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

[mamamama9873]

I don’t believe Mandy did much of a job of the argument that there was an anti-motive. He tried to say how important these people were and how much she cared but for them. In fact I think demonstrated that the relationship between the accused and her relatives wasn’t really that strong or close at all.

The fact that Mandy didn’t have a defence witness to testify how strong and close the relationship between Erin and the relatives was speaks volumes and is extremely damning.
We can’t take Erin’s word for it as
she was proven to be lying on the stand on numerous occasions and well because she is of course biased when claiming a strong and loving relationship.

Whichever way this whole case is flipped, there is only one way the jury can decide
IMO

 

[MaxDecimus13]

I don’t think anyone here can say oh she’s this or that - definitely a “narcissist”. She has displayed some behaviour though that could be deemed narcissistic? Maybe self-centred? But I don’t think we could or should label her.
And whether she was full of hatred? Well, there’s the “lost cause” and “duck them!”
On your anti-motive point, I don’t believe Mandy did much of a job of the argument that there was an anti-motive. He tried to say how important these people were and how much she cared but for them. In fact I think demonstrated that the relationship between the accused and her relatives wasn’t really that strong or close at all.

I did actually think of a great example last night where a murderer had done something that was clearly not in their self-interest in this way.

But lo, in the words of EP, I can't remember.

 

[Susjay]

It's not ethical to poison your relatives with Death Cap mushrooms either...

Agree, not ethical in any way to harm others. And when anyone is harmed like the victims in this case we let the police and prosecutors do the charging and prosecuting of the alleged perpetrator in a trial where the accused has access to defence. And we don’t get to label that person guilty or not guilty until that process is complete.

 

[Tortoise]

I refer you to the post only a few above where Jess D has literally said that murderers don't consider what happens afterwards all the time.

The bigger problem is not that she would plan poorly afterwards, it's that she would think 4 people would die in suspicious circumstances and that she wouldn't instantly be a serious suspect both officially and unofficially. Also, it would have serious negative consequences for her even if it was an accident. Remember, she'd have had a long time to consider these things and it isn't very reasonable (not impossible) to think she would have discounted them.

If she is guilty -

I don't think we can assume she didn't consider what would happen afterwards.

I think going for them all, as opposed to just Simon, was her consideration of the aftermath. That it's more likely to be accepted as a tragic accident, with no motive and being so outrageous to intentionally kill all - harmless, kind, loving parents/grandparents/aunt/uncle, who never harmed her (her words to that effect) - and she's had the old dry mushrooms for so long she can no longer remember where she bought them, and because it's too outlandish to think she would do it and think she'd get away with it.

Simon turned down the invite, but she didn't know he definitely wasn't coming until he didn't show, because she sent another text asking him to reconsider.

As for not being poisoned herself, she did attempt to fake that.

It reveals incredible cunning IMO.

MOO

 

[Megnut]

This is often asserted and maybe it is true. It is certainly true for in-the-moment killings.

Off the top of my head, I struggle to think of an example where somebody has planned a murder months in advance and not considered the aftermath at all. Not only that, but there was no actual gain for them and only likely negative consequences.

People blow up their lives all the time. It defies reason.

In this case, if she's guilty as charged, it appears to be a revenge tour.

And IMO she did plan it out, the toxin is a potent killer in high concentrations, and invisible after 48 hours.

IMO, like many of us (but hopefully for better reasons), EP found a new support structure online -- narc supply, if you will -- SP and his family were pulling away from her so she retaliated.

Had the 4/5 diners gotten sick and stayed home (not unlike the recent hanta virus death) the individual BWs, the different colored plate, the powdered DCs would have died with the victims, at least that's what it appears EP was banking on.

Did she confess? Not with words. Bit her actions--

As soon as they started asking her about ingredients IMO, she knew she was in trouble. Went home to bin the hydrator. And stall, she needed the hospital NOT to test her for the toxin until the 48 hours passed (maybe she didn't realize they could test for liver damage long after).

I think many convicted criminals think of the aftermath, plan for it, but if one detail falls apart, it unravels.

Like airplane mode, they think it'll protect them from being a suspect, but once they become a suspect, that very thing points to their culpability.

JMO

 

[Susjay]

But that ignores all of the ugly facts concerning the death caps----how did they end up inside at least 4 individual hand made Beef Wellingtons?

