ‘lie about cancer’

It was rare for Erin Patterson to host guests; having four people over for a meal was not an ordinary, casual event for the mother of two.

www.theage.com.au

 

[MrJ]

Just now
More messages to Don Patterson shown

By Joseph Dunstan

In another message from this period, Erin addressed Don and said she wanted him to be aware and care about what was going on and encourage Simon to "do the right thing" by his children.

Dr Rogers asks if that changes her response about not wanting support from Don and Gail in persuading Simon to pay the school fees.

"No, because what I said was 'encourage Simon to do the right thing by his children'," Erin says.

"I think it was more of a global proposition … I'm finding it hard to explain what I meant by that."

Erin suggests that the message was also referring to "difficulty and tension" between Simon and his son.

 

[drsleuth]

A ‘shift’ in Erin and Simon’s relationship​

Ms Patterson says she noticed a “shift” in her relationship with her ex-partner, Simon Patterson, from around November 2022.

She says around then, communication mainly became “functional”.

In a series of messages shared on the app Signal, Ms Patterson told a group chat with Don and Gail Patterson about an issue over school fees.

She told the court, “I wanted Don and Gail to help Simon and I communicate better,” about shared costs for their children

Ms Patterson said she thought if Simon knew that his parents knew about his “behaviour”, he might act differently.

Ex ‘would have had beef Wellington too’ if he’d come

LIVE UPDATES: Erin Patterson says she would have served ex-husband Simon Patterson a beef Wellington, too, if he had turned up to the deadly lunch.

thenightly.com.au

 

[Old Soul]

From Ian Wilkinson’s evidence:

After lunch, Wilkinson said, Patterson “announced that she had cancer”.

“She said that she was very concerned, because she believed it was very serious, life threatening, she was anxious about telling the kids, she was asking our advice about that, should I tell the kids or should I not tell the kids about this threat.

“At that moment, I thought, this is the reason we’ve been invited to the lunch.”

The conversation ended when someone noticed one of Patterson’s children and a friend were returning home.

Wilkinson noticed they had not prayed for Patterson, so he suggested they did so.

He asked “God’s blessing on Erin, that she would get the treatment that she needed, that the kids would be OK, that she would have wisdom about how she told the kids”, Wilkinson told the court.

 

[MrJ]

Key Event
1m ago
Court adjourned for the day

By Judd Boaz

At that point, Justice Beale suggests the court hearing adjourn for the day.

Erin Patterson's cross-examination will continue tomorrow.

 

[LinasK]

Just now
More messages to Don Patterson shown

By Joseph Dunstan

In another message from this period, Erin addressed Don and said she wanted him to be aware and care about what was going on and encourage Simon to "do the right thing" by his children.

Dr Rogers asks if that changes her response about not wanting support from Don and Gail in persuading Simon to pay the school fees.

"No, because what I said was 'encourage Simon to do the right thing by his children'," Erin says.

"I think it was more of a global proposition … I'm finding it hard to explain what I meant by that."

Erin suggests that the message was also referring to "difficulty and tension" between Simon and his son.

If I was estranged from my husband and he went to my parents behind my back to try to change my behavior, it would FAIL! I would be so pissed, and it wouldn't endear me to him or to want to cooperate. She is just SO manipulative.

 

[SouthAussie]

"Rogers says Simon gave evidence he saw Don and Gail at Korumburra hospital the day after the lunch - 30 July 2023. Simon said Don recalled that at the lunch Erin told her guests she had undergone medical tests and ovarian cancer had been detected. Simon said Don told him Erin was not sure how to tell her children."

Australia mushroom trial live: Erin Patterson ‘lied because I was afraid I would be held responsible’, court hears

Victorian woman, 50, has pleaded not guilty to three charges of murder and one of attempted murder over a fatal 2023 beef wellington lunch. Follow live updates

www.theguardian.com

 

[katydid23]

Key Event
1m ago
Prosecution questions Erin's use of emojis

By Joseph Dunstan

Dr Rogers then brings up before the court a Facebook message from Erin to her friends that we've seen several times before.

It's from December 2022, during financial disagreements with Simon. In it, Erin vents to her friends about her parents-in-law being reluctant to take sides in the dispute.

In it, she says that Don Patterson said "all he can ask is that Simon and I get together to pray for the children ", using what Dr Rogers refers to as two eyeroll emojis.

In another message from that time, Erin wrote that Don had suggested a solution was that Simon and her get together and "try to talk and pray together " using two emojis, which Erin says show a straight line smile underneath.

Dr Rogers notes that emojis are a deliberate choice made by a user, and asks Erin what she'd call the emojis.

"All I can say about it, it's a face with a straight line for a mouth," Erin says.

"I don't know what I'd call it."

"Even though you used it?" Dr Rogers asks?

"Yeah," Erin replies.

Dr Rogers takes her to another emoji after a reference to prayer again in the message. They disagree about whether it's an eyeroll emoji.

"There's a better eyeroll emoji than these ... I can't see anything about eyes rolling in there," Erin says.

