VERDICT WATCH Australia - 3 dead after eating wild mushrooms, Leongatha, Victoria, Aug 2023 #16 *Arrest*

[Deleted member 363451]

The idea that EP would never have killed the guests considering the subsequent scrutiny is easily belied by all the times it has been known to happen.

Exhibit A: Lori Daybell and two other adults killed her own children, buried them in one of their backyards, and then went about their lives as though it never happened and as though they would get away with it.

Killers make dumb decisions everyday, that's why they get caught. It's backwards to try to credit them with innocence for those dumb decisions.

 

[Kemug]

I wonder if the kids even know whether to believe her or not? And Simon seems such a nice guy that he wouldnt want them to hate her - he might say something like "mummy must have made a mistake."

 

[Scuffy35]

YES, and common sense tells us the meat would be unsafe.

When you cook mushrooms they 'leak' liquids.

But this is all moot anyway because she powdered those death caps, so...

I was the one who initially asked about using "Common sense" and life experiences. I just do not know to what degree the jury are allowed to use it, if at all.

I doubt the answer would be different between the jury and a witness that was using common sense for something not in their specific field of expertise.

Does anyone here with lay experience know?

If the DC mushrooms were previously dried and then added, or
if they were previously dried and then rehydrated and then added,
or if they were dried and made into a powder, and then added,
the prosecution would have only needed to demonstrate that the toxins would be left on the surface of the meat and/or diffused into it for the method that witness evidence said she used.

I think the prosecution should have been prepared for any of the scenarios of adding the mushrooms though, as they would not know what story she would tell when she testified herself.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Jurors at least in the US are encouraged to use their common sense all the time by attorneys in their arguments.

 

[Deleted member 363451]

I wonder if the kids even know whether to believe her or not? And Simon seems such a nice guy that he wouldnt want them to hate her - he might say something like "mummy must have made a mistake."

The fact that Simon even wore his wedding ring to his parents funeral, shows what sort of guy he is. I notice he's taken it off now though. What have you done Erin? You sabotaged your whole life...

 

[TootsieFootsie]

About two hours left in deliberating time today.

 

[Deleted member 363451]

The idea that EP would never have killed the guests considering the subsequent scrutiny is easily belied by all the times it has been known to happen.

Exhibit A: Lori Daybell and two other adults killed her own children, buried them in one of their backyards, and then went about their lives as though it never happened and as though they would get away with it.

Killers make dumb decisions everyday, that's why they get caught. It's backwards to try to credit them with innocence for those dumb decisions.

I just looked up the Lori Daybell case. How shocking.

What Did Lori Vallow Do? A Timeline of Events in ‘Sins of Our Mother’

The docuseries tells the bizarre and chilling tale of Tylee Ryan and J.J. Vallow’s disappearance.

www.netflix.com

 

[Scooby-Doo]

One important think I have learnt in life is to never assume. The prosecution was very sloppy and should have asked specific questions to clarify that the toxin would permeate or diffuse into the meat, or they should have got an expert witness on toxins that could have.

It no point trying to make it look like there is no ambiguity that it would permeate (Even though most of us here would agree that it would), because the jury are deciding based on the evidence that they are provided and the judge told them not to speculate. The prosecution really stuffed up on this, as well as the vomiting testimony, which again, an expert witness for the prosecution could have refuted. I am really disappointed with the prosecution as I want to see justice done.

Dr Gerostamoulos explained the process of extracting samples from leftover food, which he said is a sometimes difficult but routine task for toxicologists.

He revealed to the court that beta amanitins were found in samples of mushroom paste and beef analysed about a month after the July 29 lunch.

(It just goes to show, even after this time, how strong the poison still lasts, after it's been cooked)

One point which is important and wasn't raised

With all the diarrhea and vomiting, Erin was supposedly experiencing

Erin had not mentioned how thirsty she was, and there was no CCTV of her with drinks/iceblocks, etc.

She never mentioned to the kids how thirsty she was either

When you experience diarrhea and vomiting, your body loses fluids and electrolytes, which can

lead to increased thirst due to dehydration

Which then triggers thirst as a way for the body to signal a need for more fluids

I found this very strange with her

As patients with death cap mushroom poisoning are often given intravenous ( IV ) fluids in the hospital.

This is primarily to address the severe dehydration that can result from the gastrointestinal symptoms, like vomiting and diarrhea, caused by the amatoxins in the mushroom.

Toxicologist explains deadliness of death cap mushrooms to murder trial

Defence lawyers for accused killer Erin Patterson have suggested a person could survive death cap mushroom poisoning, even after eating the same meal as someone who fell seriously ill.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Procrastinator]

I don't think that "causing grievous bodily harm with intent" has been proven. Maybe the intention was to cause some short term illness and discomfort. The lesser offence of "recklessly causing grievous bodily harm" would then apply, but she hasn't been charged with this. Without establishing motive it is difficult in this case to prove intent. If Erin had anticipated death or serious injury she would have known to expect a police investigation and would have taken advance steps to dispose of crucial evidence such as phones and the dehydrator.