I cannot think of any way that it could have happened accidentally.

SHE picked those death caps. She is an intelligent woman who claimed to know about foraging. But then she told the jury that she was on a walk and saw some wild mushrooms BY SOME OAK TREES and picked them and brought them home.

First of all, every description I have seen warning about Death Caps have included OAK TREES as red flags---do not pick wild mushroom growing under Oaks.

I don't believe for a moment that 'Air Traffic Controller/Math Teacher/Accountant',Erin, did not know that simple warning about wild mushrooms. She claims she had books about her hobby of foraging.
She is going to blindly pick wild mushrooms to add to her children's food, without knowing how to identify safe ones?

IF she did forage for them, why didn't she use any of those delicious wild mushrooms while they were fresh? She had all those delicious fresh mushrooms which she LOVED so much, but she chose to dehydrate them all and turn them Into a powder?

And then she dumps them in with funny smelling pungent dried mushrooms from an unknown Asian market, in Tupperware, which she SUPPOSEDLY adds to her very special, expensive gourmet luncheon?

NONE of the above makes any sense. It is not believable, IMO.

And then when her guests get very sick, she does not tell the doctors about the foraged mushrooms? If it was truly an innocent mistake she could have come forward and she wouldn't be incarcerated right now.

Also, she faked being sick way too early. She initially told Simon she was feeling nauseous on the late afternoon of the luncheon.

WHY did she feed her kids the leftover meat, after she claimed she felt so unwell and her lunch guests were already in the hospital? How many parents would do that?

And if we are to believe her claims that she didn't even remember about the wild mushrooms, WHY didn't she rush her kids to the hospital when advised to by the doctors?

I do not believe that the defense was that convincing overall. She told sooooooooo many lies and they went beyond just her being a pathetic attention driven liar, imo. She is also a gas lighter, Injustice Collector and very controlling pathological manipulator. imo

Injustice collector? Oh ok that’s why she needed that big suitcase we saw her leaving the house with in some news vision. It looked heavy - those injustices get real heavy.

 

[Moll]

I was off on a little research of my own about reasonable doubt to see if there had been any differences in Australia from England/Wales, and opened the website just now of a firm of defence lawyers in Victoria.

After a moment one of those helpful dialogue boxes opened at the side and the words 'Hello there, I am Erin' appeared. I was spooked and left the site.

There don't seem to be any differences though!

 

[ch_13]

The bigger problem is not that she would plan poorly afterwards, it's that she would think 4 people would die in suspicious circumstances and that she wouldn't instantly be a serious suspect both officially and unofficially. Also, it would have serious negative consequences for her even if it was an accident. Remember, she'd have had a long time to consider these things and it isn't very reasonable (not impossible) to think she would have discounted them.

Well this is a somewhat different question. What you describe above is actually very common in a subset of murder cases, usually those involving family. Websleuths is filled with spousal and (ex-spousal) murders. Amongst the case currently awaiting trial are Kouri Richins (UT), Barry Morphew and James Craig (CO), Shanna Gardner and the Adelson family (FL). And that's just off the top of my head.

Each of these alleged murderers knew that there would be serious repercussions and they would be at the top of the list of suspects. Yet, they didn't care. They thought they had planned well enough that even if there were suspicions, in the end they would not be held responsible.

They, in fact, did exactly what you said would be would be unreasonable for a potential murderer to do.

 

[CityKid]

Or thrown out.

I don't have four plates the same," Patterson said.

It seems everyone is wrong but her


**
Dr Rogers asked Patterson about evidence that Heather Wilkinson said she noticed the cook had served herself the food on a "coloured plate which was different from the rest".

"I didn't serve myself at all," she replied, before adding she wanted to "clarify" she did not own any matching sets of plates.

"Somebody would've had different plates and I don't have four plates the same," Patterson said.
Dr Rogers suggested her "whole story is untrue" about plating the food, to which Patterson replied: "You're wrong".

BBM. I have no idea what she meant by that. She ate an unknown amount of her BW, per her testimony. I assume it was on a plate. Is she saying that someone else served up her food?

 

[CityKid]

Another of the little things I've been considering is the idea of Erin's lies around say the dehydrator.

Say for instance, they hadn't had the CCTV as proof that she dumped the dehydrator, do we think that she would have eventually come clean?

