Australia - 3 dead after eating wild mushrooms, Leongatha, Victoria, Aug 2023 #7 *Arrest*

[ch_13]

There lies the likely defence strategy. If you deliberately set out to poison someone with say, Cyanide, there's no mistake in what you're doing. It would be very difficult to give cyanide to someone accidentally. However, it may be a fairly easy to accidentally feed someone food that contained botulism - also a deadly poison.

Deadly mushrooms don't have a label on them and are amongst hundreds of thousands of varieties of mushrooms.

Can it be established
a) she knew they were extremely poisonous and didn't accidentally mistake them for safe mushrooms?
b) she knew feeding them would result in serious illness or death?

I personally believe her suspect behaviour points to her knowing exactly what she was doing but suspect behaviour isn't proof. It's just a link in the chain of evidence...

MOO

The problem for her is that she has said she bought the mushrooms at the market. She will have to disavow her previous statement and admit she lied about where she got them. Also, she made that claim a good month after the deaths. This wasn't something said under questioning while panicking, but rather a signed statement that was put out by her attorneys.

It will be tough for her to walk that back and maintain any semblance of credibility.

 

[Bats]

The problem for her is that she has said she bought the mushrooms at the market. She will have to disavow her previous statement and admit she lied about where she got them. Also, she made that claim a good month after the deaths. This wasn't something said under questioning while panicking, but rather a signed statement that was put out by her attorneys.

It will be tough for her to walk that back and maintain any semblance of credibility.

I believe they were a mix of fresh and dried mushrooms.
Can you please explain why she'd need to disavow her statement?

Woman who cooked suspected poisoned meal details where she bought mushrooms

 

[ch_13]

I believe they were a mix of fresh and dried mushrooms.
Can you please explain why she'd need to disavow her statement?

Woman who cooked suspected poisoned meal details where she bought mushrooms

I don't follow. I read your post as suggesting that she will claim in court that she foraged the mushrooms but made a terrible mistake. In which case she needs to admit she lied about where she got them.

Did you instead intend to suggest that she will double-down and claim that she really did buy the mushrooms in the store? I think that's an even more difficult defense. I'm sure the prosecution could bring witnesses who will explain in great detail how commercial mushrooms are cultivated, harvested and transported to market, and why it's not possible for a death cap to enter the supply chain.

 

[Bats]

I don't follow. I read your post as suggesting that she will claim in court that she foraged the mushrooms but made a terrible mistake. In which case she needs to admit she lied about where she got them.

Did you instead intend to suggest that she will double-down and claim that she really did buy the mushrooms in the store? I think that's an even more difficult defense. I'm sure the prosecution could bring witnesses who will explain in great detail how commercial mushrooms are cultivated, harvested and transported to market, and why it's not possible for a death cap to enter the supply chain.

I see the confusion there, apologies.

Yes, i don't think she'll change her story about where she bought some of the mushrooms that she used for the dish.
Her defence counsel will know that even if she is lying here and actually did hand pick the mushrooms that she used (presumably, the prosecution will attempt to prove this), it still doesn't mean she intended to kill anyone.

All I really meant was, where ever she obtained the mushrooms from, i am interested to see how the prosecution will prove she knew they were going to kill or cause really serious illness to the people she served them to.

It don't think that is as straightforward as it sounds.

 

[SouthAussie]

I see the confusion there, apologies.

Yes, i don't think she'll change her story about where she bought some of the mushrooms that she used for the dish.
Her defence counsel will know that even if she is lying here and actually did hand pick the mushrooms that she used (presumably, the prosecution will attempt to prove this), it still doesn't mean she intended to kill anyone.

All I really meant was, where ever she obtained the mushrooms from, i am interested to see how the prosecution will prove she knew they were going to kill or cause really serious illness to the people she served them to.

It don't think that is as straightforward as it sounds.

I think the prosecution may produce witnesses (possibly including EP's husband - if he is still her husband) who can testify to EP's knowledge of mushrooms.


A close friend of the Patterson family told Daily Mail Australia she was known for going wild mushroom foraging around Victoria’s Gippsland region along with her ex-partner Simon and other relatives and was “very good” at it.

“The Patterson family would pick mushrooms each year when they were in season,” the source said.

“The family would go foraging regularly and knew what to pick.”

'Knew what to pick': Source's bombshell claim about mushroom cook

A new development in the case of the deadly mushroom poisoning that claimed three lives in Victoria has exposed the woman who cooked the lunch as an experience forager.

www.skynews.com.au

 

[Bats]

I think the prosecution may produce witnesses (possibly including EP's husband - if he is still her husband) who can testify to EP's knowledge of mushrooms.


A close friend of the Patterson family told Daily Mail Australia she was known for going wild mushroom foraging around Victoria’s Gippsland region along with her ex-partner Simon and other relatives and was “very good” at it.

“The Patterson family would pick mushrooms each year when they were in season,” the source said.

“The family would go foraging regularly and knew what to pick.”

