Australia - 3 dead after eating wild mushrooms, Leongatha, Victoria, Aug 2023 #15 *Arrest*

[MaxDecimus13]

I've just finished listening to The Trial by Daily Mail amd I must say I don't think he did as well today.

He tried to back up some of Erin's most egregious lies like the Enrich clinic and in the process just reminded people of how unlikely that explanation is.

He also seemed to be using a lot of false dichotomies that were irritating, like 'what's more likely, that Erin pooed by the side of the road or she killed 3 people in cold-blooded murder?'

 

[Susjay]

I suspect he will use Erin’s testimony of getting the “Asian grocer” mushrooms and foraged mushrooms mixed up in her Tupperware container. I wonder if he’ll mention the pungent smell or not though

Mandy did mention a mushroom other than button, but not deathcap was detected by one of the experts. We didn’t hear what kind though. Maybe shiitake? I’m also wondering how such a significant amount of the death cap ended up in the lunch. It doesn’t seem to have been a tiny amount. Mandy is going out on quite a limb it seems.

 

[Susjay]

I haven't been around today to follow all of this but ...

EP admits that death cap mushrooms were in the meal she served.

How did death caps -- which only grow in particular parts of VIC -- end up in EP's kitchen?

What is Mandy's answer to that? Are we back to the Asian grocer bollocks?

The route Mandy was taking today, he seemed to posit some fanciful stuff. Maybe it was the woodland fairies… Nah, never mind…

 

[CityKid]

Wasn't there also testimony which said the white plates were quite small? Too small for dinner, but perfect for dessert.

The son testified that they were about 15 cm across.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE170_a_GGL&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fnation%2Ferin-pattersons-son-describes-leftovers-from-fatal-lunch-as-best-meat-ive-ever-had%2Fnews-story%2Fd39e0450ac808b29051832ecbbf1b2dd&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21=HIGH-Segment-1-SCORE&V21spcbehaviour=append

 

[Susjay]

From the ABC live blog today:
“Mr Mandy revisits his examination of Ian Wilkinson and his account of the July 29 lunch.

In her own testimony, Erin Patterson conceded she had misled Ian Wilkinson and the other guests about a cancer diagnosis.

Mr Mandy suggests to the jury there are differences between Mr Wilkinson's testimony during the trial and the police interview he gave after the lunch.

He emphasises terms such as "I think", "I believe" and "suspected" in Ian Wilkinson's police interview, and asks the jury to take into account the "frailty" of memory.

Mr Mandy states, however, that Mr Wilkinson's account is "not that much different" to Ms Patterson's client's account of the lunch.

He says Ms Patterson merely lied to hide her habits of binge-eating.”

I wonder if it will sit well with the jury that the defence has been trying to discredit the credibility of the only surviving lunch guest. IMO. Bearing in mind that it’s Colin Mandy’s job it’s still not the best of optics surely?

My impression of Ian Wilkinson is that he is polite and here he is listening to all this and being a victim of the alleged crime. If he said I think or I believe,I his testimony I would argue it’s part of his politeness and pretty much consistent with how his generation would answer questions in testimony. I probably would as well.

 

[CityKid]

I'm going to disagree with this to a point. I often find it unconvincing when people say 'if you're innocent, you'd have acted this way,' or even the ones about how they present on the stand, as if being combatative or arrogant is an indicator of guilt.

There was an example my wife was certain about, and it was if she was innocent she'd have been at the hospital every day checking on them. I know I wouldn't have been. I'd have felt guilty/embarrassed and been worried that existing family members might accuse me ot even get angry with me.

During this trial, I've tried to consider two things when judging the evidence:

1) being unlikeable doesn't make someone guilty of murder

2) if we found out this person was definitely innocent, how would we explain it

Where Colin Mandy's argument falls down is that just because people react differently it doesn't mean you can dismiss actions altogether.