I think we all know the answer to this, which begs the question, what else happened that we don't know?

I've wondered if on her trip to dump the dehydrator, she went to another area of the facility (perhaps one not monitored by CCTV?) to throw out the plates plates used for the meal.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

Well this is a somewhat different question. What you describe above is actually very common in a subset of murder cases, usually those involving family. Websleuths is filled with spousal and (ex-spousal) murders. Amongst the case currently awaiting trial are Kouri Richins (UT), Barry Morphew and James Craig (CO), Shanna Gardner and the Adelson family (FL). And that's just off the top of my head.

Each of these alleged murderers knew that there would be serious repercussions and they would be at the top of the list of suspects. Yet, they didn't care. They thought they had planned well enough that even if there were suspicions, in the end they would not be held responsible.

They, in fact, did exactly what you said would be would be unreasonable for a potential murderer to do.

I don't know these cases but I'll ask are they a murder of 1 person?

If so, it is much easier for a person to convince themselves they could get away with the murder of 1 person than it is for 4 people.

I took the first one and had a look at it, and there's certainly no doubt about her guilt and she was extremely sloppy. However, she tried to poison him with fentanyl which she obviously thought would look like a drug overdose. She would potentially get huge financial and personal gain.

In comparison, what did Erin think would happen next? She's cooked a meal where 4 of them have died. She's supposed to be very intelligent but didn’t consider that when they didn't find what had caused the deaths that they would seriously investigate her and her life? It's not like she tried to pass it off as something else.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

People blow up their lives all the time. It defies reason.

In this case, if she's guilty as charged, it appears to be a revenge tour.

And IMO she did plan it out, the toxin is a potent killer in high concentrations, and invisible after 48 hours.

IMO, like many of us (but hopefully for better reasons), EP found a new support structure online -- narc supply, if you will -- SP and his family were pulling away from her so she retaliated.

Had the 4/5 diners gotten sick and stayed home (not unlike the recent hanta virus death) the individual BWs, the different colored plate, the powdered DCs would have died with the victims, at least that's what it appears EP was banking on.

Did she confess? Not with words. Bit her actions--

As soon as they started asking her about ingredients IMO, she knew she was in trouble. Went home to bin the hydrator. And stall, she needed the hospital NOT to test her for the toxin until the 48 hours passed (maybe she didn't realize they could test for liver damage long after).

I think many convicted criminals think of the aftermath, plan for it, but if one detail falls apart, it unravels.

Like airplane mode, they think it'll protect them from being a suspect, but once they become a suspect, that very thing points to their culpability.

JMO

Thanks for this.

If we agree that the DC was her undoing, what did she honestly think would happen if they didn't detect it.

The circumstances would still be suspicious
The meal would be the main culprit
There would obviously be a police investigation
Many people would think she murdered them
Simon and any remaining family would no doubt be angry and suspect her

Again, I'm not saying she definitely didn't do it and overlook these things, I just don't think it is a very plausible thing to assume.

 

[303gmf]

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck ... then it's on the duckery scale.

I follow Prof Sam Vaknin's channel on narcissists and I have his book Malignant Self Love: Narcissism Revisited, (some 700 pages of small type).

(Vakinin is a self-described narcissist and has made a short documentary about his mother.)

IMO (as a non-professional), given what I have read about her, EP fits fairly well one of the models that he describes -- the covert type.

Vaknin claims that parents (particularly mothers) mold narcissistic children. EPs' description of her mother as a cold, no-contact robot and her life as a child as akin to being in a Russian orphanage align with the sort of conditions that Vaknin describes as being ripe for creating narcissistic kids -- narcissism being a way of coping with the situation the child finds itself in. They create a false self.

“My mum was ultra weird her whole life,” she wrote.

“We had a horrible upbringing. Mum was essentially a cold robot.

“It was like being brought up in a Russian orphanage where they don’t touch babies.”

https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/news/erin-patterson-shared-details-of-her-horrible-upbringing-in-revealing-2019-text-messages/news-story/64c964a2a37d52dd5193f5828beb94c2

I absolutely don’t trust her perceptions!
Perennial victimhood mentality and distorted narrative are Erin.
Would be interesting to hear from her sibling.
I’m guessing the reality was very different

 

[ch_13]

I don't know these cases but I'll ask are they a murder of 1 person?