'Knew what to pick': Source's bombshell claim about mushroom cook

A new development in the case of the deadly mushroom poisoning that claimed three lives in Victoria has exposed the woman who cooked the lunch as an experience forager.

www.skynews.com.au

Thanks @SouthAussie !

I can imagine a closing argument by the defence going something like, "EP wasn't as good at foraging for mushrooms as everyone thought she was...."

 

[ch_13]

I see the confusion there, apologies.

Yes, i don't think she'll change her story about where she bought some of the mushrooms that she used for the dish.

I think whether or not Erin opts to walk back her statement depends on the prosecution's case. For example, what if they have DNA evidence that links the ingested mushrooms to a local patch near Erin's home? She'll have to abandon the store-bought claim and instead say she picked them by mistake.

Her defence counsel will know that even if she is lying here and actually did hand pick the mushrooms that she used (presumably, the prosecution will attempt to prove this), it still doesn't mean she intended to kill anyone.

All I really meant was, where ever she obtained the mushrooms from, i am interested to see how the prosecution will prove she knew they were going to kill or cause really serious illness to the people she served them to.

It don't think that is as straightforward as it sounds.

I think the prosecution case will go into detail about the state of relationships between Erin, Simon and her in-laws. Based on the nuggets we've heard to date, it seems that there was some kind of quarrel regarding child custody arrangements. Assuming this was a really contentious disagreement, I think at some point it becomes hard to believe that you cooked and served a meal to people you're feuding with and they all just happened to die (or become deathly ill), while you remained unharmed.

And then there are the consciousness of guilt issues, like attempting to dispose of the dehydrator. And the claims that she attempted the same thing multiple times in the past.

It may not be a slam dunk case, but if she did it, the prosecution will have a load of circumstantial evidence.

 

[mirage1]

I see the confusion there, apologies.

Yes, i don't think she'll change her story about where she bought some of the mushrooms that she used for the dish.
Her defence counsel will know that even if she is lying here and actually did hand pick the mushrooms that she used (presumably, the prosecution will attempt to prove this), it still doesn't mean she intended to kill anyone.

All I really meant was, where ever she obtained the mushrooms from, i am interested to see how the prosecution will prove she knew they were going to kill or cause really serious illness to the people she served them to.

It don't think that is as straightforward as it sounds.

I think she can change her story for the trial, and simply claim, after the deaths she panicked and claimed she bought them from a store, despite innocently picking them. She wanted to protect herself despite unknowingly picking them. It will still hurt the credibility, plus there seems to be strong evidence she was an experienced mushroom picker, so that basically dismantles her defense.

If they can establish she knew they were death caps, which are known to be deadly I can't see how you can have reasonable doubt for murder.

 

[SouthAussie]

I have just finished a book that made me think of this case. (We Thought We Knew You, by M William Phelps)

Kaitlyn Conley first allegedly poisoned her boyfriend, made him very sick. (not investigated at the time, so unproven)

Then in 2015 she poisoned her boyfriend's mother (who he loved very much) and killed her.

First trial - hung jury. They later found out there was a sympathetic someone who was known to Kaitlyn on the jury.

Second trial - convicted of manslaughter, not murder. The jury couldn't decide - beyond a reasonable doubt - if she meant to kill Mary Yoder, or just make her very sick. But she was still sentenced to 23 years in prison, which satisfied Mary's loved ones.

Infuriatingly, Kaitlyn Conley has just been released from prison. Her legal team got her conviction overturned on a technicality.

The reason it made me think of this case is the alleged poisonings of EP's husband, followed by the poisoning deaths of his loved ones. Then I wondered if it can be proven that EP meant to (allegedly) kill them, or did she just mean to (allegedly) make them very sick - as she did (allegedly) her husband.

Kaitlyn Conley’s conviction for killing former boyfriend’s mom with poison overturned

She was serving a 23-year prison sentence; now will be freed. Her case attracted national attention and was the subject of TV shows, documentary series

www.syracuse.com

 

[JBowie]

Then I wondered if it can be proven that EP meant to (allegedly) kill them, or did she just mean to (allegedly) make them very sick - as she did (allegedly) her husband.

I expect this to be the defence's main argument. And I would not be surprised if she (and they) are aware of that case.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

JMO but I don't see how it can be admissible for consideration in court that her husband claims she may have poisoned him in the past.

The allegations of previous harm are not proven or substantiated and weren't acted on at the time, so how can they be taken into account?

 

[SouthAussie]

JMO but I don't see how it can be admissible for consideration in court that her husband claims she may have poisoned him in the past.

The allegations of previous harm are not proven or substantiated and weren't acted on at the time, so how can they be taken into account?

I don't know how long hospitals/labs keep lab samples. Maybe they were able to go back and get his samples and retest them. He was in the hospital, he almost died - and that was just in the previous year.


