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

[Megnut]

The key was the DCs.

Invisible in the meal.

Undetectable in the body after 48 hours.

IF a person was 100% convinced of those two truths, that confidence could blind them to variables they didn't think of.

It's not immediately fatal. Victims can articulate what they experienced leading up to and during that time.

Medical staff is going to search for the source of the food borne source. If the meal had actual mushrooms, it'll be flagged --

And once they start looking at mushrooms, it takes just one person familiar with DCs and now the two statements above fall apart.

And you've suddenly got a criminal investigation...

JMO

 

[Detechtive]

This is of course true.

But there's a big difference between thinking you want to kill a partner and think you could get away with it, and one where you kill 4 people that you don't have a clear motive for killing.

You don’t think Erin saying to friends that she’s had enough of them, they’re lost causes, she’s done with them, she wants to wipe them from her life, Simon is coercive, abusive, controlling, abusive - along with the family and Simon allegedly pulling away, Erin taking the children out of a private school without consultation with their other parent, and Simon putting separated on his tax return which seemed to trigger her - all these things aren’t a motive?

 

[Detechtive]

This is of course true.

But there's a big difference between thinking you want to kill a partner and think you could get away with it, and one where you kill 4 people that you don't have a clear motive for killing.

Why are you trying to rationalise it? Murder is never rational! There is no perfect crime. The vast majority are caught snd convicted because they don’t think it through to the enth degree, and or digital evidence undermines them.

Is it more plausible in your mind that it was an accident except everyone she didn’t hate miraculously didn’t get sick from the very deadly meal they all allegedly consumed?

 

[dothetime]

You don’t think Erin saying to friends that she’s had enough of them, they’re lost causes, she’s done with them, she wants to wipe them from her life, Simon is coercive, abusive, controlling, abusive - along with the family and Simon allegedly pulling away, Erin taking the children out of a private school without consultation with their other parent, and Simon putting separated on his tax return which seemed to trigger her - all these things aren’t a motive?

I do wonder if Grimms Fairy Tales were a big part of EP's childhood reading material?

 

[Detechtive]

I do wonder if Grimms Fairy Tales were a big part of EP's childhood reading material?

They absolutely were. I remember having a conversation with her about this very subject.

 

[dothetime]

They absolutely were. I remember having a conversation with her about this very subject.

Fascinating!

 

[JBowie]

All the pings did was to suggest that she had been in that general area on those days. The website views were hardly concrete either, and there's no actual proof she read or took in those posts. At best, it's only really a plausible explanation for how she got them but it isn't really fundamental to the case.

Probably the best thing to back up this theory is the timing of the buying of the dehydrator. That is another thing to chalk down to a strange coincidence if she is innocent.

She bought the dehydrator two hours after being pinged in DC territory. Coincidence my foot, IMO [bbm]:

Dr Rogers tool Ms Patterson to evidence from telecommunications expert professor Matthew Sorrell that indicate a “possible” hour-long visit to the nearby town of Loch on April 28.

Previously, the jury heard evidence that Christine McKenzie posted a sighting of death cap mushrooms at the Loch recreation reserve on April 18 on the citizen science website iNaturalist.

Asked if she travelled to Loch on that day, Ms Patterson said “I don’t know” but she denied visiting the town to locate death caps.

“I suggest you had no legitimate reason to travel to Loch, correct or incorrect?” Dr Rogers asked.

“Incorrect,” Ms Patterson replied.

Dr Rogers told the court within two hours of the possible visit, Ms Patterson had driven to a homeware store to buy a dehydrator at 12.17pm.

“I did buy that that day, yes,” she said.

https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/courts-law/erin-patterson-trial-alleged-mushroom-poisoner-to-give-evidence-for-seventh-day/news-story/8de6b240063da071c1f1865a022a3e9c

 

[Lord Peter Flimsy]

Even the most idiotic person on Planet Earth would not bring Death Cap mushrooms into a kitchen or any cooking environment.

If these were picked months before in order to be consumed why didn’t she eat any in the lead up to the fateful meal if she thought they were safe & edible? This woman apparently eats mushrooms by the kilo and can’t resist them.

Surely you would taste just one to check just how good that flavour is? Nope wait for them to have a foul stink as they decompose and use them in that special meal instead without considering they might have gone off!

And some say the word gullible isn’t in the Oxford English Dictionary!

 

[MaxDecimus13]

Why are you trying to rationalise it? Murder is never rational! There is no perfect crime. The vast majority are caught snd convicted because they don’t think it through to the enth degree, and or digital evidence undermines them.

