Australia - 3 dead after eating wild mushrooms, Leongatha, Victoria, Aug 2023 #14 *Arrest*

[Lisa4]

Wonder if all is well or why the delay... or maybe I'm over imaginative today

 

[MsMarple]

Wonder if all is well or why the delay... or maybe I'm over imaginative today

It usually takes some time to get the jury in.

 

[Jess D]

Mushroom cook Erin Patterson on why ‘sarcastic’ husband was wrong​

The Australian - 11th June 2025.

 

[katydid23]

Somebody else posted earlier that the toxins in death caps will leak into any other food they come into contact with,

Yes, that's^^^ true but most specifically anything it is cooked with together. Because the heat releases the toxins from the death caps, and any food that would be touching the death caps would assimilate the toxins.

I really wish the P would bring this up when they discuss her supposedly feeding her kids 'scraped off' leftovers.

so even scraping the mushrooms off the beef wouldn't make the meat safe to eat.

Exactly.

I believe she knew that the beef she served the kids had never come into contact with the mushrooms she served her in-laws.

Absolutely. That is the only believable explanation, IMO, for why she was so immediately confident that her kids were not in any danger from the leftovers. IMO

 

[katydid23]

Personally, I think Erin's lawyers can't confer with her when she is under oath on the stand. But when she comes off the stand, when court is done for the day, I think they can chat with her. Perhaps in another room before she goes back to jail, or at the jail.

I think the .... "legal practitioners are generally prohibited from conferring with a witness they have called—including their own client—on matters related to the proceedings while that witness remains under cross-examination" .... likely means that they can't confer with her when the court takes its breaks during the day and she is still in that courtroom, under oath.

Or is she only under oath (or affirmation) while in the witness box?

IANAL
IMO

I am not sure about that. I think it means they cannot discuss her cross examination at anytime until the cross is fully over and done. We have that same rule in the US, but the real question, IMO, is does everyone adhere to it.

I mean at night or on a weekend, do they really follow those rules and not have a discreet convo about an issue or two? IDK

 

[brisbanemum]

I wondered about this too.

The person I knew would not have. They really could not admit to blame even to themselves.
I think in the same situation they would have absolutely refused to go along with a suggestion of remorse or compassion.
To do so, at some level they would have had to internally accept a degree of fault, and it was as though they could NOT bring themselves to.
Maybe someone else can explain this better, dont feel I've done a very good job.

You did a good job explaining. I would add that narcissists are literally unable to feel empathy, remorse or compassion. They simply do not have those emotions and therefore feeling at fault or to blame for something is impossible for them.

 

[Lisa4]

Live: Erin Patterson to give evidence for eighth day in triple-murder trial

Erin Patterson is facing more questions from the prosecution as the Supreme Court trial continues. Follow her evidence live.

www.abc.net.au

Good morning
Mikaela Ortolan profile image
By Mikaela Ortolan

We're back with more coverage as Erin Patterson's triple-murder trial continues in Morwell.

Ms Patterson will be back in the witness box today giving more evidence under cross-examination.

The ABC's Joseph Dunstan is at the Latrobe Valley Law Courts where he will bring you updates from today's proceedings.

 

[katydid23]

I'm not aware of such things being done in Australian courts. I can imagine all sorts of objections and challenges beforehand from the other side, such as the process is not provably exactly the same as used by the accused, etc, etc.

I agree. I think the only way that the P could bring in that important info would be if they are allowed rebuttal time, and they can recall the fungi guy or some other expert to talk about HOW the toxins are released and how they taint other things, etc.

I know rebuttals need permission from the court. But I have seen rebuttals often in cases where the defendant takes the stand because in those cases, there are often new unexpected 'facts' testified to that the P could not prepare for.

Like her bulimia issue and her vomiting---I don't think they knew she was going to testify to that.

And this is the first time, I believe, that she offered a detailed explanation of how she supposedly added the foraged caps, and specifically how they were cooked on top of the meat in a paste.

 

[katydid23]

Australia mushroom trial live: cross-examination of Erin Patterson to continue on day 31 of her triple murder trial

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

www.theguardian.com

Here’s a recap of what the jury heard yesterday

1. Under cross-examination, Erin Patterson denied leading Department of Health authorities on a wild goose chase to find the Asian grocer she reported buying dried mushrooms from.

2. Patterson agreed the Enrich Clinic, where she says she was booked in for a pre-surgery appointment for gastric bypass, has never offered this procedure.

3. Patterson denied she foraged for death cap mushrooms two hours before buying a Sunbeam food dehydrator on 28 April 2023.

4. Patterson said beef wellington was the “perfect dish” for the dried mushrooms she says she purchased from an Asian grocer months before the lunch.