Erin's reactions to finding out that her and children's lives were in danger was bizarre. On its own, it could possibly be explained, but it also is a piece of circumstantial evidence that fits into a much wider array of circumstantial evidence. When there is substantial suspicion that her and her children didn't eat the meal, it is definitely something to consider.

For issues of emotion, I agree with you. There's no one right way to grieve, to act in an emergency, etc. And I don't believe her combativeness or arrogance on the stand means she's guilty. However, in many of the instances in this case, like not immediately wanting your children checked for poison when four people who supposedly ate the same food are in hospital (and their mother is complaining about feeling unwell from the same food), that MOO will conjure up disbelief from jurors, and could cause them to conclude that EP must have known she and her children were not at risk.

 

[Susjay]

EP's Stmts, "Not Made Up." Weaponizing Mushrooms.


@drsleuth Thx for your link w quotes of the closing argument by defense.

First.
"“Erin loved mushrooms. Not only the wild mushrooms. Also eating them. There’s evidence of that. It’s not made up. She told people that,” Mandy said."
(bbm)
His seeming logic: since there's evd. (IDR exactly what) that EP said that she loved mushrooms, then that's true.
This ^ despite def. conceding that EP gave multiple false stmts to multiple ppl, including fam & LE over an extended post-lunch period. Didn't def use the specific word "lied" about those stmts?

Second.
Are EP's feelings (whether love, like, dislike, hate or indifference, whatever) about mushrooms relevant in some way? Any way?

If by deliberately* placing DC mushrooms into the BWs & serving them to her guests, EP intended to cause serious harm,* and if ingesting BW caused three deaths, EP's "love" of mushrooms seems irrelevant to Q of her guilt imo.

If a def't. loved cricket - playing cricket, watching her kids' cricket games, watching prof. cricket in person & TV, even carving cricket bats from the choicest white willow (Salix alba var. caerulea) - and def't used a cricket bat to bludgeon three ppl to death, is def't's "love" of cricket somehow exculpatory? Relevant? IDTS, but ICBWrong.

________________________
* I've forgotten the exact magic words of VIC crim statute.

Like your logic here. I don’t really have any reason to believe the accused loved mushrooms anyway. Think Mandy also referred to the dehydrator as a murder weapon??? Correct me if I mistaken? Think it was the toxin that caused the deaths rather than the dehydrator.

 

[CityKid]

It was her son said that they were 15cm white plates. He called them dinner plates but that's far too small. Surely she wouldn't have left out the DC contaminated plates for him to potentially touch anyway

And since the son got home when the dessert plates were on the table, IMO the main course was served on different plates than the ones he saw.

 

[Susjay]

We know Erin disposed of evidence in the days after the meal. It is reasonable to suspect that there was evidence disposed of that was never found.

The plates could fit into this but regardless, the key point was that two witnesses remembered Erin's plate being substantially different.

Yes, the two witnesses who were at the meal said the accused used different plate. Mandy points to all the plate evidence being questionable. He also argues, oh well wouldn’t there be more photo or website evidence of death caps. Well yes probably, but a lot of phone resetting and concealing main phone put paid to this.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

When I was reading each point Mandy has raised I wondered whether he actually believed his arguments were super relevant. They seem rather weak to me and I wonder whether it’s a valid defence strategy to bring up almost any thing that’s vaguely relevant. So plant a field full of seeds to of doubt in the hope that one or two couple will sprout? I don’t know much about his role as defence but he seems to be about throwing absolutely anything at the jury in the hope something will stick.

I wonder how much we can read (if any) into the fact that the defence are staying up longer than the prosecution. I can think of 2 main reasons:

1) they think it will look good in comparison to the prosecution, as if it makes their evidence look thin

2) like you said, they think they're in trouble and are trying everything to make something stick

 

[Susjay]

I would pair that with the fact that per testimony, several of them were surprised to be invited, she needed to make an excuse of an urgent medical issue to convince them to come, and she prepared a rather showy, fancy dish (Australian folks here, please correct me if I'm wrong, but BW doesn't look like something one serves very frequently), but made the fancy dish into one with proportioned servings...It all really does add up. MOO

Mandy claimed that her so called illness or cancer couldn’t have been used as a lure to the lunch because she mentioned ithe illness following consumption of the BWellingtons. Now that’s fuzzy logic on his part right there. It didn’t matter when she mentioned it. She did I believe give Gail and probably Don, and Simon the idea she wanted to discuss something.