Is it more plausible in your mind that it was an accident except everyone she didn’t hate miraculously didn’t get sick from the very deadly meal they all allegedly consumed?

Murder isn't rational but it isn't random either. Generally people will murder because it will benefit them in some way.

I'm not sure how randomly killing 4 people benefits Erin Patterson. You'd have to be stupid to think that 4/5 people would die and your life would be made better. Of course people will suspect you and you'll face negative consequences.

There's no reason to think Erin hates the Pastor and his wife, and there isn't good evidence that she hated the inlaws. A couple of frustrated texts doesn't prove that.

We already know she was lying about her health to get sympathy, and I think she thought she could be part of a mysterious poisoning (with even death) that she exploit for more sympathy.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

She bought the dehydrator two hours after being pinged in DC territory. Coincidence my foot, IMO [bbm]:

Dr Rogers tool Ms Patterson to evidence from telecommunications expert professor Matthew Sorrell that indicate a “possible” hour-long visit to the nearby town of Loch on April 28.

Previously, the jury heard evidence that Christine McKenzie posted a sighting of death cap mushrooms at the Loch recreation reserve on April 18 on the citizen science website iNaturalist.

Asked if she travelled to Loch on that day, Ms Patterson said “I don’t know” but she denied visiting the town to locate death caps.

“I suggest you had no legitimate reason to travel to Loch, correct or incorrect?” Dr Rogers asked.

“Incorrect,” Ms Patterson replied.

Dr Rogers told the court within two hours of the possible visit, Ms Patterson had driven to a homeware store to buy a dehydrator at 12.17pm.

“I did buy that that day, yes,” she said.

https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/courts-law/erin-patterson-trial-alleged-mushroom-poisoner-to-give-evidence-for-seventh-day/news-story/8de6b240063da071c1f1865a022a3e9c

Don't mistake me for thinking I'm saying that I believe it was a coincidence. I'm saying if she's innocent it would be part of an incredible array of coincidences.

 

[JBowie]

Don't mistake me for thinking I'm saying that I believe it was a coincidence. I'm saying if she's innocent it would be part of an incredible array of coincidences.

I agree! My skepticism is directed at EP.

 

[Jess D]

If we say that Erin is guilty, there are 2 main theories: that she intended to kill them all or that she didn't intend for them all to die and that some would only get sick.

The reality is that with what we can ascertain about Erin from the evidence both of these propositions contain problems that have to be accounted for.

1) Erin was very clever and thorough, and would surely have done her research about DC.

2) Erin would have surely known that she couldn't explain away the sudden mysterious deaths of 4/5 people.

It goes without saying that if guilty either could be true. I'm only assessing what I think is more likely.

I find number 2 much more problematic. Until Erin took the stand, I would probably have said it didn't meet the requirement of reasonable doubt because of reasons around this. There is a serious lack of motive to murder these specific 4 people IMO. Then you factor in that she panicked afterwards and tried to dispose of evidence in a way that seems unlikely with a planned-out murder.

With number 1 we actually have good evidence that Erin isn't necessarily always extremely thorough. She mistakenly thought the Enrich clinic did gastric-band. If she's guilty, she's had months to create this alternative scenario and make it water-tight. She didn't even look at the website to check if it really did.

My running theory is that from the searches in 2022, Erin had a knowledge of DC and made the assumption that they were 10-30% lethal based on the headline information. She was then on inaturalist one day and noticed that they were available and saw it as an opportunity. Throughout this period, she never questioned the original assumption.

So according to your theory, she was effectively playing Russian roulette with her lunch? There was according to you a 10-30% chance that they would die.

 

[Jess D]

This is of course true.

But there's a big difference between thinking you want to kill a partner and think you could get away with it, and one where you kill 4 people that you don't have a clear motive for killing.

And yet here we are...

 

[Jess D]

Murder isn't rational but it isn't random either. Generally people will murder because it will benefit them in some way.

I'm not sure how randomly killing 4 people benefits Erin Patterson. You'd have to be stupid to think that 4/5 people would die and your life would be made better. Of course people will suspect you and you'll face negative consequences.

There's no reason to think Erin hates the Pastor and his wife, and there isn't good evidence that she hated the inlaws. A couple of frustrated texts doesn't prove that.

We already know she was lying about her health to get sympathy, and I think she thought she could be part of a mysterious poisoning (with even death) that she exploit for more sympathy.

The problem with your theory is that Erin didn’t get sick, so how exactly was she going to elicit any sympathy?

