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

[Lisa4]

.
Thanks for that well thoughtout response @Jake18

You can be sure that if there were case studies of people who definitely ingested death caps and were fine and didn’t even have liver damage (based on liver function tests) Mandy and his team would have found them.

I sincerely hope this isn't lost on the jury.

 

[Neet_Mc]

I know one person who does, and she is a major foodie and dehydrates all sorts of things, like berries, fruit, etc. She would never dehydrate mushrooms because you can buy them dehydrated, and powdered already, and fresh is usually best anyway. She does it to make her own dried fruit snacks without preservatives for her child who has allergies, more so than preserving anything.

I have considered buying one to make my dogs tasty snacks.

 

[Doesitmakesense]

I don’t think she has done herself any favours as a witness either, the defence case was stronger before she was given the opportunity to stuff even more tailor-made but frankly ridiculous lies into an already unbelievable story.

I completely agree. Up until EP entered the witness stand I thought it really could go either way.

 

[Neet_Mc]

If she is convicted, I have no doubt she will throw Mandy SC under the bus and claim she wasn't properly represented, IMO

I’m waiting for the instant appeal if she is convicted

 

[Deleted member 363451]

1m ago07.23 BST

Summary​

Here’s a recap of what the jury heard today:

1. Prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC told the jury Erin Patterson “targeted her search” for death cap mushrooms to poison the beef wellingtons she served her lunch guests on 29 July 2023.

2. Patterson cannot be accepted as a truthful and trustworthy witness, Rogers said. In the final moments of her closing address, she said if the jury combines all the evidence in the trial they will be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Patterson deliberately sourced death cap mushrooms and deliberately included them in the beef wellingtons she served her guests.

3. Patterson’s defence lawyer, Colin Mandy SC, said the prosecution had a “flawed approach” in analysing the evidence and “discarded inconvenient truths”. He told the jury to consider whether there is a reasonable possibility that death cap mushrooms were put into the beef wellingtons accidentally. He said jurors should also consider whether there is a reasonable possibility that Patterson did not intend to kill or cause serious injury to her guests.

4. Mandy said his client had no motive and “very good reasons” not to harm her lunch guests. “If you do embark on this plan … you’ll lose the only people in the world who are any support to you and your children, you will lose your children and you will lose everything that’s important to you,” he said.

5. Mandy said that while Patterson had a right to silence and was under no obligation to testify in the trial she chose to give evidence in the trial. In doing so, he said, she opened herself up to days of cross-examination by an experienced barrister and the “scrutiny of the whole world”.

Erin Patterson mushroom trial day 33 – as it happened

This blog is now closed

www.theguardian.com

I notice that Mandy made no mention of Erin actually picking the Death Caps. They just mysteriously made their way into the Beef Wellingtons...

 

[Deleted member 363451]

I need to see this - I love her as an actress, and she reminds me of Erin in Misery so much!

She's too old to play Erin. What about Toni Collette?

 

[lazymaiden07]

“There is not anger or aggression.”

This family i swear to f***ing god,"
"Nobody bloody listens to me. At least I know they're a lost cause."
"I'm sick of this I want nothing to do with them,"
"I thought his parents would want him to do the right thing but it seems their concern about not wanting to feel uncomfortable and not wanting to get involved in their sons personal matters are overriding that so f*** em.'
, "I don't need anything from any of these people."
"His mum was horrified I had claimed child support. Why isn't she horrified her son is such a deadbeat that I had no choice but to claim?

Need we go on??

'All things considered she was in a good place,' Mr Mandy said.

Who in their right mind would consider someone to be in a 'good place' after they have been actively messaging their in-laws regarding non-existent needle biopsies and MRI's???!! People in 'good places' do not hold lunches and falsely declare themselves to be diagnosed with ovarian cancer. MOO

 

[ch_13]

We've heard here about an Ask Me Anything session that EP allegedly held. I wish that had've been introduced into evidence.

Maybe that evidence was excluded in pre-trial motions, although I don't know what the legal basis would have been.