 

[Spectrix]

Mandy claimed that her so called illness or cancer couldn’t have been used as a lure to the lunch because she mentioned ithe illness following consumption of the BWellingtons. Now that’s fuzzy logic on his part right there. It didn’t matter when she mentioned it. She did I believe give Gail and probably Don, and Simon the idea she wanted to discuss something.

Erin set that narrative up way in advance, talking about the needle biopsy on her elbow etc with Gail. So when she announced the lunch to talk about the "concerning health issue", Don & Gail would have assumed the worst.

It's one part of the plot that was actually quite cleverly done. Pitty about the rest of it.

 

[Susjay]

From the ABC live blog today:
“Mr Mandy revisits his examination of Ian Wilkinson and his account of the July 29 lunch.

In her own testimony, Erin Patterson conceded she had misled Ian Wilkinson and the other guests about a cancer diagnosis.

Mr Mandy suggests to the jury there are differences between Mr Wilkinson's testimony during the trial and the police interview he gave after the lunch.

He emphasises terms such as "I think", "I believe" and "suspected" in Ian Wilkinson's police interview, and asks the jury to take into account the "frailty" of memory.

Mr Mandy states, however, that Mr Wilkinson's account is "not that much different" to Ms Patterson's client's account of the lunch.

He says Ms Patterson merely lied to hide her habits of binge-eating.”

I wonder if it will sit well with the jury that the defence has been trying to discredit the credibility of the only surviving lunch guest. IMO. Bearing in mind that it’s Colin Mandy’s job it’s still not the best of optics surely?

I am aware of people hiding their binge eating. However, this binge eating seemed to appear pretty late in the trial. And Mandy is backing it for sure. Is there any other mention of binge eating apart from that of the accused bringing it up late in the trial? And what Mandy claimed about the details of the accused not knowing what was vomited & the way the details surrounding the vomit are mentioned in the defence closing seems just another example of fuzzy logic. And suggesting some of the toxin was vomited? The experts were never asked about this because it only came up after they testified didn’t it? Surely she would have told the folks at the hospital that she had vomited on Sat night? But perhaps it hadn’t been part of the narrative at that stage. All sorts of things have popped up late and morphed. Bypass surgery morphed into liposuction. And I don’t believe anyone would be able to book in for liposuction without having a consult prior.

 

[Susjay]

Sorry wasn’t sure how to post Woolly’s reply from yesterday.

Has anyone else read or listened to the book Pagan Spring and the meal that apparently included a Death Cap poisoning?

I understand EP used a witch as her Facebook profile picture which I find interesting.

Didn’t she also claim the media were painting her as a witch and she couldn’t have any friends over to her place or visit her sister because of it?

 

[MaxDecimus13]

Mandy claimed that her so called illness or cancer couldn’t have been used as a lure to the lunch because she mentioned ithe illness following consumption of the BWellingtons. Now that’s fuzzy logic on his part right there. It didn’t matter when she mentioned it. She did I believe give Gail and probably Don, and Simon the idea she wanted to discuss something.

Yes, I remember thinking this too. There were multiple witnesses attesting to the fact that she'd said she had something important to share.

We also have her own words '...I may not be able to host a lunch like this again for some time' followed by '...I can have the conversations I need to have.'

The implication is crystal clear here, and it makes absolutely no sense that she just wanted to reach out to family. This meal was about an extremely important matter.

And I don't mean the hope that somebody could help her out with the kids.

Simon's response to this message was odd 'I feel too uncomfortable'. Has it ever been ascertained why he felt uncomfortable?

