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

[MaxDecimus13]

I think the prosecution really missed a beat when Erin was talking about eating the cake that led to her bulimia.

They should have said 'how do you know it was 3/4 and not 1/3, 1/4 or 1/2, did you have a ruler?'

 

[Deleted member 363451]

She absolutely could have done yes, it doesn't mean I think she did.

The only thing we can be sure of is that Erin's account is full of lies and has been since day one. She might have been a keen forager, but she might not have and only ever done it once.

She's been in self-preservation mode since the first moment DC were identified, and trying to spin a yarn to either cover her guilt or make her appear less culpable.

We're all entitled to our own opinions of course, but I can't see how she would have picked the Death Caps by accident. Whether she'd foraged before or not, she visited the iNaturalist website prior to the lunch and had specifically searched for 'Death Cap from Melbourne, Vic'.

Death Caps are greenish yellow on top and have white gills underneath. Even someone without any knowledge of mushrooms would know to avoid them. My brother and I both knew as young children not to pick any mushrooms that looked like Death Caps.

Further, she specifically went to 2 locations where Death Caps had been seen and had been posted on the website that she visited. She also bought a food dehydrator the next day before she went to those locations.

All of Erin Patterson's behaviour both before the lunch and afterwards points to her being guilty.

 

[Deleted member 363451]

If you're convinced of guilt you'll see it everywhere.

The reality is that there are gaping issues in this case that are not easily dismissed. Before I get hounded, I'd say there are gaping issues with both her innocence and her guilt.

People convinced of her guilt skirt over some huge problems, like expecting her not to realise she couldn't kill 4/5 people and pass it off as an accident. The fact there was no gain for Erin, just likely more difficulties.

Then you consider what the prosecution has proven and what the jury doesnt have access to. They don't have the evidence of Simon's illness and they haven't proven that Erin couldn't have got as sick as them or that bulimia wouldn't have worked.

Don't forget, we're talking reasonable doubt, not whether they think she is innocent.

Do you believe that she wanted to make her relatives sick, or what? What is your actual theory?

 

[Lord Peter Flimsy]

It doesn't usually end well when you tell lies to cover your lies. Conciousness of guilt lies, imo.
She had me at individual BW serves. I have not changed my mind after that.
May justice for the victims and their families be swift.

Why would a truly innocent person with nothing to hide lie to the Police? She has shown herself to be a compulsive liar no matter what feeble excuse has been given for her acting that way.

Speaking of acting the clip of her being confronted by reporters just reinforced my viewpoint that this was no barely believable accident.

 

[Monstradamus]

If you're convinced of guilt you'll see it everywhere.

The reality is that there are gaping issues in this case that are not easily dismissed. Before I get hounded, I'd say there are gaping issues with both her innocence and her guilt.

People convinced of her guilt skirt over some huge problems, like expecting her not to realise she couldn't kill 4/5 people and pass it off as an accident. The fact there was no gain for Erin, just likely more difficulties.

Then you consider what the prosecution has proven and what the jury doesnt have access to. They don't have the evidence of Simon's illness and they haven't proven that Erin couldn't have got as sick as them or that bulimia wouldn't have worked.

Don't forget, we're talking reasonable doubt, not whether they think she is innocent.

The one narcissist I know tends to impulsively act first whilst in a rage, and forgets about the consequences. Lives in the moment, always silently seething about perceived slights. Also builds a narrative of lies before the event itself, to fall back on. She is all about the control, and if she thinks she's losing it, expect a violent tantrum or unexpected bad behaviour. I believe EP shows some of the same traits. IMO

 

[mamamama9873]

If you're convinced of guilt you'll see it everywhere.

The reality is that there are gaping issues in this case that are not easily dismissed. Before I get hounded, I'd say there are gaping issues with both her innocence and her guilt.

People convinced of her guilt skirt over some huge problems, like expecting her not to realise she couldn't kill 4/5 people and pass it off as an accident. The fact there was no gain for Erin, just likely more difficulties.

Then you consider what the prosecution has proven and what the jury doesnt have access to. They don't have the evidence of Simon's illness and they haven't proven that Erin couldn't have got as sick as them or that bulimia wouldn't have worked.

Don't forget, we're talking reasonable doubt, not whether they think she is innocent.

While that bias assumption might be true, I can speak for myself only. I kept an open mind, didn’t get hung up on her TV interview or the choice of her pants.
But based on everything that has been publicly presented, I cannot fathom how she is not guilty of the crime. There is no reasonable doubt whatsoever. IMO

 

[Kemug]

And I wonder if they are all secretly hoping to be part of the 2 that will soon be dropped?

Replying to myself - no, I don't think I would be hoping that. I believe I would be thinking that having come so far, I would want to see it through to the bitter end.

 

[Jake18]

People convinced of her guilt skirt over some huge problems, like expecting her not to realise she couldn't kill 4/5 people and pass it off as an accident. The fact there was no gain for Erin, just likely more difficulties.

I think there’s something wrong with her awareness of others and their responses. I think she genuinely thought she’d get away with it.