 

[Spectrix]

I'm not disputing the actual toxicity, I'm explaining how easy it would have been for Erin to assume it wasn't as toxic as many people think it is.

If you ChatGPT it now, it clearly states 10-30% reducing to less than 10% with the right treatment, it doesn't give another figure. Erin could very well have been working on this assumption.This doesn't in any way absolve her BTW.

We can't fully discount anything of course because if guilty we'll likely never know her motive, but I just don't find the idea that she thought she could murder 4/5 people and get on with her life very convincing. It would have to be an act of monumental self-sabotage or that of an unthinking murderer. It also raises the further questions of why those 4 particular people, and why she was so careless in hiding evidence.

When I look at the evidence and the definite facts we have, I see a woman who saw lying about having cancer as something that would benefit her. She looked for sympathy and got a kick out of people feeling sorry for her to the point where she faked it. If she was part of a great tragedy, then it would bring them closer together, and she could look like a saint for running around after the survivors despite having cancer.

Okay, let's go with your Theory: Erin intends to make 4-5 guests 10-30% dead.

She collects the Deathcaps in Loch on April 28 (which, as you've pointed out can't be proven... the data isn't clear etc), and bought the dehydrator two hours later (This has been proven 100%... It's a little more than a coincidence that it happens right after the "possible foraging", no?).

We know from photos she's collected 500g of Deathcaps. That's enough Deathcaps to make 10x adults dead. And I mean properly dead. Not just 10-30% dead. But hey, maybe she collected a few extra just to be sure.

We have the photos in evidence that she weighed them on her digital scales, and weighed them again after dehydrating them (mushrooms are 90% water, so it best to be very clear on the weights... you want to get the quantities perfectly right when you're trying to make your inlaws 10-30% dead).

Erin then devises her plan to lour the lunch guests with her sudden case of terminal ovarian cancer of the elbow / laparoscopic band surgery / liposuction at a dermatology clinic for which she doesn't know how to tell the children and thinks she might need some help dropping them off to the bus stop each morning.

The guests all agree to turn up to their 10-30% murders except for Simon, but never mind, there's an extra Beef Wellington in the oven just for him in case he stops by to say hello when he brings the kids back from the movies.

The guest's then eat their lunches and end up 10-30% dead.

Are you still reading? I hope so because this is the part of the plot where I'm really struggling to imagine what Erin plans to do next. What has she achieved, exactly, by making her guests 10-30% dead?
Or if we consider the actual outcome, she made her 4 guests 75% dead. So where exactly did she go wrong?

Was it the measurements?

How do you even weigh the correct amount of Deathcap to make your victim 10-30% dead, when the most commonly available figures are the quantities of 30-50 grams, the amount required to make an adult properly dead?

-

 

[Jess D]

Okay, let's go with your Theory: Erin intends to make 4-5 guests 10-30% dead.

She collects the Deathcaps in Loch on April 28 (which, as you've pointed out can't be proven... the data isn't clear etc), and bought the dehydrator two hours later (This has been proven 100%... It's a little more than a coincidence that it happens right after the "possible foraging", no?).

We know from photos she's collected 500g of Deathcaps. That's enough Deathcaps to make 10x adults dead. And I mean properly dead. Not just 10-30% dead. But hey, maybe she collected a few extra just to be sure.

We have the photos in evidence that she weighed them on her digital scales, and weighed them again after dehydrating them (mushrooms are 90% water, so it best to be very clear on the weights... you want to get the quantities perfectly right when you're trying to make your inlaws 10-30% dead).

Erin then devises her plan to lour the lunch guests with her sudden case of terminal ovarian cancer of the elbow / laparoscopic band surgery / liposuction at a dermatology clinic for which she doesn't know how to tell the children and thinks she might need some help dropping them off to the bus stop each morning.

The guests all agree to turn up to their 10-30% murders except for Simon, but never mind, there's an extra Beef Wellington in the oven just for him in case he stops by to say hello when he brings the kids back from the movies.

The guest's then eat their lunches and end up 10-30% dead.

Are you still reading? I hope so because this is the part of the plot where I'm really struggling to imagine what Erin plans to do next. What has she achieved, exactly, by making her guests 10-30% dead?
Or if we consider the actual outcome, she made her 4 guests 75% dead. So where exactly did she go wrong?

Was it the measurements?

How do you even weigh the correct amount of Deathcap to make your victim 10-30% dead, when the most commonly available figures are the quantities of 30-50 grams, the amount required to make an adult properly dead?

