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

[MsMarple]

1m ago03.17 BST

Patterson didn't share realisation foraged mushrooms may have been in meal​

Rogers takes Patterson to a discussion she and Simon had on 1 August 2023 while at Monash hospital. Patterson said Simon asked her if she had used a dehydrator to poison his parents.

Patterson told the court earlier this week this conversation caused her to reflect on “what might have happened”.

Patterson agrees on this date she realised foraged mushrooms may have been in a Tupperware container storing store-bought mushrooms and used in the beef wellingtons.

Rogers says she never told a medical professional or anyone else that foraged mushrooms may have been used in the meal. Patterson agrees.

Rogers says Patterson’s realisation on 1 August 2023 was days before anyone had died.

Patterson agrees she did not tell anyone about her realisation after this date.

Rogers says after her realisation, Patterson disposed of the dehydrator. Patterson agrees.

 

[katydid23]

Even if the jury isn't told they can disregard a lying witness' testimony, common sense would dictate that if somebody lies about one thing, they can and will lie about other things as well. Erin has been caught in so many lies by now I would be surprised if the jury believes anything she says.

AND her admitted reason for those lies was to protect herself from being seen as responsible for the death caps. So wouldn't she likely continue to lie when on trial for that same thing?

 

[MrJ]

1m ago
Erin says Pattersons treated her like their own daughter

By Joseph Dunstan

Erin's now recounting what she told the child protection worker Katrina Cripps days after the lunch about her relationship with her in-laws.

"I said that they had always treated me like a daughter, not a daughter-in-law," Erin says.

"They treated me like their own daughter."

And how did you treat them, Erin? Looking more and more self-centred the more you talk on the stand.

 

[MsMarple]

2m ago12.19 AEST
Rogers says child protection worker Katrina Cripps gave evidence on 1 August 2023 Patterson said she “loved Don and Gail” and had a good relationship with her in-laws until recently. Patterson agrees.

Cripps said Patterson also told her that since the relationship with Simon had changed she thought he was isolating her from his family.

Patterson says she “probably did tell her that”.

Cripps said Patterson told her she was no longer invited to the family events she would normally attend. Patterson says she “thinks” Cripps is wrong as she cannot specifically remember saying this.

 

[Deleted member 363451]

1m ago03.17 BST

Patterson didn't share realisation foraged mushrooms may have been in meal​

Rogers takes Patterson to a discussion she and Simon had on 1 August 2023 while at Monash hospital. Patterson said Simon asked her if she had used a dehydrator to poison his parents.

Patterson told the court earlier this week this conversation caused her to reflect on “what might have happened”.

Patterson agrees on this date she realised foraged mushrooms may have been in a Tupperware container storing store-bought mushrooms and used in the beef wellingtons.

Rogers says she never told a medical professional or anyone else that foraged mushrooms may have been used in the meal. Patterson agrees.

Rogers says Patterson’s realisation on 1 August 2023 was days before anyone had died.

Patterson agrees she did not tell anyone about her realisation after this date.

Rogers says after her realisation, Patterson disposed of the dehydrator. Patterson agrees.

Yet is was only after Simon's relatives had died, that she got rid of the dehydrator...

 

[L_B]

Dr Rogers asks Erin if Ms Cripps was wrong, and after a pause Erin says yes.

Yesterday, Erin also told the court that parts of Ms Cripps' testimony was incorrect.

A lot of her answers are along the lines of "I don't know" "I don't think so".... YET all these witness' testimonies are WRONG, Erin is RIGHT where it counts

 

[MrJ]

She doesn't realise how damning this is, does she?

Key Event
Just now
Erin says that it was unusual for her to host lunch at her house

By Joseph Dunstan and Judd Boaz

Dr Rogers then takes Erin Patterson back to a conversation she had with senior doctor Rhonda Stuart days after the lunch.

Professor Stuart gave evidence that Erin had told her the lunch was with her in-laws and ex-husband but it wasn't unusual because she had a good relationship.

"I wouldn't have called Simon my ex-husband because he was not. And still is not," Erin says. But she cannot recall speaking with Professor Stuart.

"Was it unusual for you to invite people to your house for lunch?" Dr Rogers asks.

"Yeah ... probably true," Erin says.

She agrees she wanted this lunch to be a "special" event with her relatives.

Dr Rogers then raises Simon's evidence that he, Erin, his parents and his aunt and uncle had not eaten a meal together in years.

Erin again says this is "probably true".

 

[Yh5r]

Do we know that an untouched serving of beef wellington landed in the bin?