Simon was unwell three occasions (the last time being in a coma) allegedly due to EP's cooking and she didn't receive any scrutiny at the time. Maybe EP was complacent about the lunch. IMOO

 

[Deleted member 363451]

Dr Gerostamoulos explained the process of extracting samples from leftover food, which he said is a sometimes difficult but routine task for toxicologists.

He revealed to the court that beta amanitins were found in samples of mushroom paste and beef analysed about a month after the July 29 lunch.

(It just goes to show, even after this time, how strong the poison still lasts, after it's been cooked)

One point which is important and wasn't raised

With all the diarrhea and vomiting, Erin was supposedly experiencing

Erin had not mentioned how thirsty she was, and there was no CCTV of her with drinks/iceblocks, etc.

She never mentioned to the kids how thirsty she was either

When you experience diarrhea and vomiting, your body loses fluids and electrolytes, which can

lead to increased thirst due to dehydration

Which then triggers thirst as a way for the body to signal a need for more fluids

I found this very strange with her

As patients with death cap mushroom poisoning are often given intravenous ( IV ) fluids in the hospital.

This is primarily to address the severe dehydration that can result from the gastrointestinal symptoms, like vomiting and diarrhea, caused by the amatoxins in the mushroom.

That's a very good observation.

 

[LinasK]

I was the one who initially asked about using "Common sense" and life experiences. I just do not know to what degree the jury are allowed to use it, if at all.

I doubt the answer would be different between the jury and a witness that was using common sense for something not in their specific field of expertise.

Does anyone here with lay experience know?

If the DC mushrooms were previously dried and then added, or
if they were previously dried and then rehydrated and then added,
or if they were dried and made into a powder, and then added,
the prosecution would have only needed to demonstrate that the toxins would be left on the surface of the meat and/or diffused into it for the method that witness evidence said she used.

I think the prosecution should have been prepared for any of the scenarios of adding the mushrooms though, as they would not know what story she would tell when she testified herself.

The thing is- her initial story(s) are/were that she used only Woolworth's mushrooms, later modified to add Unspecified "Asian" mushrooms. No mention of dehydrating Death Caps. So she lied. She had to fess up when the Death Caps were found on her dehydrator and in Don and Ian. And the authorities were onto the fact that other mushrooms such as Death Caps could have been present in the meal, even though they weren't visible. From an article posted above: It should always be borne in mind that there may have been other mushrooms in a dish apart from the samples brought in with the patient. Erin didn't count on that.

 

[Monstradamus]

That's a very good observation.

A couple of coffees ain't going to cut it, I'm afraid

 

[LadyL]

She sent the first image of Death Caps to her friends circle on May 4, 2023.
The (second) lunch she had was on July 29, 2023.

Months.

wait she had another lunch? I saw that in your timeline and thought it was a mistake
so she did have a lunch in June and Simon was not there for that one either?
what did she serve them?

 

[Monstradamus]

The thing is- her initial story(s) are/were that she used only Woolworth's mushrooms, later modified to add Unspecified "Asian" mushrooms. No mention of dehydrating Death Caps. So she lied. She had to fess up when the Death Caps were found on her dehydrator and in Don and Ian. And the authorities were onto the fact that other mushrooms such as Death Caps could have been present in the meal, even though they weren't visible. From an article posted above: It should always be borne in mind that there may have been other mushrooms in a dish apart from the samples brought in with the patient. Erin didn't count on that.

Yes! First it was just Woolies mushrooms. When questions started being asked and it was found to be possible DC poisoning it was the elusive Asian Grocery Store mushrooms. Then finally in her evidence it could possibly have been foraged mushrooms. So many mushrooms
The Defence stated she foraged mushrooms regularly. If that's the case, why did she accidentally pick DCs? She apparently was an avid researcher, she lived in country Victoria where there is regular alerts and newspaper articles about the dangers associated with picking the wrong mushrooms. I live in Queensland, and even I know that picking the wrong type of mushrooms could be deadly.
IMO she picked those mushrooms fully knowing what they were, bought her dehydrator, dried them, threw them in the Thermomix and powdered them, put them into a Tupperware container, hid them so the kids wouldn't accidentally find them, and waited for her opportunity. Things weren't going her way, she was losing control, she was seething with rage. What better way to get back at her estranged husband?
All MOO of course.

 

[Monstradamus]

wait she had another lunch? I saw that in your timeline and thought it was a mistake
so she did have a lunch in June and Simon was not there for that one either?
what did she serve them?