5. Patterson denied she made up a history of foraging edible mushrooms from 2020.

 

[Scooby-Doo]

Personally, I think Erin's lawyers can't confer with her when she is under oath on the stand. But when she comes off the stand, when court is done for the day, I think they can chat with her. Perhaps in another room before she goes back to jail, or at the jail.

I think the .... "legal practitioners are generally prohibited from conferring with a witness they have called—including their own client—on matters related to the proceedings while that witness remains under cross-examination" .... likely means that they can't confer with her when the court takes its breaks during the day and she is still in that courtroom, under oath.

Or is she only under oath (or affirmation) while in the witness box?

IANAL
IMO

She has taken affirmation

 

[katydid23]

Australia mushroom trial live: cross-examination of Erin Patterson to continue on day 31 of her triple murder trial

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

www.theguardian.com

Erin Patterson is expected to continue giving evidence for an eighth day.

Prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC will continue cross-examining Patterson from 10.30am.

Patterson, 50, faces three charges of murder and one charge of attempted murder relating to a beef wellington lunch she served at her house in Leongatha, in regional Victoria, on 29 July 2023.

She is accused of murdering her parents-in-law, Don and Gail Patterson, and her estranged husband’s aunt, Heather Wilkinson. The attempted murder charge relates to Heather’s husband, Ian Wilkinson.

She has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

The prosecution alleges Patterson deliberately poisoned her lunch guests with “murderous intent”, but her lawyers say the poisoning was a tragic accident.

 

[Shortfusepsb]

Things that existed but EP rid herself of

Pulverized death cap mushrooms
Dehydrator
Grey plates
Mushroom books
Cellphone A


Things that never existed

Asian mushrooms
Tupperware of mixed mushrooms
Stage VI ovarian cancer
Gastric bypass surgery
Liposuction


JMO

In your top list, you forgot Don, Gail and Heather. Allegedly.

 

[JBowie]

It usually takes some time to get the jury in.

Was there mention of some sort of technical issue in the courtroom yesterday afternoon?

 

[MsMarple]

Was there mention of some sort of technical issue in the courtroom yesterday afternoon?

Yeah some sort of computer glitch.

 

[JBowie]

She has taken affirmation

So much for the Christian conversion?

 

[katydid23]

The jury has entered the court room.

Erin Patterson, dressed in a dark-coloured shirt with white polka dots, is seated in the witness box.


[wow, EP is getting a lot of use out of that shirt? Or maybe she has a couple white polka dot shirts?]

 

[Gavel Rash]

I find it extraordinary that every day of court there is a description of what the defendant is wearing! How this even in any way applicable or relevant to the proceedings or the interpretation of evidence is mind boggling.

 

[JBowie]

Further to the numerous objections by the defence yesterday to 'new' evidence being exposed by EP during her cross-examination, this from Google AI (with no jurisdictional references):


Yes, a witness can introduce new evidence during a trial, but it's usually through the process of examination and cross-examination, and the court has the discretion to admit or reject it. Witnesses can present evidence both orally (giving a spoken account) and in writing (through statements like affidavits). The opposing party also has the right to cross-examine the witness about this new evidence.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

• Evidence-in-Chief:
  The lawyer who called the witness to testify will ask them questions to present their evidence (evidence-in-chief).
  
  
• Cross-Examination:
  The opposing lawyer can then question the witness to challenge their testimony and potentially introduce new evidence or information.
  
  
• Re-examination:
  The lawyer who called the witness may then have the opportunity to ask further questions to address any points raised during cross-examination.
  
  
• Admissibility:
  The court will decide whether to allow the new evidence to be admitted into the trial.

 

[iridized]

Whoa! I just picked up that Detechtive was a friend if Erin. How I've managed to miss that these past weeks is beyond me but I did. Hopefully when it is all over you can share more.

 

[MsMarple]

We're taken to some photos of mushrooms​

By Joseph Dunstan​

Dr Rogers takes Ms Patterson to a series of photos of mushrooms taken from an SD card, which the prosecutor says were taken roughly in April-May 2020.

They include a mushroom on the ground outside and mushrooms which the court has previously heard appear to be photographed in Ms Patterson's home.

Ms Patterson says she can't remember if she ate these particular mushrooms.

Dr Rogers then takes Ms Patterson to past evidence when someone commented that Simon Patterson had told them he did not know his estranged wife to forage mushrooms.

"Sounds like that's his opinion, yeah," Ms Patterson says when asked about it.

Dr Rogers puts to Ms Patterson that in her evidence she is "hedging your bets" to try and make it sound like there are multiple possible sources for the mushrooms.

Ms Patterson disagrees.

Live: Erin Patterson's cross-examination ends with three rapid-fire questions

Erin Patterson is facing more questions from the prosecution as the Supreme Court trial continues. Follow her evidence live.

www.abc.net.au