-

Yes, she wasn't mucking around using 500 grams. Forget 10-30% dead. 100% more like it...

 

[MaxDecimus13]

So according to your theory, she was effectively playing Russian roulette with her lunch? There was according to you a 10-30% chance that they would die.

Essentially yes. My theory is that she was putting in the DC to poison them and expecting mixed results. Some would get very sick, maybe even die and her 'gastro' would not be nearly as suspicious because maybe others would only get ill. This would be a situation she could then exploit for her own gain. Not only does she have cancer, but she is running around after all of these people.

One of the prosecution's arguments that really doesn't make sense is that she thought the cancer lie would never get out because they'd be dead. There was plenty of time for them to tell other people, especially Simon. It's not unlikely that they might have called him to tell him the news straight away.

As for the 10-30% thing, this is by far the most common number given. A quick chatgpt search summarises it like this:

The fatality rate for death cap mushrooms (Amanita phalloides) is estimated to be around 10% to 30% in untreated cases. However, with prompt and aggressive medical treatment, the fatality rate drops significantly to around 10% or lower.

In my theory, the powdering has vastly increased the dose to where it has happened more quickly and more deadly. This now makes her gastro look extremely unusual, and it also led to the identification of the DC which vastly scuppered her plans.

Do you really think that Erin thought she could cause the murder of 4/5 people and not think about the consequences? She's had months to prepare for the meal but she didn't think of the afterwards?

 

[MaxDecimus13]

The problem with your theory is that Erin didn’t get sick, so how exactly was she going to elicit any sympathy?

Erin did claim to get sick, and we know that if this is a lie, she started early because her son explained it.

Regardless of what we think about the deaths, if guilty, this was to make it look like she had also got sick in the same way. This works better if there are mixed results.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. It became international news because her getting a little ill was extremely unconvincing. Erin might have been very naive about what would happen but it doesn't seem likely to me.

 

[Lord Peter Flimsy]

One aspect of the Prosecution questioning that frustrated me were those that were followed by a ‘agree or disagree?’

This gave EP a quick get out and did not let her answer the question in her own words. Surely an open question trying to make her elaborate would have been a better method against someone like her.

I’m not sure if it was ever used but the tactic of silence after a question especially if it’s surrounding a quite damning piece of evidence sometimes elicit more of a longer and more incriminating answer.

 

[CityKid]

If we say that Erin is guilty, there are 2 main theories: that she intended to kill them all or that she didn't intend for them all to die and that some would only get sick.

The reality is that with what we can ascertain about Erin from the evidence both of these propositions contain problems that have to be accounted for.

1) Erin was very clever and thorough, and would surely have done her research about DC.

2) Erin would have surely known that she couldn't explain away the sudden mysterious deaths of 4/5 people.

It goes without saying that if guilty either could be true. I'm only assessing what I think is more likely.

I find number 2 much more problematic. Until Erin took the stand, I would probably have said it didn't meet the requirement of reasonable doubt because of reasons around this. There is a serious lack of motive to murder these specific 4 people IMO. Then you factor in that she panicked afterwards and tried to dispose of evidence in a way that seems unlikely with a planned-out murder.

With number 1 we actually have good evidence that Erin isn't necessarily always extremely thorough. She mistakenly thought the Enrich clinic did gastric-band. If she's guilty, she's had months to create this alternative scenario and make it water-tight. She didn't even look at the website to check if it really did.

My running theory is that from the searches in 2022, Erin had a knowledge of DC and made the assumption that they were 10-30% lethal based on the headline information. She was then on inaturalist one day and noticed that they were available and saw it as an opportunity. Throughout this period, she never questioned the original assumption.

BBM. I'm not sure if you've ever served on a jury (I've served on four in New York City). Jury instructions make it clear that the prosecution does not have to show a motivation for the crime. Reasonable doubt isn't "I don't know why this person would commit this crime, so I have reasonable doubt that they didn't do it." Reasonable doubt refers to whether the prosecution has proved their case, and a reasonable person wouldn't have serious doubts about the person's guilt.
The case I linked here ended with a plea deal (and it's local to me), but it involved a woman in her 20s fatally pushing an 87-year-old woman. She had no motive; she didn't know the older woman. Would you have had "reasonable doubt" of her guilt merely because you couldn't find a motive? In this case, EP MOO killed several of her estranged relatives about whom she'd complained about on social media, and wished she could be rid of them.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/02/us/lauren-pazienza-sentenced-vocal-coach-barbara-gustern

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/02/us/lauren-pazienza-sentenced-vocal-coach-barbara-gustern