Yes, but the specifics of the case aren't the point.

Each case is different, but they were all planned murders. The victims had no other known enemies, so there was a giant flashing arrow pointing directly at the spouse (or spouse's family). They knew there would be a homicide investigation with them as the prime suspect. Even if they got away with the crime, this would forever be a cold case. Most of their family and friends would think they were guilty. They knew all this going in.

All the questions you're asking about Erin could be asked about them as well.

If the standard is "someone can be guilty only if I can rationally explain the reason for the killing as well as understand their planning process and how they intended to get away with the crime" then an awful lot of murderers are going to go free.


Edit -
One more comment to add to this, and then I'll be done. I used to work as a project manager, and in my experience many if not most people are optimistic thinkers. In other words they plan for the best case scenario, not the worst. It has nothing to do with intelligence, but with other skills like attention to detail. I've seen it so many times.

Like I would ask, "How long will it take to develop the new software". They'd claim they could do it in three months. And I'd say, "You still need to hire half your team, onboard them and bring everyone up to speed, write the specs, do the coding, test it, get user acceptance and install it into production. You really think you can do that in three months?" They would assure me they could, when in reality three months later they were still interviewing programmers.

People just aren't very good at planning.

 

[Baby baby Jane]

If she is guilty -

I don't think we can assume she didn't consider what would happen afterwards.

I think going for them all, as opposed to just Simon, was her consideration of the aftermath. That it's more likely to be accepted as a tragic accident, with no motive and being so outrageous to intentionally kill all - harmless, kind, loving parents/grandparents/aunt/uncle, who never harmed her (her words to that effect) - and she's had the old dry mushrooms for so long she can no longer remember where she bought them, and because it's too outlandish to think she would do it and think she'd get away with it.

Simon turned down the invite, but she didn't know he definitely wasn't coming until he didn't show, because she sent another text asking him to reconsider.

As for not being poisoned herself, she did attempt to fake that.

It reveals incredible cunning IMO.

MOO

If the 4 guests illness progressed more slowly, was less severe in early days, didn’t attend hospital & talk, the link to EP would not be as quick or strong.

EP would have said - that one or two guests were already feeling a bit poorly at her lunch. Barely ate, etc. Erin could have controlled the whole narrative and no doubt offered medical alternatives and described fictional conversations about what made them sick. And like @ch_13 says above - EP being well would prove their mystery illness had nothing to do either with her. She would blame church coffee or similar … EP would be so helpful, saying they left lunch early or hardly ate the BW she toiled over. She was ready to be helpful and full of fiction for that scenario …..

And, in the end, any talk of her cancer would be swept away as false positive or some mix up.
The church people all gone with mystery illness.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

Yes, but the specifics of the case aren't the point.

Each case is different, but they were all planned murders. The victims had no other known enemies, so there was a giant flashing arrow pointing directly at the spouse (or spouse's family). They knew there would be a homicide investigation with them as the prime suspect. Even if they got away with the crime, this would forever be a cold case. Most of their family and friends would think they were guilty. They knew all this going in.

All the questions you're asking about Erin could be asked about them as well.

If the standard is "someone can be guilty only if I can rationally explain the reason for the killing as well as understand their planning process and how they intended to get away with the crime" then an awful lot of murderers are going to go free.


Edit -
One more comment to add to this, and then I'll be done. I used to work as a project manager, and in my experience many if not most people are optimistic thinkers. In other words they plan for the best case scenario, not the worst. It has nothing to do with intelligence, but with other skills like attention to detail. I've seen it so many times.

Like I would ask, "How long will it take to develop the new software". They'd claim they could do it in three months. And I'd say, "You still need to hire half your team, onboard them and bring everyone up to speed, write the specs, do the coding, test it, get user acceptance and install it into production. You really think you can do that in three months?" They would assure me they could, when in reality three months later they were still interviewing programmers.

People just aren't very good at planning.

Do you work with Elon Musk? I can't wait for full self-driving cars to hit in 2019.

EP would still be a much more extreme version than these cases. Of course people will suspect a spouse, often only because they're a spouse. However, it's easier to believe somebody thinking people will believe a fentanyl overdose than they'll believe mystery 4 people just mysteriously died. They also had much clearer gains and much clearer motives.