 

[MaxDecimus13]

I am aware of people hiding their binge eating. However, this binge eating seemed to appear pretty late in the trial. And Mandy is backing it for sure. Is there any other mention of binge eating apart from that of the accused bringing it up late in the trial? And what Mandy claimed about the details of the accused not knowing what was vomited & the way the details surrounding the vomit are mentioned in the defence closing seems just another example of fuzzy logic. And suggesting some of the toxin was vomited? The experts were never asked about this because it only came up after they testified didn’t it? Surely she would have told the folks at the hospital that she had vomited on Sat night? But perhaps it hadn’t been part of the narrative at that stage. All sorts of things have popped up late and morphed. Bypass surgery morphed into liposuction. And I don’t believe anyone would be able to book in for liposuction without having a consult prior.

I'm not sure how much it would require massive assistance from family either.

Yes. She absolutely could have mentioned in the clinic that she'd vomited afterwards; she didn't have to say it was bulimia.

 

[al66pine]

"Ms Patterson says she only ate around one half"

Key Event
1m ago

Defence addressed how much Ms Patterson ate at lunch​

​

By Judd Boaz​

Mr Mandy turns to how much Erin Patterson ate at the lunch.

Ms Patterson says she only ate around one half of her portion, which Mr Mandy says is not contradicted by other witnesses.

He says it is an inexact estimation, and would be difficult to measure.

"How would you know if you ate exactly half or not?" he asks the jury.

Mr Mandy says Ms Patterson was never asked how much of the meal she ate at hospital, and says if she had, the prosecution would have used it as an example of "incriminating conduct".

"Damned if you do, damned if you don't," he says.

Surviving lunch guest 'honestly mistaken', defence tells Erin Patterson jury — as it happened

Erin Patterson's defence lawyer is continuing his closing address to the jury after eight weeks of evidence in the triple-murder trial.

www.abc.net.au

@drsleuth Thx for quoting the article.

EP says she ate about half.
^ "Mr Mandy says is not contradicted by other witnesses."

Well, Mr. Mandy, thing is, four guests were in a position to observe the quantity EP consumed, but sadly only one survived and was able to testify about the luncheon events.
He may or may not have been asked about this at trial, IDK.

Sooo, the jury is back to relying on EP's credibility on this point?

 

[Susjay]

To be fair, his original defence was before her cross examination... She undid everything herself. Hard to rebuild from that.

From what I have read and observed about the accused, I don’t believe Mandy would have had a choice about her testifying. I’d wager she pretty much demanded to do so. It appears she needs to be in control and relies mainly on her own judgement. She can clearly research well, remember information exceptionally well, and stand up for herself. She presents as pedantic and somewhat argumentative - maybe rude or abrupt at times. She’s been described as a bit of a loner, has few friends and socialises moreso online rather than in person. She was almost incapable of stopping herself correcting others in testifying. She often takes words quite literally and doesn’t easily pick up on nuance. For example, she asked Dr Roger’s, What do you mean by “interest” in mushrooms. She often quibbled about the actual questions or use of words by Dr Rogers and other witnesses. “Well I didn’t say that I actually said this.” and “Well I didn’t tell anyone I’d taken Imodium, because no-one asked me.” Although she appeared self assured and self centred, there were also times where she was often painted, by herself or the defence, as vulnerable and victimlike.

 

[Susjay]

but it took her ages to admit there was foraged mushrooms in there...

Probably a shiitake or two in the mix?

 

[dalsglen]

I said blah blah blah many times through Mandy nonsense, but actually he did fairly well with what he has to work with, he knows fine well Erin's goose is cooked. I'd LOVE to hear about all the run-ins that they've no doubt had, you just Know that Erin knows the law MUCH better

I have never in my life even touched a mushroom much less eaten one, I sure as hell won't ever be tempted to now. Quite tempted to check out the dehydrator setting on my air fryer though!

I'm off on holiday tomorrow, guess I won't be needing to pack a book to read round the pool.