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

[Kemug]

I believe the “panic” defence fails when you consider she was still telling outlandish lies right there on the stand - and that’s even without considering the lies about her health and the reason for the gathering told before there was anything to panic about.

RSBM
Great point!

 

[MaxDecimus13]

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!

If the evidence as a whole is all pointed one way and you are left with some holes then that's just the way it is. After all, if we had a written diary from Erin talking all about her plan, we'd still be left with a few headscratchers. Of course at this point, we would have to go to some of the more unlikely motives.

For me, the evidence isn't at the level where we can easily start dismissing hard to explain facts or filling in the holes with what are often highly speculative answers. For whatever reason, it really isn't a likely scenario that EP would have thought that killing 4 people would end well for her. In itself, it is a piece of circumstantial evidence for the defence that needs considering. Same with a number of others.

Of course we don't know exactly what the jury has that we don't, but that isn't to say it is pro-guilt. I started this trial saying I wanted to hear about the medical evidence. Basically, was it possible for EP to eat the meal and then not get as sick. I feel like on this forum we have a much better idea of this than the jurors.

Also, personally, I find the husband's mystery illness the year before compelling circumstantial evidence. One tragic event can be considered as an accident, but two similar tragic events happening around the same person. For me, that removes a lot of the benefit of the doubt that a defendant might usually get. The jury don't have this.

I accept that I have a high bar for reasonable doubt, I even once struggled with the Chris Dawson case, but I do think people are overestimating how solid the evidence is in some respects. There is a narrative of what happened, but a lot of it is quite speculative.

I suspect if a guilty verdict is reached, the jury will have gone off what they think happened rather than what they are technically allowed to do by law.

I've never really followed a trial through to the judge's bit and tbh thought it would be a dry going over of facts and instructing the jury on what they can do. I'll certainly look forward to seeing what he says now!

 

[MaxDecimus13]

In these days between, I've been coming across little inconsistencies here and there for both the prosecution and defence.

The defence implied that because EP is a true crime nut she therefore would have been much more careful in disposing of evidence etc.

However, I realised today that her dumping of the dehydrator is counter to this. They claim it was in a panic, but not only did she have some time to think about it, she wouldnt forget obvious things that true crime nuts know like CCTV and signing your name etc. If I suddenly found a body in my car and decided to dispose of it, I doubt I would forget that CCTV would track where I was driving and that forensics would be able to get DNA from my car just because I was panicked.

Maybe she was just slapdash or thought the police wouldn't do the job properly.

 

[potr]

complete and utter random thought here:
bag disposed of in the servo toilet contained 6th individual BW

 

[MaxDecimus13]

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.

I'll certainly bow to your superior knowledge about foraging. I said very early on that her evidence that she had been a forager was actually damaging to her. Before she took the stand, I presumed that if it was an accident it was something she had done without knowing anything about mushrooms.

The defence made a big deal about her searching for South Gippsland. I've no idea how large an area that is, but I always thought it odd that you would search that specifically and treat it as proof that there weren't any. Surely, you'd check the whole local area?

 

[Moll]

If the evidence as a whole is all pointed one way and you are left with some holes then that's just the way it is. After all, if we had a written diary from Erin talking all about her plan, we'd still be left with a few headscratchers. Of course at this point, we would have to go to some of the more unlikely motives.

For me, the evidence isn't at the level where we can easily start dismissing hard to explain facts or filling in the holes with what are often highly speculative answers. For whatever reason, it really isn't a likely scenario that EP would have thought that killing 4 people would end well for her. In itself, it is a piece of circumstantial evidence for the defence that needs considering. Same with a number of others.

Of course we don't know exactly what the jury has that we don't, but that isn't to say it is pro-guilt. I started this trial saying I wanted to hear about the medical evidence. Basically, was it possible for EP to eat the meal and then not get as sick. I feel like on this forum we have a much better idea of this than the jurors.

Also, personally, I find the husband's mystery illness the year before compelling circumstantial evidence. One tragic event can be considered as an accident, but two similar tragic events happening around the same person. For me, that removes a lot of the benefit of the doubt that a defendant might usually get. The jury don't have this.

I accept that I have a high bar for reasonable doubt, I even once struggled with the Chris Dawson case, but I do think people are overestimating how solid the evidence is in some respects. There is a narrative of what happened, but a lot of it is quite speculative.

I suspect if a guilty verdict is reached, the jury will have gone off what they think happened rather than what they are technically allowed to do by law.

I've never really followed a trial through to the judge's bit and tbh thought it would be a dry going over of facts and instructing the jury on what they can do. I'll certainly look forward to seeing what he says now!

