Australia - 3 dead after eating wild mushrooms, Leongatha, Victoria, Aug 2023 #5 *Arrest*

[Ellery84]

I think it is really going to boil down to proving intent. If there was intent it would be murder, unless a lesser manslaughter plea was accepted.

If there was no intent, it would be an accident. Because who would knowingly add poisonous mushrooms to a dish without intent.

Ah ok, but what if there is a middle ground? What if the intent was just to make them a bit sick but not to kill then?

Jmo

 

[Oona]

Ah ok, but what if there is a middle ground? What if the intent was just to make them a bit sick but not to kill then?

Jmo

Anyone just wanting to make someone “a bit sick” would not use death cap mushrooms.

 

[Ellery84]

Anyone just wanting to make someone “a bit sick” would not use death cap mushrooms.

They might if they were mentally impaired or mentally unwell.

IMO

 

[Oona]

They might if they were mentally impaired or mentally unwell.

IMO

I guess if that were the case they could use a defence of mental impairment.

 

[Centaurus]

My local brewhouse published their new burger special on IG today… Beef Wellington Burger…

 

[ch_13]

Ah ok, but what if there is a middle ground? What if the intent was just to make them a bit sick but not to kill then?

Jmo

I've been reading about Australian legal precedents, and came across the following case about a truck driver who purposefully drove into a bar after he was denied service, killing multiple people:

Douglas Crabbe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The High Court of Australia appeal of R v Crabbe established the common law precedent test for recklessness in regards to murder. The High Court of Australia ruled that to be guilty of murder, the defendant can be reckless in that they did the act knowing it was probable (meaning a substantial or real chance) that death or grievous bodily harm would occur as a result of their actions.

If my reading of this precedent is correct, then EP could still be charged with murder if she knew the death caps were in the food assuming she was aware "grievous bodily harm would occur".

Of course I'm no Australian legal expert so if there's anyone familiar with the law, please chime in.

 

[Baby baby Jane]

Oh one would hope so.

She said it with a bit of a sad, dramatic lilt (imo) - so I’m guessing the meaning was that she was like a nurturing mother or mother figure to Erin.

Erin said that Gail Patterson was like a mother to her. No lie there … Gail WAS her mother-in-law.
Erin did say kind things about the deceased.

 

[katydid23]

Ah ok, but what if there is a middle ground? What if the intent was just to make them a bit sick but not to kill then?

Jmo

I think if someone purposely used Death Caps in a prepared meal and served it to guests, even if they just thought it would make them ill, it would still be criminal manslaughter, at the very least. JMO

 

[katydid23]

Erin said that Gail Patterson was like a mother to her. No lie there … Gail WAS her mother-in-law.
Erin did say kind things about the deceased.

I think that might part of the motive, for serving toxic mushrooms.

At one point Gail was like a mother to her. But at this point, divorce is looming, and Gail and her husband are probably taking SP's side in crucial issues. EP may feel like they have turned on her and may feel resentment at this time.

Maybe SP has a new girlfriend and they are embracing her and EP feels betrayed? I don't know, but I think it is important that they did have a very close relationship at one point. JMO

 

[Neet_Mc]

I guess if that were the case they could use a defence of mental impairment.

I’m hedging my bets that LE will not view taking the dehydrator to far flung tip and then lying about it as a sign of mental impairment. Quite calculating if you ask me.

 

[Ellery84]

I’m hedging my bets that LE will not view taking the dehydrator to far flung tip and then lying about it as a sign of mental impairment. Quite calculating if you ask me.

Oh yeah. That’s very deliberate. I agree. It won’t bode well.

 

[Ellery84]

EP could still be charged with murder if she knew the death caps were in the food assuming she was aware "grievous bodily harm would occur".

Thanks for the info @ch_13, it’s really interesting.

 

[Ellery84]

An utterly vile invasion of privacy.

Preying on devastated people who are experiencing intense grief, for the purposes of making money.

Lower than a snake's belly. JMO

Journalists attend and report on funerals all the time.