Shepherds Pie

 

[Scuffy35]

I was the one who initially asked about using "Common sense" and life experiences. I just do not know to what degree the jury are allowed to use it, if at all.

I doubt the answer would be different between the jury and a witness that was using common sense for something not in their specific field of expertise.

Does anyone here with lay experience know?

If the DC mushrooms were previously dried and then added, or
if they were previously dried and then rehydrated and then added,
or if they were dried and made into a powder, and then added,
the prosecution would have only needed to demonstrate that the toxins would be left on the surface of the meat and/or diffused into it for the method that witness evidence said she used.

I think the prosecution should have been prepared for any of the scenarios of adding the mushrooms though, as they would not know what story she would tell when she testified herself.

I tried ChatGPT for the answer and the response is very interesting. It looks like the jury are very restricted on using common sense on the question of the toxins permeating into the meat due to the judge's directions, but not on the question of mushroom toxin residue remaining on the meat after scraping it off.

I will post some of it here. If it is not allowed, I will remove it and other can try it themselves.

You said:
Are the jurors allowed to use common sense to understand whether any deathcap mushroom toxin would remain on the surface of the meat if the deathcap mushroom paste was merely scraped off. Also are the jurors allowed to use common sense to understand whether any deathcap mushroom toxin would permeate the meat or diffuse into the meat either before of after the Beef Wellingtons with the mushroom covered meat encased in pastry was cooked in the oven?

ChatGPT said:

Yes, jurors are allowed—and expected—to use common sense when deliberating on factual matters in a criminal trial. However, their conclusions must be based on the evidence presented in court, not on independent research or speculation beyond the scope of that evidence.

---

Jurors Can Use Common Sense – Within Limits​

Australian courts explicitly direct jurors to apply their common sense, life experience, and reasoning to evaluate the evidence. But there are important boundaries:

✔ Allowed:​

• 
  
• Drawing logical inferences from facts presented (e.g., "If the mushroom paste was on the meat, some residue may remain after scraping").
• 
  
• Applying basic reasoning (e.g., "Cooking might spread toxins into meat").
• 
  
• Considering credibility and plausibility of witness testimony.

✘ Not Allowed:​

• 
  
• Speculating about scientific or technical matters not explained in court.
• 
  
• Using personal knowledge or googling information about things like how toxins behave in food.
• 
  
• Consulting external sources or experts.

---

Your Two Questions:​

1. Can jurors use common sense to decide whether scraping the paste off would leave behind toxins?​

Yes, if no expert directly addressed it, jurors may use basic reasoning to conclude that:

• 
  
• Scraping may not remove all traces.
• 
  
• Residue could remain in crevices or surfaces.
• 
  
• It’s unlikely that scraping fully decontaminates the meat.

However, if expert testimony contradicted or clarified this (e.g., saying the toxin binds deeply or not at all), the jury must weigh that expert evidence over mere assumption.

---

2. Can jurors use common sense to decide whether the toxin would permeate or diffuse into the meat (before or after cooking)?​

This gets closer to a scientific question, so:

• 
  
• Jurors can form a lay inference (e.g., “heat might help spread the toxin”),
• 
  
• But ideally this should be anchored by expert testimony.

If no such expert evidence was presented, jurors can still apply general reasoning — such as:

• 
  
• Liquids or pastes can soak into meat over time.
• 
  
• Oven heat may drive surface substances into the food.

But they should be cautious not to treat speculation as fact, especially in matters that require specialist understanding (like toxin heat stability, molecular diffusion, etc.).

---

Judicial Directions​

Judges typically tell jurors:

“You must consider the evidence and use your common sense. Do not guess or speculate about matters not covered by the evidence.”

If no expert addressed mushroom toxin transfer, and it is relevant, then defence and prosecution may argue different interpretations, and the jury is left to decide what’s reasonable.

---

Summary​

Question	Can Jurors Use Common Sense?	Caution
Scraping removes all toxin?	Yes	Reasonable inference from everyday logic
Toxin permeates during cooking?	Yes, carefully	May border on needing expert input

Would you like me to check whether expert witnesses in the trial addressed how death cap toxins behave in cooked food or meat?

You said:
The judge during his directions to the jury told them something to the effect that as the prosecution did not have an expert witness to testify that the death cap mushroom toxin would permeate into and taint the meat, that they would have to disregard the prosecutions assertion. He also said it would be speculation. How does the judge's direction here impact on whether the jury can still use their common sense?