If so, then this is really in stark contrast to how Erin usually acts:
- The fruit platter and gravy were still in the fridge from the lunch when police had a search warrant which I believe was days later! Why throw out the beef wellington but keep fruit and gravy - makes zero sense, unless..
- She had to use the unlabelled package of mushrooms from a mysterious 'Asian shop' that smelled funny, but threw out a serving of beef wellington that she had spent 'a fortune on'...
- Which leftovers did she then scrape the mushrooms off from and fed to her children...

 

[Deleted member 363451]

She doesn't realise how damning this is, does she?

Key Event
Just now
Erin says that it was unusual for her to host lunch at her house

By Joseph Dunstan and Judd Boaz

Dr Rogers then takes Erin Patterson back to a conversation she had with senior doctor Rhonda Stuart days after the lunch.

Professor Stuart gave evidence that Erin had told her the lunch was with her in-laws and ex-husband but it wasn't unusual because she had a good relationship.

"I wouldn't have called Simon my ex-husband because he was not. And still is not," Erin says. But she cannot recall speaking with Professor Stuart.

"Was it unusual for you to invite people to your house for lunch?" Dr Rogers asks.

"Yeah ... probably true," Erin says.

She agrees she wanted this lunch to be a "special" event with her relatives.

Dr Rogers then raises Simon's evidence that he, Erin, his parents and his aunt and uncle had not eaten a meal together in years.

Erin again says this is "probably true".

She seems a bit touchy on Simon being referred to as her 'ex husband'. Maybe estranged husband is more to the point?

 

[LinasK]

1m ago
Erin says Pattersons treated her like their own daughter

By Joseph Dunstan

Erin's now recounting what she told the child protection worker Katrina Cripps days after the lunch about her relationship with her in-laws.

"I said that they had always treated me like a daughter, not a daughter-in-law," Erin says.

"They treated me like their own daughter."

And how did you treat them, Erin? Looking more and more self-centred the more you talk on the stand.

She meant that she WANTED them to treat her as their own daughter rather than DIL and side with her over their own son!

 

[Siko]

I’m having a hard time imagining EP throwing any *edible* food in the bin

Especially as she loved mushrooms so much. Wouldn't she have gobbled up that delicious duxelles?

 

[MsMarple]

1m ago12.27 AEST
Patterson agrees it was ‘unusual’ to have lunch guests

Rogers says Cripps testified that Patterson told her she had a good relationship with Don and Gail but felt “isolated” from her in-laws recently.

Patterson says it’s likely she said this.

She says she told Cripps they treated her like a “daughter”, not a “daughter-in-law”.

Rogers takes Patterson to the evidence of Prof Rhonda Stuart, a doctor at Monash hospital. Stuart testified that while in hospital Patterson told her having lunch with Simon’s relatives was not “unusual”.

Rogers asks if it was “unusual” for Patterson to invite people to her house for lunch at this time.

“Yes, that’s probably true,” Patterson says.

Rogers says the fateful lunch was a “special” meal. Patterson agrees she wanted it to be a special meal.

Patterson says she has no memory of having a conversation with Stuart.

 

[Gavel Rash]

The rejection angle from the in-laws must have cut a lot deeper considering she said she had a fractious relationship with her own mother. Lots of pent up anger and psychological damage from lack of parental love to then be sidelined fron in-laws due to the tension from separation

 

[Yh5r]

She seems a bit touchy on Simon being referred to as her 'ex husband'. Maybe estranged husband is more to the point?

IIRC and correct me if I'm wrong, in an exchange between the two of them while Erin was holidaying in NZ and she wanted Simon to go to her property and fix the fence (which was less than a year prior to the event), he replied "I will always be your husband".

I don't quite understand the relationship between SP and EP, highly unusual for a couple that had been separated for years.

 

[L_B]

She seems a bit touchy on Simon being referred to as her 'ex husband'. Maybe estranged husband is more to the point?

She's big on semantics, since they are still married (not divorced) he technically isn't EX.

 

[MrJ]

Key Event
1m ago
Prosecution accuses Erin of having 'two faces'

By Joseph Dunstan and Judd Boaz

Dr Rogers then takes Erin to her interview with police held a week after the beef Wellington lunch.

In it, Erin spoke about how she had "no other family" and she wanted Gail and Don Patterson to stay in her kids' lives.

"They're good, decent people that have never done anything wrong by me, ever," Erin told police at Wonthaggi Police Station.

Erin becomes emotional in the witness box for the first time today after her police interview is read out.

Next, Dr Rogers launches into a series of suggestions put to Ms Patterson in rapid succession.