They’ve done this respectfully and followed the guidelines set out by the family and their PR team: I see no problem with it.

 

[Lady Bug]

I think that might part of the motive, for serving toxic mushrooms.

At one point Gail was like a mother to her. But at this point, divorce is looming, and Gail and her husband are probably taking SP's side in crucial issues. EP may feel like they have turned on her and may feel resentment at this time.

Maybe SP has a new girlfriend and they are embracing her and EP feels betrayed? I don't know, but I think it is important that they did have a very close relationship at one point. JMO

SP is still wearing his wedding band.

With his religious upbringing in a family of deep faith, he would take his wedding vows very seriously and a typical progression from separation to divorce can't really be assumed in my opinion.

Mushroom chef's ex tells how his father desperately clung to life

A tearful Simon Patterson was seen still wearing his wedding ring at the memorial for his parents, who police suspect were poisoned by Simon's estranged wife Erin, who did not attend the event.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Mushroom chef's ex-husband breaks into tears as he explains final text mum sent before falling into coma

Gail and Don Patterson were remembered with a memorial service at the Korumburra Recreation Centre in Korumburra, Victoria

www.ladbible.com

 

[Ellery84]

I think if someone purposely used Death Caps in a prepared meal and served it to guests, even if they just thought it would make them ill, it would still be criminal manslaughter, at the very least. JMO

I think so, too.

 

[katydid23]

SP is still wearing his wedding band.

With his religious upbringing in a family of deep faith, he would take his wedding vows very seriously and a typical progression from separation to divorce can't really be assumed in my opinion.

Mushroom chef's ex tells how his father desperately clung to life

A tearful Simon Patterson was seen still wearing his wedding ring at the memorial for his parents, who police suspect were poisoned by Simon's estranged wife Erin, who did not attend the event.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Mushroom chef's ex-husband breaks into tears as he explains final text mum sent before falling into coma

Gail and Don Patterson were remembered with a memorial service at the Korumburra Recreation Centre in Korumburra, Victoria

www.ladbible.com

Are we sure that is HIS wedding band from EP?

I'm asking because I thought he might have been wearing his Father's wedding band, in his honour at the memorial. That makes more sense to me than him wearing his ring from EP, who he has apparently accused of trying to poison him and his family. JMO

 

[Kemug]

Journalists attend and report on funerals all the time.

They’ve done this respectfully and followed the guidelines set out by the family and their PR team: I see no problem with it.

If we are to believe murder mystery books, LE invariably has police at the funeral, in case they notice anything odd. Maybe the family asked them to be there.

 

[Ellery84]

If we are to believe murder mystery books, LE invariably has police at the funeral, in case they notice anything odd. Maybe the family asked them to be there.

Ahh - of course!

I’m sure in some cases the person responsible for the death(s) will turn up to the funeral….

I don’t think that’s the case, here. Possibly they were keeping an eye on the media. Moo

 

[ch_13]

Deadly mushroom lunch twist as major problem comes to light

A statement handed to police by the woman who cooked a deadly mushroom lunch may not be able to be used as evidence if the case reaches court.

www.dailymail.co.uk

A statement handed to police by the woman who cooked a deadly mushroom lunch that left three people dead may not be able to be used as evidence if the case reaches court.

Homicide detectives received Erin Patterson's statement detailing her version of events but the document was never signed, according to the Herald Sun, making it inadmissible in any legal proceedings.

 

[Centaurus]

Deadly mushroom lunch twist as major problem comes to light

A statement handed to police by the woman who cooked a deadly mushroom lunch may not be able to be used as evidence if the case reaches court.

www.dailymail.co.uk

A statement handed to police by the woman who cooked a deadly mushroom lunch that left three people dead may not be able to be used as evidence if the case reaches court.

Homicide detectives received Erin Patterson's statement detailing her version of events but the document was never signed, according to the Herald Sun, making it inadmissible in any legal proceedings.

“According to the Herald Sun”… oh boy. The DM will just publish anything.