She is a socially isolated, socially awkward (based on reports of her testimony) separated woman in a small town. I think she has what my kids call “main character syndrome” where she neglects to consider others as important or as smart as she is and she expected the guests and people in their orbit to behave in a particular way after the dinner.

My impression is that she imagined them dying - in separate homes - less dramatically and with no one working out it was death cap toxin related. As far as she knew there was no toxin test for death caps, cultures of stools or tests on the food itself would have been negative for pathogens and the deaths would have been mysterious but no cause attributed. Add in her own “symptoms” as well and she would thought she was in the clear.

Instead, medical staff were onto it very quickly and she panicked, with no plan B. As she said in her testimony (about the need to go home to supposedly sort out the ballet bag etc) she had difficulty changing course “like a big ship turning around”.

 

[BreakingNews]

While that bias assumption might be true, I can speak for myself only. I kept an open mind, didn’t get hung up on her TV interview or the choice of her pants.
But based on everything that has been publicly presented, I cannot fathom how she is not guilty of the crime. There is no reasonable doubt whatsoever. IMO

What did you think of Mandy's summing up?
I'm thinking it is difficult to really assume much until we hear the Judge's directions to the jury. But I'm looking at this purely from a legal point of view.

 

[Yh5r]

What did you think of Mandy's summing up?
I'm thinking it is difficult to really assume much until we hear the Judge's directions to the jury. But I'm looking at this purely from a legal point of view.

I don't know how he sleeps at night - it's his job but it's so unethical IMO for him to dismiss Ian's testimony about the plates and one of the nurse's testimony as well. On the other hand, he then said Erin had diarrhoea as the daughter stated she went to the toilet 10 times. But he accuses the prosecution of cherry picking..

Mandy also did a lot of quoting the toxiologist - why didn't he enlist him as a defence witness then? My thoughts are the toxiologist either wanted nothing to do with the case or (more likely) Mandy couldn't risk having him cross-examined by the prosecution.

The fact they had ONE witness (the defendant herself whose honesty is very questionable) is a huge issue for Mr Mandy and his defence team.

 

[Kemug]

⅔

Evidence is her testimony. It was a house not an apartment. No I said this not that. No, I didn’t mention taking Imodium - no one asked me!

I took "house, not an apartment" as arrrogance, rather than pedantry. In Australia a house usually costs much more than an apartment.

 

[Mirabel091]

The one narcissist I know tends to impulsively act first whilst in a rage, and forgets about the consequences. Lives in the moment, always silently seething about perceived slights. Also builds a narrative of lies before the event itself, to fall back on. She is all about the control, and if she thinks she's losing it, expect a violent tantrum or unexpected bad behaviour. I believe EP shows some of the same traits. IMO

On impulsiveness, let's not forget the action of searching out and drying Death Caps could be made independently from the decision to use them in a meal.

It's just that, if you've kept the results of your little experiment, maybe not really knowing what else to do with them at the time - you have a much more potent weapon on hand to season dinner with when you snap.

 

[MissTilly]

What did you think of Mandy's summing up?
I'm thinking it is difficult to really assume much until we hear the Judge's directions to the jury. But I'm looking at this purely from a legal point of view.

it is hard to tell, as i am relying on very varied media reports but his closing appeared to lack structure and jump from one topic to another. if the reporting was accurate it also seemed to be very repetitive and tedious. he seems to be trying to do too much with the little he has - many of his arguments relied on information not known until the defendant’s testimony ( bulimia, roadside poo, etc.) being believable
moo

 

[Monstradamus]

On impulsiveness, let's not forget the action of searching out and drying Death Caps could be made independently from the decision to use them in a meal.

It's just that, if you've kept the results of your little experiment, maybe not really knowing what else to do with them at the time - you have a much more potent weapon on hand to season dinner with when you snap.

"I'll save those tasty morsels for a special occasion"

 

[potr]

Absolutely. It was the defence - Mandy and Patterson herself - who volunteered her as a witness and Mandy himself is implying there that she lied and was morally incorrect.

How much faith can Mandy expect a jury to have in the evidence provided by a witness he describes that way?

That's the sort of condemning Mandy should be reserving for the prosecution's witnesses.

the actions of a witness (any witness) including lying goes to their "credibility" I am pretty sure it is left to the jury to accord any or a lot of significance to any actions or utterances by a witness to the "weight" and believability of their evidence....thus Mr Mandy lying can and may matter and it is definitely not a matter for you to tell the jury it is meaningless - you can only suggest it is and provide your argued reasons why. Just stating it - will not make it law. I am pretty sure the reliability of witnesses will be EXTENSIVELY covered by Justice Beale in his address come Tuesday.