"I suggest that you didn't love them. Correct or incorrect?" Dr Rogers asks.

"That's not true," Erin responds.

Dr Rogers puts to Erin that she was angry about Gail and Don taking Simon's side in the dispute over finances.

"That's not true," Erin says.

Dr Rogers puts to Erin that this feeling of anger continued.

"Incorrect," Erin says.

"You had two faces. A public face of appearing to have a good relationship with Don and Gail, as shown to [various people]," Dr Rogers says.

"Are you asking me to agree if I had two faces?" Erin asks.

Dr Rogers repeats her initial question.

"I had a good relationship with Don and Gail," Erin says.

"I suggest that your private face was the one you showed in your Facebook messenger group," Dr Rogers says.

"Incorrect," Erin replies.

"And how you truly felt about Don and Gail was as you expressed it in your Facebook messages," Dr Rogers says.

"Incorrect," Erin responds.

Dr Rogers puts to her that how she truly felt about Simon Patterson was how she expressed it to Facebook friends.

"Incorrect," Erin says.

"You did not regard him as being a decent human being at his core," Dr Rogers says.

"Actually I still believe that," Erin says.

 

[L_B]

IIRC and correct me if I'm wrong, in an exchange between the two of them while Erin was holidaying in NZ and she wanted Simon to go to her property and fix the fence (which was less than a year prior to the event), he replied "I will always be your husband".

I don't quite understand the relationship between SP and EP, highly unusual for a couple that had been separated for years.

Poor guy is probably trauma bonded

 

[MrJ]

1m ago
July 30 phone conversation between Simon and Erin raised

By Joseph Dunstan and Judd Boaz

Evidence given by Simon Patterson about a phone call on July 30, one day after the lunch, is raised by the prosecution.

Dr Rogers reads out the transcript from Simon's testimony, which read:

"I told her that Mum and Dad and Heather and Ian were all crook and that they'd all been admitted to hospital."

Dr Rogers suggests Simon only informed Erin about his parents' illness, and that the conversation ended after this point.

Erin disagrees.

"We discussed how Don and Gail were, that’s how I found out about them in hospital," she says.

Dr Rogers suggests that after Simon told Erin about his parents, she did not ask any follow up questions about their health.

Erin says this is wrong.

Dr Rogers again asks if Erin ever inquired about Don's health during the phone call.

Erin maintains she did.

Dr Rogers returns to evidence from Simon, who said he was "intrigued" that Erin never asked how her in-laws were.

Erin disagrees and says she did ask how her parents-in-law were going, as well as Ian and Heather Wilkinson

 

[Gavel Rash]

IIRC and correct me if I'm wrong, in an exchange between the two of them while Erin was holidaying in NZ and she wanted Simon to go to her property and fix the fence (which was less than a year prior to the event), he replied "I will always be your husband".

I don't quite understand the relationship between SP and EP, highly unusual for a couple that had been separated for years.

Religion…..in the eyes of God

 

[LinasK]

1m ago12.27 AEST
Patterson agrees it was ‘unusual’ to have lunch guests

Rogers says Cripps testified that Patterson told her she had a good relationship with Don and Gail but felt “isolated” from her in-laws recently.

Patterson says it’s likely she said this.

She says she told Cripps they treated her like a “daughter”, not a “daughter-in-law”.

Rogers takes Patterson to the evidence of Prof Rhonda Stuart, a doctor at Monash hospital. Stuart testified that while in hospital Patterson told her having lunch with Simon’s relatives was not “unusual”.

Rogers asks if it was “unusual” for Patterson to invite people to her house for lunch at this time.

“Yes, that’s probably true,” Patterson says.

Rogers says the fateful lunch was a “special” meal. Patterson agrees she wanted it to be a special meal.

Patterson says she has no memory of having a conversation with Stuart.

If it was so "special" and she invested so much in it, why alter the recipe so drastically? Aside from the ham- I'll give her the benefit of the doubt on that one, why delete the mustard, change the pastry dough, and add "extra" mushrooms that are "smelly" when you've already got two kinds in there for flavor and gravy??? And individual portions. And 4 matching plates for guests, but not hers. And it was SO important for Simon to be there as well as his parents and aunt and uncle because she might not be able to do it for a long time. (But not the children- she fed them her safe leftovers to try to prove it wasn't the BW.) Yeah right, when they've died and you got arrested. I submit that she was planning this for a very long time and the medical issues were a ruse to lure them there. And the pigging out on cake, coffee, chili/hotdogs was to make herself appear sick like she'd been poisoned too.