Just to clarify the judge's bit - I think the summing up is as you say pretty much a going over of the facts and instructing the jury what they can do, and that's usually very helpful to us as well as the jury.

I don't know how you can think that in order to find EP guilty the jury would have to depart from what they are technically allowed to do by law. In my opinion there is a much closer correspondence between the law and common sense in this kind of case than you think.

But the judges's part I referred to as often containing eye-opening bits for us (followers not in the courtroom) is the sentencing remarks - given of course only if the accused is found guilty.

 

[Kemug]

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.

When I was growing up on a farm, my mother and I often went looking for mushrooms, and yes that was exactly what we called it! There was really no doubt of what was a mushroom. There were certainly no coloured versions, green, yellow, blue, whatever. A mushroom was white. The gills were pink, changing to brown as they grew and aged. Plus, what I don't recall being mentioned here, they smelled very strongly of mushrooms.

 

[srper2]

RSBM
What on earth are you talking about

RSBM
What on earth are you talking abou

“By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes….”

In the previous thread some references were made to the witches in Macbeth and Erin’s Facebook witch avatar…..which had me thinking about hemlock.

Hemlock is a pretty flowering plant of which the seeds, roots, leaves, flowers and fruits contain deadly poisonous alkaloid chemicals

How Does Hemlock Kill You?

The hemlock plant, known as poison hemlock, is poisonous. Its seeds, flowers, leaves, or fruits contain poisonous alkaloid chemicals. Any part can kill you even after ingesting small amounts. Death occurs due to respiratory failure. The alkaloids slowly poison the nerve-muscle junctions and...

www.medicinenet.com

So I popped onto iNaturalist, zoomed into the Gippsland region, and right there in Loch, Conium maculatom, poison hemlock.

It is not of relevance to the death cap mushroom case but I thought an interesting coincidence in light of what we have read about alleged previous attempts to poison Simon.
The earliest post (for Loch) is dated 5/9/2022 so not really fitting the mystery gut illness timeline. However poison hemlock is pretty widespread so could have been found elsewhere on iNaturalist if someone was seeking it out.

It grows on the side of the roads and along railroads in Gippsland.

 

[Ellery84]

From the article below:

Mandy outlined the top four “ridiculous” and “convoluted” propositions of the crown’s case. He urged the jury to reject these, the first being that Patterson would commit the alleged offences without a motive.


‘Calculated deceptions’ and ‘ridiculous’ propositions: what the Erin Patterson jury heard in the eighth week of her triple-murder trial

Whist I respect the opinion of Colin Mandy SC, defence counsel, I disagree with his statement (above).

I think the ridiculous and convoluted behaviour of Ms Patterson just is what it is.

If she’s guilty of the terrible crimes she stands accused of, her methodology is and has been very convoluted and the reasons for her murdering those three innocent guests and attempting to murder a fourth, Ian Wilkinson, are, quite frankly, ridiculous and beyond what any proportionate person would ever do.

But just because her alleged response to perceived rejections by her ex husband and her ex husband’s extended family is completely ridiculous and disproportionate - doesn’t mean, in my mind, that she didn’t do it. IMO

A lot of killers are cold blooded psychopaths, and I’m not saying Erin is a killer - but the Crown has accused her of killing 3 people and trying to kill a 4th person.

Let’s not forget, court witnesses and evidence documents from Erin’s online friends and acquaintances refer to Erin as a Super Sleuth, that’s what some people who knew her back online referred to her as.

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

To me it’s feasible that a killer would do something so convoluted and ridiculous, and the fact that Erin was known to be (due to evidence given and witness testimony shared in court) as a super-sleuth, a great crime researcher herself - leads me to me to think that this comes into play when we see how convoluted her alleged actions are - that is; extremely complex and difficult to follow.

A super sleuth is a term used to describe a very skilled and successful detective, especially one who is a fictional character in books or movies. The term implies exceptional abilities in solving crimes and uncovering secrets.

We are not dealing with a person who has no knowledge of criminal behaviour. We are dealing with someone who has some expertise in sleuthing, and we know here that there is both an art and a science to sleuthing and some are better at it than others. Ms Patterson was reportedly very good at it.

Erin has researched many crimes, and as the @Detechtive verified insider shared with us here in this thread - there were many true crimes that Erin followed which went way behind the Keli Lane matter.

So if you think of the term “ridiculous” - yes, it seems from an outside perspectives that the motives if there were any for the murders were ridiculous - but we don’t get to be inside Ms Patterson’s head, and she may have had her reasons that made sense to her (if guilty).