I've been wondering the same thing about the statement that Erin released a few weeks after the deaths. In it, she was still claiming that the mushrooms were store-bought and not foraged. It shows that her lies weren't just due to panic. But perhaps the judge ruled that the statement couldn't be used against her.

 

[Deleted member 363451]

This family i swear to *ing god,"
"Nobody bloody listens to me. At least I know they're a lost cause."
"I'm sick of this I want nothing to do with them,"
"I thought his parents would want him to do the right thing but it seems their concern about not wanting to feel uncomfortable and not wanting to get involved in their sons personal matters are overriding that so * em.'
, "I don't need anything from any of these people."
"His mum was horrified I had claimed child support. Why isn't she horrified her son is such a deadbeat that I had no choice but to claim?

Need we go on??


Who in their right mind would consider someone to be in a 'good place' after they have been actively messaging their in-laws regarding non-existent needle biopsies and MRI's???!! People in 'good places' do not hold lunches and falsely declare themselves to be diagnosed with ovarian cancer. MOO

Maybe someone who is getting paid big $$$ to say so...

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Apologies if this has already been discussed, I'm catching up... two things:

The DC mushrooms - it's been posted a few pages back upthread that experts say it would require 5g of DC to kill a 70kg person. 5g of regular fully hydrated mushroom or 5g of powder? As if it's 5g of powder that's a huge amount. Also all natural plants are irregular in quantity. To get 5g of powder in each person to kill them would be really difficult if the mushrooms are as pungent as speculated. Is this an error perhaps?

Following on from above question - is there going to be any facility in this case for the jury to consider that perhaps EP intended to seriously harm the victims but may not have imagined they'd die so immediately? As per what she'd possibly already done to SP? I'm asking that as surely everyone would be in agreement that her intention was to at least harm everyone?

JMO MOO

 

[Kemug]

I haven't really given much yet. When the trial is over, I shall reveal all! (if there is a conviction).
Otherwise, we are all going into hiding! lol

I just pictured Erin on the run. I don't imagine Erin running would be a pretty sight! (if she is found to be not guilty, I suppose I'll have to apologise, and retract.)

 

[MrJ]

I just pictured Erin on the run. I don't imagine Erin running would be a pretty sight! (if she is found to be not guilty, I suppose I'll have to apologise, and retract.)

Apologies to Eric Idle and Robbie Coltrane for this quick photo edit job. Nuns on the Run: EP Edition

 

[HoneyBunOne]

I seriously don't understand this. From the outset the judge, as well as the prosecution, explicitly said there would be no motive put forth, and it wasn't required for any verdict. So why is Mandy playing this 'no motive' defence?


View attachment 595815

Because he's got nothing else?

 

[Kemug]

He said since the four guests were “good, innocent people”, the jurors may have a desire to “punish” or “seek retribution” to whoever caused their deaths.
“We know that the actions of Erin Patterson caused the deaths of these three people,” he said.
But he told the jurors they must “fiercely guard” against that kind of rereasoning.

RSBM
Oh, ok. Righto. Then how about locking her up forever so she can never attack anyone again?

 

[Bats]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>

I'm sitting on the fence until I hear what the jury have to work with. That is, after the judge has told the jurors how they can use the evidence.

I think the prosecution did a great job of summing up their case considering how much evidence has been presented and days of hearing Erin being grilled on the stand. Impressive how Dr Rogers cleaned it all up for the jury.

That being said, I also think Erin’s defence is off to a solid start in their closing argument.

I thought from the beginning this was going to be extremely difficult for a jury to convict and I'm still of that opinion.

 

[Kemug]

Mr Mandy said Simon said he felt he was 'getting to resolve it' and he thought Patterson was 'extremely aggressive'.
The defence barrister said that aggressive message was in relation to the mediator around December 9.
Mr Mandy argued his client 'wasn’t aggressive, just a bit upset.

RSBM
Dont upset Erin

 

[Detechtive]

I suspect it’s an unknown - death cap poisoning is rare and any information about the differences in presentation between individuals will be rarer still.

You can be sure that if there were case studies of people who definitely ingested death caps and were fine and didn’t even have liver damage (based on liver function tests) Mandy and his team would have found them.