ChatGPT said:
Yes, Justice Christopher Beale's direction to the jury in Erin Patterson's trial significantly impacts how jurors may apply their common sense regarding the behavior of death cap mushroom toxins in food.abc.net.au+7abc.net.au+7abc.net.au+7
During his final instructions, Justice Beale emphasized that jurors must not speculate on matters not supported by expert testimony. Specifically, he instructed the jury to disregard prosecution arguments lacking expert evidence, such as the potential illness in Patterson’s children from leftovers. He further advised jurors to focus on the facts presented and avoid speculation. theguardian.com
This guidance means that while jurors can use their common sense to interpret evidence, they must not make assumptions about scientific or technical matters—like whether death cap mushroom toxins would permeate meat during cooking—unless such points were addressed by expert witnesses during the trial. In the absence of expert testimony on this specific issue, jurors are instructed to set aside any personal beliefs or assumptions and base their deliberations solely on the evidence presented in court.
Therefore, Justice Beale's direction limits the jury's ability to apply common sense to scientific questions not covered by expert evidence, ensuring that their verdict is based strictly on the trial's factual record.

You said:

How does the judge's direction here impact on whether the jury can still use their common sense regarding possible toxic residue remaining on the surface of the meat? i.e the death cap mushroom past was not thoroughly washed and scrubbed of the meat but only scraped off the meat.

ChatGPT said:
Justice Beale’s direction to the jury — specifically instructing them not to speculate on whether death cap mushroom toxin would permeate or taint meat without expert evidence — has a limiting effect, but it does not entirely prohibit the use of common sense regarding basic, observable facts like residue remaining on the surface of meat after scraping.
Let’s break it down:

---

What the Judge Did Say​

According to reports (e.g., ABC), Justice Beale instructed:

• 
  
• Jurors must not speculate about scientific matters that were not addressed by expert witnesses.
• 
  
• This included toxin permeation into meat or causing illness after being cooked — both complex, biochemical questions.

He warned that:

“You must not speculate in the absence of expert evidence.”

---

Does That Stop the Jury Using Common Sense on Surface Residue?​

No — not necessarily. The distinction lies in the complexity of the inference:

Issue	Scientific Complexity	Can Jury Use Common Sense?
Toxin permeating into meat during cooking	High	No – judge said it’s speculation without expert evidence
Toxin remaining as residue after scraping paste off	Low	Yes – ordinary, visible, tactile reasonin

The question of whether scraping a paste off meat would still leave behind some mushroom residue is:

• 
  
• Not a scientific mystery,
• 
  
• Falls within normal human experience (like cleaning sauce off meat),
• 
  
• And would not require expert knowledge to understand.

Thus, jurors are still permitted to use their common sense to reason that:

“If you only scraped the paste off, some residue might still be present on the meat.”

This kind of reasoning is supported by general legal directions in Australia that allow jurors to:

“Use your common sense and experience in life when considering the facts of the case.”

---

Judicial Caution vs Practical Reasoning​

The judge’s warning is meant to prevent speculative leaps into complex areas — e.g.,:

• 
  
• “Did heat break down the toxins?”
• 
  
• “Did diffusion occur at the molecular level?”
• 
  
• “Could the toxins survive baking at 180°C?”

But the visible, physical possibility that scraping ≠ complete removal is not prohibited.

---

Conclusion​

The jury must disregard unsupported scientific claims — like permeation or toxicity after cooking — unless expert evidence was given.
But they can still use common sense to conclude that:

“Scraping does not equal sterilisation.”

That is not speculation, but a reasonable inference from everyday life. The judge’s direction does not bar that line of thinking.
Would you like an example of how this might be summarised in a closing jury instruction or verdict reasoning?

 

[MaxDecimus13]

So it's starting to look like another day for the jury.

I think it's reasonable to assume now that there is some dispute going on. Surely they'd be through the judges directions etc by now.

 

[musicaljoke]

We have receipts for how much she bought of which ingredients. The only other cooked portions were the poisoned one tossed in the trash bin, and the 1/2 portion of the unpoisoned one that she ate. There's no way that 1/2 portion was enough for a teenage boy AND a 9 year old girl.

There must have been another purchase of meat in order to have some for the children's dinner.

 

[Old Soul]

I have been thinking about the June lunch Erin hosted with Don, Gail and the children, I don’t know if Simon was invited or not. Has that been confirmed?

According to Erin she made shepherd’s pie and it was such a lovely occasion that she decided she’d like to have them over for lunch again in the future.
By June, in my opinion, the death caps were harvested, dehydrated, probably powdered and stored somewhere safe.
As the children were at the meal I think it was too risky to attempt the poisoning then, imagine if Simon, Don or Gail had said, “I’m full, would you like to finish my serve?” to one of the children.
I suspect the June lunch was a rehearsal of sorts, getting Don and Gail comfortable eating her cooking and making it appear that them visiting and sharing a meal was not a unique event.
Inviting Heather and Ian to the July death cap meal was likely, as many have already said, used as an enticement to have Simon attend.

It would be interesting to know what colour plates were used for the June lunch.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

It seems to me the media already knew about the other lunch but didn't mention it because it didn't suit the she only had this one very rare mushroom lunch.