Was her pre and post offence behaviour convoluted? Yes but what else would we expect from an alleged mass murderer who was also highly intelligent and a super sleuth, so in her own way she was a bit of an expert and had studied criminal behaviour. If you mix that background in with some disordered thinking on her part (my opinion) the nonsensical starts to make sense.

I think, if she murdered Don, Gail and Heather and if she attempted to murder Ian it was a crime of passion and she truly hated the family and hoped to wipe them out.

When she spoke about her wish to put the children in a different school and make her own decisions as a response to the perceived lack of financial support from baby daddy Simon, this represented (in my mind) a mental shift from Erin to the mindset of: “These people are useless, I can do it in my own, it will be easier on my own.”

But she couldn’t do it on her own with all of those relatives hanging around, because even if she got rid of Simon she would still have his relatives looming large over her life and the life of her children, and she couldn’t have that.

IMHO/ It wasn’t about money, but a bit of extra money wouldn’t have hurt, is what I predict her view was - as far as any financial motive. Not the main motivation, but still not a bad outcome if she were to receive additional inheritances from them after their passing.

IMO

 

[MrJ]

Agreed, this if she is found guilty was a crime of passion from revenge against SP and his in-laws IMO

 

[Spectrix]

Something that I've found really interesting throughout this trial is that Erin has said nothing that hints at any kind of remorse. Whether accident or intentional, three people who she claimed to love died because of her, another almost died and is going to have ongoing health concerns due to his liver transplant.

Wouldn't you at least pretend that you cared?
I don't think Erin's behaviour is going to be lost on the good judge when it comes to sentencing.

 

[mamamama9873]

Something that I've found really interesting throughout this trial is that Erin has said nothing that hints at any kind of remorse. Whether accident or intentional, three people who she claimed to love died because of her, another almost died and is going to have ongoing health concerns due to his liver transplant.

Wouldn't you at least pretend that you cared?
I don't think Erin's behaviour is going to be lost on the good judge when it comes to sentencing.

This really stands out. She directly caused the death of 3 wonderful people (whether this was intentional or accidental) and put another and their whole families through a lot of trauma.
Where is the regret, the grief, the remorse?

 

[JBowie]

Wouldn't you at least pretend that you cared?

We've seen what that looks like:

 

[Kemug]

I can't remember now whether it was Heather or Gail who contributed the orange cake to the lunch. But sometimes I think of those 2 sisters, who died so awfully and prematurely, and think of one of them making that cake. An orange cake is quite a lot of trouble to make, because you have to grate all that orange skin. I personally can't be bothered. But it was made carefully and lovingly for a "special occasion", and look where it and its cook ended up. So tragic and sad. And almost unbelievably, apparently not one word of concern, pity, sympathy, remorse, sorrow, regret, apology, etc from Erin. Not one.

 

[Deleted member 363451]

What I mean is that she may have had no particular direction when she picked them and dried them. Just that she might use them in the future. Drying them would ensure longevity.

She might have thought she would make Simon some brownies, but then how would she be able to stop the kids from eating them at his house. So she devised another scheme much later - when things still hadn't improved (to her satisfaction) with Simon or her in-laws.

imo

Yes, that's quite possible.

 

[Spectrix]

We've seen what that looks like:

Thanks, I didn't really need that mouthful of tea anyway

 

[CityKid]

Something that I've found really interesting throughout this trial is that Erin has said nothing that hints at any kind of remorse. Whether accident or intentional, three people who she claimed to love died because of her, another almost died and is going to have ongoing health concerns due to his liver transplant.

Wouldn't you at least pretend that you cared?
I don't think Erin's behaviour is going to be lost on the good judge when it comes to sentencing.

Right? Even if it were completely unintentional, or if she were claiming that there were no DCs in what she cooked, you'd still be sorry for what happened to these four people. IMO she should have at least said to either Mandy or Rogers, "These deaths have absolutely destroyed me, and I'll forever miss Gail, Heather and Don" or something similar.

 

[Montrealaise]

From the article below:

Mandy outlined the top four “ridiculous” and “convoluted” propositions of the crown’s case. He urged the jury to reject these, the first being that Patterson would commit the alleged offences without a motive.


‘Calculated deceptions’ and ‘ridiculous’ propositions: what the Erin Patterson jury heard in the eighth week of her triple-murder trial

Whist I respect the opinion of Colin Mandy SC, defence counsel, I disagree with his statement (above).

I think the ridiculous and convoluted behaviour of Ms Patterson just is what it is.

If she’s guilty of the terrible crimes she stands accused of, her methodology is and has been very convoluted and the reasons for her murdering those three innocent guests and attempting to murder a fourth, Ian Wilkinson, are, quite frankly, ridiculous and beyond what any proportionate person would ever do.