I actually think the prosecution handled this well. There was such a stark difference when how well Erin was and how sick the others were - why introduce wriggle room for the defence. Once you start exploring how long it would take for toxins to reach the system it opens the door for other variables like weight, vomiting, dose etc to be discussed. And I doubt there’s been enough research on death cap toxin poisonings to really know.

I think it’s enough to point out that Erin was pretending to be sick while her guests were dying.

I actually did find one in Australia, where the mother died and the son didn't, but he was very very sick and spent 2 weeks in hospital, I believe. There are simply no other cases because it isn't one of those toxins which isn't highly destructive to your body regardless of how little you consume - I mean, obviously there is a lower limit of what you can consume before death, but it is such a potent toxin that you could never be sure which dose would kill or seriously harm an individual, unless of course, you overdose them and you could be nearly certain of death! IMO

I've been wondering the same thing about the statement that Erin released a few weeks after the deaths. In it, she was still claiming that the mushrooms were store-bought and not foraged. It shows that her lies weren't just due to panic. But perhaps the judge ruled that the statement couldn't be used against her.

Yeah, pretty sure anything we didn't see was because of objections based on the rules of evidence. I personally found that statement particularly damning.

Maybe someone who is getting paid big $$$ to say so...

Who?

 

[MaxDecimus13]

Apologies if this has already been discussed, I'm catching up... two things:

The DC mushrooms - it's been posted a few pages back upthread that experts say it would require 5g of DC to kill a 70kg person. 5g of regular fully hydrated mushroom or 5g of powder? As if it's 5g of powder that's a huge amount. Also all natural plants are irregular in quantity. To get 5g of powder in each person to kill them would be really difficult if the mushrooms are as pungent as speculated. Is this an error perhaps?

Following on from above question - is there going to be any facility in this case for the jury to consider that perhaps EP intended to seriously harm the victims but may not have imagined they'd die so immediately? As per what she'd possibly already done to SP? I'm asking that as surely everyone would be in agreement that her intention was to at least harm everyone?

JMO MOO

My opinion is that legally it should be irrelevant whether she intended for all of them to die. If she used them on purpose, with the intention of causing significant harm and they died then she should face the full extent of the law.

 

[HoneyBunOne]

Apologies if this has already been discussed, I'm catching up... two things:

The DC mushrooms - it's been posted a few pages back upthread that experts say it would require 5g of DC to kill a 70kg person. 5g of regular fully hydrated mushroom or 5g of powder? As if it's 5g of powder that's a huge amount. Also all natural plants are irregular in quantity. To get 5g of powder in each person to kill them would be really difficult if the mushrooms are as pungent as speculated. Is this an error perhaps?

Following on from above question - is there going to be any facility in this case for the jury to consider that perhaps EP intended to seriously harm the victims but may not have imagined they'd die so immediately? As per what she'd possibly already done to SP? I'm asking that as surely everyone would be in agreement that her intention was to at least harm everyone?

JMO MOO

I believe it was roughly 50gm, not 5gm, that would be enough to kill a person. I took it to be 50gm of mushroom - in it's natural state. If mushrooms lose about 90% of their weight in the dehydrating process (as per Erin - believe that if you will), that would mean a 50gm mushroom would then become 5gm and then powdered it would be a minute amount of dust. I can absolutely see someone going overboard in their use of powdered, dehydrated mushrooms if their aim was to kill. You'd really only need a sprinkle, much like a dusting of salt or pepper.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

I actually did find one in Australia, where the mother died and the son didn't, but he was very very sick and spent 2 weeks in hospital, I believe. There are simply no other cases because it isn't one of those toxins which isn't highly destructive to your body regardless of how little you consume - I mean, obviously there is a lower limit of what you can consume before death, but it is such a potent toxin that you could never be sure which dose would kill or seriously harm an individual, unless of course, you overdose them and you could be nearly certain of death! IMO



Yeah, pretty sure anything we didn't see was because of objections based on the rules of evidence. I personally found that statement particularly damning.



Who?

As somebody said this morning, if there was a single case where a group had eaten a meal and one person had got much less sick then the defence would have used it.