Dr Rogers suggests Erin was "mocking" the advice from her in-laws there, partly the religious component they sat beside.

"I wasn't mocking, I was frustrated," Erin says.

LMAO---how can she sit with a straight face and deny that she was mocking the in-laws and their religious prayers etc?

For her to try and deny that the 'eye roll' emoji is NOT an eye roll? Come on...

That's like in 1969 when my mom found strawberry flavoured rolling papers in my bell bottom jeans and I said I thought it was candy. My mom's eyes rolled out the top of her head at that...

She's even trying to gaslight the emojiverse. IMO

 

[MsMarple]

I have a different view. I don't think she is handling the questioning very well at all.

She is acting like a brick wall, denying denying denying. She is doubling down and denying things that she doesn't even need to deny.

Her defense is that she accidentally added poisonous mushrooms she had foraged to the meal she served.

So why is she still denying that photo is of death caps? Why is she still denying she lied about it to the doctors and investigators?

She looks and sounds like a pathological liar, imo.

In some ways, SHE IS CRACKING right now. She is looking like an irrational, habitual liar who lies even when it is unnecessary to do so.

She just doubles down and nitpicks and it looks ridiculous.

Oh, technically I didn't lie to Dr Monash, I didn't know I accidentally added death caps-----Oh I didn't know what she meant by mushrooming----Oh, I didnt think it was important what I did 7 months ago...
Oh, technically that was not her question...

That is just someone being deceptive and weaselly and it doesn't look good. IMO

I think you nailed it perfectly, she’s a habitual liar. And IMO it’s a deeply entrenched aspect of her personality, beyond the scope of this trial. IOW a way to always give her an “out.”

By constantly qualifying every answer she’s able to say “I never said such and such, I said ‘I think I said such and such’.” Weasel words.
JMO

 

[Detechtive]

If I was estranged from my husband and he went to my parents behind my back to try to change my behavior, it would FAIL! I would be so pissed, and it wouldn't endear me to him or to want to cooperate. She is just SO manipulative.

If my estranged husband tried to get my parents on his side to coerce me like a toddler I’d be mighty peeved off alright! I most certainly wouldn’t be going to lunch or any other event with them! I’d cut them out cold other than logistical arrangements with the children, which it looks like is exactly what Simon did.

 

[Detechtive]

Her revenge of seeking child support because he put “seperated” on his tax return (7 years!!!! After separation) failed, because he was assessed to only pay her a very minimal amount, and he called her bluff. I think.

Then she tried to get him “inline” by scolding him through his parents, again, infantilising him, and also probably alienated the son against him because he wasn’t daddy’s little girl, he was probably an angsty normal teen.

So then, when that also didn’t work, she pulled them out of the religious school and put them into a non denominational public school, without his consultation. Another power move, knowing how important religion was to his family.

Simon and his family didn’t react, or fall into line, and then she felt she was losing all control and had to take it back into her hands… by getting rid of his support network and him, who she only saw as roadblocks to her ultimate domination over the children, imo.

She even used the words “wipe them”

It is very typical textbook coercive DV behaviour and quite frankly I’m disgusted people are making excuses for it.

All my opinion only.

 

[katydid23]

Erin also said she carried out three factory resets on one of her mobile phones after the lunch. She said the first was because she "panicked" about photos it contained of foraged mushrooms. Another was a remote factory reset while the phone was in a police locker, which she said she did to "see what happened". She added it was a "stupid" thing t

Ok, there ^^^ is an example of what Rogers said , isn't it? The statement that EP panicked because she thought the police were going to find evidence of her death caps ?

2m ago06.04 BST
Rogers puts to Patterson: “I suggest you accessed these images of information about cancer in May 2023.”

“I don’t think I did,” Patterson says. “It was something I was quite worried about in late ‘21, early ‘22.”

Rogers says:



“I think I did do that at one point,” Patterson replies. She says she did this in 2021 and a period going into early 2022. Patterson denies she used this information to tell a more convincing lie about cancer.

Rogers asks why she did it.

Patterson says:



Rogers says Patterson used the cancer information to allow her to have a reason for inviting her lunch guests. Patterson says:


I didn’t use any reason when I invited them. I just invited them.

Erin Patterson trial day 27 – as it happened

This blog is now closed

www.theguardian.com

"I didn’t use any reason when I invited them. I just invited them."

That is not true. If that was true then the kids could have stayed and had a nice family lunch with the grandparents they hadn't seen much lately.

Didn't she tell the kids that the grownups had to have adult conversation or something?

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Leaving residue in the dehydrator actually points to her not knowing there was anything harmful in it.

I think a guilty person would have carefully washed and disposed of all contents much earlier.

 

[LinasK]

Leaving residue in the dehydrator actually points to her not knowing there was anything harmful in it.

I think a guilty person would have carefully washed and disposed of all contents much earlier.

I don't think she realized that she'd be caught disposing of it or that she left her fingerprints on it. She did say "if it's the only dehydrator that was left that day". She probably didn't have enough time to clean it by then. She also left her manual for the dehydrator in her kitchen.