But just because her alleged response to perceived rejections by her ex husband and her ex husband’s extended family is completely ridiculous and disproportionate - doesn’t mean, in my mind, that she didn’t do it. IMO

A lot of killers are cold blooded psychopaths, and I’m not saying Erin is a killer - but the Crown has accused her of killing 3 people and trying to kill a 4th person.

Let’s not forget, court witnesses and evidence documents from Erin’s online friends and acquaintances refer to Erin as a Super Sleuth, that’s what some people who knew her back online referred to her as.

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

To me it’s feasible that a killer would do something so convoluted and ridiculous, and the fact that Erin was known to be (due to evidence given and witness testimony shared in court) as a super-sleuth, a great crime researcher herself - leads me to me to think that this comes into play when we see how convoluted her alleged actions are - that is; extremely complex and difficult to follow.

A super sleuth is a term used to describe a very skilled and successful detective, especially one who is a fictional character in books or movies. The term implies exceptional abilities in solving crimes and uncovering secrets.

We are not dealing with a person who has no knowledge of criminal behaviour. We are dealing with someone who has some expertise in sleuthing, and we know here that there is both an art and a science to sleuthing and some are better at it than others. Ms Patterson was reportedly very good at it.

Erin has researched many crimes, and as the @Detechtive verified insider shared with us here in this thread - there were many true crimes that Erin followed which went way behind the Keli Lane matter.

So if you think of the term “ridiculous” - yes, it seems from an outside perspectives that the motives if there were any for the murders were ridiculous - but we don’t get to be inside Ms Patterson’s head, and she may have had her reasons that made sense to her (if guilty).

Was her pre and post offence behaviour convoluted? Yes but what else would we expect from an alleged mass murderer who was also highly intelligent and a super sleuth, so in her own way she was a bit of an expert and had studied criminal behaviour. If you mix that background in with some disordered thinking on her part (my opinion) the nonsensical starts to make sense.

I think, if she murdered Don, Gail and Heather and if she attempted to murder Ian it was a crime of passion and she truly hated the family and hoped to wipe them out.

When she spoke about her wish to put the children in a different school and make her own decisions as a response to the perceived lack of financial support from baby daddy Simon, this represented (in my mind) a mental shift from Erin to the mindset of: “These people are useless, I can do it in my own, it will be easier on my own.”

But she couldn’t do it on her own with all of those relatives hanging around, because even if she got rid of Simon she would still have his relatives looming large over her life and the life of her children, and she couldn’t have that.

IMHO/ It wasn’t about money, but a bit of extra money wouldn’t have hurt, is what I predict her view was - as far as any financial motive. Not the main motivation, but still not a bad outcome if she were to receive additional inheritances from them after their passing.

IMO

Every murderer has a motive - the fact that the motive is not obvious, or doesn't make sense to us, doesn't mean there is no motive.

 

[Deleted member 363451]

If the evidence as a whole is all pointed one way and you are left with some holes then that's just the way it is. After all, if we had a written diary from Erin talking all about her plan, we'd still be left with a few headscratchers. Of course at this point, we would have to go to some of the more unlikely motives.

For me, the evidence isn't at the level where we can easily start dismissing hard to explain facts or filling in the holes with what are often highly speculative answers. For whatever reason, it really isn't a likely scenario that EP would have thought that killing 4 people would end well for her. In itself, it is a piece of circumstantial evidence for the defence that needs considering. Same with a number of others.

Of course we don't know exactly what the jury has that we don't, but that isn't to say it is pro-guilt. I started this trial saying I wanted to hear about the medical evidence. Basically, was it possible for EP to eat the meal and then not get as sick. I feel like on this forum we have a much better idea of this than the jurors.

Also, personally, I find the husband's mystery illness the year before compelling circumstantial evidence. One tragic event can be considered as an accident, but two similar tragic events happening around the same person. For me, that removes a lot of the benefit of the doubt that a defendant might usually get. The jury don't have this.

I accept that I have a high bar for reasonable doubt, I even once struggled with the Chris Dawson case, but I do think people are overestimating how solid the evidence is in some respects. There is a narrative of what happened, but a lot of it is quite speculative.

I suspect if a guilty verdict is reached, the jury will have gone off what they think happened rather than what they are technically allowed to do by law.

I've never really followed a trial through to the judge's bit and tbh thought it would be a dry going over of facts and instructing the jury on what they can do. I'll certainly look forward to seeing what he says now!

You struggled with the Chris Dawson case?

 

[Montrealaise]

Thanks, I didn't really need that mouthful of tea anyway

She scrunches up her face as though she's crying, but I don't see any tears.