 

[potr]

I have one more observance that has been tugging at me. There has been a LOT of talk as to the great support and love shown by victims (particularly) D &G towards the defendant - including physical support, (for just one example D, during early covid when elder people were identified as most at risk being the one to travel into a school to retrieve items for children and hand deliver them to the defendants house - when the far more reasonable thing would have been for a less at risk person to do it - like even if the defendant decided it was beyond her capabilities - getting the ex to do it); mental and emotional support and even educational support. These have been provided as examples of the closeness of this family - even when parents are estranged. But, I ask you, why are there NO and I repeat that absolutely no examples of the opposite - no off the cuff spontaneous guestures of kindness or help toward D & G. If this was indeed a reciprocal loving, giving relationship - why no random acts of kindness...surely if there were some much would have been made of them....no running to the shops if D & G were sick, a thankyou gift for Don - maybe something to encourage those scientific experiments with the son. These are things I know would have come not only naturally but I would have wanted to do them for people that I say have been so "there" for me.

 

[Megnut]

the actions of a witness (any witness) including lying goes to their "credibility" I am pretty sure it is left to the jury to accord any or a lot of significance to any actions or utterances by a witness to the "weight" and believability of their evidence....thus Mr Mandy lying can and may matter and it is definitely not a matter for you to tell the jury it is meaningless - you can only suggest it is and provide your argued reasons why. Just stating it - will not make it law. I am pretty sure the reliability of witnesses will be EXTENSIVELY covered by Justice Beale in his address come Tuesday.

And the Defense wants us  not to believe all of the witnesses who testified but to believe EP, who even he admits is a liar.

Don't judge her for lying. Just believe her.

Believe her???? It's not even possible to track her. Her mental GPS keeps rerouting.

The truth is a much straighter line.

JMO

 

[Moll]

If you're convinced of guilt you'll see it everywhere.

The reality is that there are gaping issues in this case that are not easily dismissed. Before I get hounded, I'd say there are gaping issues with both her innocence and her guilt.

People convinced of her guilt skirt over some huge problems, like expecting her not to realise she couldn't kill 4/5 people and pass it off as an accident. The fact there was no gain for Erin, just likely more difficulties.

Then you consider what the prosecution has proven and what the jury doesnt have access to. They don't have the evidence of Simon's illness and they haven't proven that Erin couldn't have got as sick as them or that bulimia wouldn't have worked.

Don't forget, we're talking reasonable doubt, not whether they think she is innocent.

True. But reasonable doubt, not unreasonable doubt. I don't agree that there are 'gaping issues' or that you have to 'skirt over some huge problems' to think EP guilty - the one you've cited is just evidence of a distorted view of the world on her part, that is not hard to believe now. My opinion only, of course.

I also think that what the jury doesn't have access to is a lot less than what Websleuths don't have access to. In every case I've followed closely, the judge's sentencing remarks have been an eye-opener for things we never realised were a factor.

Still, as we keep reminding ourselves, his summing up for the jury should be helpful in separating evidence from smokescreen - no wonder he needed a bit of extra time!

 

[MaxDecimus13]

The one narcissist I know tends to impulsively act first whilst in a rage, and forgets about the consequences. Lives in the moment, always silently seething about perceived slights. Also builds a narrative of lies before the event itself, to fall back on. She is all about the control, and if she thinks she's losing it, expect a violent tantrum or unexpected bad behaviour. I believe EP shows some of the same traits. IMO

There are a few issues with this. Firstly, this was allegedly a planned murder over the course of months. You can be silently seething but how does this fit in with not considering something so obvious over the course of months?

Also, my main criticism of this is that people tend to latch onto a possible reason and run with it. They tend not to step back and think about how likely that is as a reason, and how convincing would it be to somebody sat on the fence.

 

[potr]

Great summary. Based on all this it would be very surprising if the jury doesn't unanimously decide on guilt. IMO

I would also add:

"no signs of mushrooms other than button mushrooms in the leftovers yet finding death cap toxins" - this points to another clear lie that Erin cut up the alleged dehydrated mixed mushrooms and added them to the duxelles. It likely proves that there were powdered mushrooms in the mix (likely death caps) which makes no sense unless the intent was to cause ill effects.

- "Asian store was not given as a source immediately but only after further questioning. Erin (who can remember days of the week from dates 2 years ago) couldn't remember which grocer they were from and the actual source was never found. No one else anywhere got mushroom poisoning around the same time"

annnd
• saying she "investigated" a gastric sleeve (a major bariatric surgery - done by an upper gi surgeon) and made a preliminary appointment to get that done (used the cancer to hide what she assumed was going to be a fairly major operation) at a DERMATOLOGIST for liposuction instead.

yet actually waiting, not divulging it to anyone until cross examination on the stand - so as to ambush with an excuse

• the vomiting the cake was also an ambush that gave the prosecution no actual ability to investigate and introduce any evidence to refute that evidence.

• ambushing with an eating disorder that if divulged before trial could have been properly investigated (There are ways to diagnose extensive history of bullimia - as it has multiple physiological effects upon the body)

i am sure there are others - but the introduction of ALL of this after the prosecutions case in chief had finished - and in some cases even after direct examination of the defendant's own barrister - is questionable - there woud be not enough time for the prosecution to do any legwork let alone find a way to introduce any new evidence in disprooving - as their evidence was closed? would it not survive actual proper investigation? why else would you not mention it