I have actually found one case that is in some ways more similar. The case of Diane Staudte. She murdered a number of her family members over a period of a few months using the same poisoning method without realising she'd get caught.

It's not that I discount these as possibilities, but they are unlikely. Even in the realms of murder, the EP motives would be extreme and rare. That in itself isn't proof but it is something to consider when looking at the whole story.

 

[Cliff Hardy]

Rsbm.

Has anyone actually said this? Because, I for one, do not believe that it's true.

IMO, Erin did think about what would happen, but it's just that her planning went awry.

I think her original plan was to claim that the poisonings happened elsewhere. Even if people suspected that the lunch was the source, there'd be no physical evidence. The mushrooms were in powdered form, so they wouldn't be present in stool samples, and after 48 hours they wouldn't be detectable in blood tests. Giving the kids "leftovers" would also give her plausible deniability. Pretty much Saturday evening and Sunday she treated like normal days. Driving a long distance for the flying lessons, eating fast food, etc. She would never have done those things if she was truly ill, or even was planning to lie that she became ill.

Really it wasn't until Monday that went to the hospital complaining about illness. Once she realized (probably from talking to Simon) that they were asking questions about mushrooms, she realized she had to change tacks. Maybe it was always her plan B, but I think she did not expect the medical authorities to hone in on amanita toxin as quickly as they did.

It looks more and more like she thought she was way ahead of the game and that she thought she'd planned the perfect crime, to the finest detail. Even conducted trials. But it didn't quite pan out the way she had hoped and that left her with a whole lot of explaining to do. Which she has made an absolute dog's breakfast of.

 

[Jake18]

I've wondered if on her trip to dump the dehydrator, she went to another area of the facility (perhaps one not monitored by CCTV?) to throw out the plates plates used for the meal.

I think she threw those out earlier, maybe with that 11min unexplained time period where she dropped her son to KFC.

Not because she thought she’d get caught by the police, but because the dirty plates the guests ate from have toxin residue and we know the toxin doesn’t get destroyed from heating. So you could wash them, put them in the dishwasher but would you be 100% sure they were safe for your kids to eat from?

Whatever she used to pulverise the dried mushrooms into a paste would have been ditched as well, but maybe with less urgency, unless the children used it as well.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

I think she threw those out earlier, maybe with that 11min unexplained time period where she dropped her son to KFC.

Not because she thought she’d get caught by the police, but because the dirty plates the guests ate from have toxin residue and we know the toxin doesn’t get destroyed from heating. So you could wash them, put them in the dishwasher but would you be 100% sure they were safe for your kids to eat from?

Whatever she used to pulverise the dried mushrooms into a paste would have been ditched as well, but maybe with less urgency, unless the children used it as well.

Something was very clearly disposed of on the way to the flying lesson. The fact that she said probably lied about what she put in the bin, is probably good evidence that she put something else in the bin.

I don't buy the tissues for obvious reasons. No recollection of the son, but also it really does beggar belief that she wouldn't feel the need to wash herself especially her hands. Wipes can clean but you wouldn't feel like you don't need to give your hands a proper wash.

I'm not fully clued up on timelines so I can only hazard a guess. It'd have to be something small enough for her bag but serious enough that she feels the need to get rid of it. Maybe the mushroom powder, or the remaining mushrooms?

 

[Jake18]

Something was very clearly disposed of on the way to the flying lesson. The fact that she said probably lied about what she put in the bin, is probably good evidence that she put something else in the bin.

I don't buy the tissues for obvious reasons. No recollection of the son, but also it really does beggar belief that she wouldn't feel the need to wash herself especially her hands. Wipes can clean but you wouldn't feel like you don't need to give your hands a proper wash.

I'm not fully clued up on timelines so I can only hazard a guess. It'd have to be something small enough for her bag but serious enough that she feels the need to get rid of it. Maybe the mushroom powder, or the remaining mushrooms?

Or the some of the meat from the leftovers? Although that’s her in cover up mode, and I don’t she necessarily was at that pont.

I agree though. And it’s inconceivable that anyone would dispose of poo-stained tissues and then browse food options without washing their hands.

This might sound cruel and I don’t mean it to be: does anyone believe that a 111kg woman could successfully swat, to do a poo, effectively wipe herself in the same position and get none of the mess on her white trousers? And not even feel the need for a better wipe/clean up in the toilets?