It has since emerged that Ms Patterson’s ex-husband, who almost died after suffering a mystery gut illness in May last year, was also invited to the doomed lunch.

https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/courts-law/exhusband-of-mushroom-mum-erin-patterson-almost-died-from-sudden-gut-illness/news-story/db6624ef427b9d965b50e7f1fd163206

 

[TootsieFootsie]

What if they still have his samples and test them and find no poison of any kind.
I suppose then they'll say she still tried to kill him.

 

[SouthAussie]

What if they still have his samples and test them and find no poison of any kind.
I suppose then they'll say she still tried to kill him.

I think they have to have some evidence. To be prosecuting her for it. If not an actual poisoned sample, maybe they found something among her digital records that confirmed it.

I was thinking of the re-testing of samples because in the Mary Yoder poisoning, they tested for all kinds of things. Nada.
They thought she had some mysterious kind of gut ailment also.

When they finally traced down some knowledge of an unusual poison that Kaitlyn Conley had purchased they had only the tiniest bit of lab samples left. It was their last chance for testing. They decided to do it, and bingo!

So I thought that maybe SP's samples hadn't been tested for a specific type of poison (nightshade maybe?) and now they have been.


Just to add: in the Kaitlyn Conley/Mary Yoder case they didn't try to prosecute for the apparent poisoning of Kaitlyn's boyfriend (Mary's son) because they had zero proof. Just seemed like a very high probability due to the mysterious circumstances, so it made it into the book.

 

[Kemug]

I think I may have posted this before - but anyone interested in this case might like to read "The documents in the case", by Dorothy Sayers. I think you'll find it both informative and riveting.

 

[Bats]

I think she can change her story for the trial, and simply claim, after the deaths she panicked and claimed she bought them from a store, despite innocently picking them. She wanted to protect herself despite unknowingly picking them. It will still hurt the credibility, plus there seems to be strong evidence she was an experienced mushroom picker, so that basically dismantles her defense.

If there is in fact strong evidence that she was experienced at foraging for mushrooms, then I don't think she'll change her story about buying them from a store, even though her defence will know it will probably be torn apart by the prosecution, which as you say, won't do much for her credibility.

I think her defence strategy in the trial will be quite a simple one, which can be powerful - I didn't intend or attemp to kill anyone.

Though, as @SouthAussie pointed to above with Kaitlyn Conley, manslaughter may be what EP ends up being convicted for.

If they can establish she knew they were death caps, which are known to be deadly I can't see how you can have reasonable doubt for murder.

Driving under the influence of alcohol is known to be deadly....

 

[Bats]

JMO but I don't see how it can be admissible for consideration in court that her husband claims she may have poisoned him in the past.

The allegations of previous harm are not proven or substantiated and weren't acted on at the time, so how can they be taken into account?

That's one of the charges she is on trial for - the attempted murder of her husband. It's up to the prosecution to prove it.
It's probably similar to other cases where police are originally looking at one thing but in the process, uncover other crimes.

 

[JLZ]

If there is in fact strong evidence that she was experienced at foraging for mushrooms, then I don't think she'll change her story about buying them from a store, even though her defence will know it will probably be torn apart by the prosecution, which as you say, won't do much for her credibility.

I think her defence strategy in the trial will be quite a simple one, which can be powerful - I didn't intend or attemp to kill anyone.

Though, as @SouthAussie pointed to above with Kaitlyn Conley, manslaughter may be what EP ends up being convicted for.



Driving under the influence of alcohol is known to be deadly....

Yes, I don't see any need for her to change her story: the story being, she bought mushrooms from two shops, and if there was poison in the meal she cooked, she doesn't know how it got there.

 

[LinasK]

I have just finished a book that made me think of this case. (We Thought We Knew You, by M William Phelps)

Kaitlyn Conley first allegedly poisoned her boyfriend, made him very sick. (not investigated at the time, so unproven)

Then in 2015 she poisoned her boyfriend's mother (who he loved very much) and killed her.

First trial - hung jury. They later found out there was a sympathetic someone who was known to Kaitlyn on the jury.

Second trial - convicted of manslaughter, not murder. The jury couldn't decide - beyond a reasonable doubt - if she meant to kill Mary Yoder, or just make her very sick. But she was still sentenced to 23 years in prison, which satisfied Mary's loved ones.

Infuriatingly, Kaitlyn Conley has just been released from prison. Her legal team got her conviction overturned on a technicality.

The reason it made me think of this case is the alleged poisonings of EP's husband, followed by the poisoning deaths of his loved ones. Then I wondered if it can be proven that EP meant to (allegedly) kill them, or did she just mean to (allegedly) make them very sick - as she did (allegedly) her husband.

Kaitlyn Conley’s conviction for killing former boyfriend’s mom with poison overturned

She was serving a 23-year prison sentence; now will be freed. Her case attracted national attention and was the subject of TV shows, documentary series

www.syracuse.com

I saw that case on TV. That's maddening that she's been released on a technicality. It was clear to me that she meant to kill her and frame her boyfriend to get back at him.

 

[mirage1]

I think many are not understanding the criteria for murder in australia. You don't even need intent to kill.

Key Elements of Murder:
To be convicted of murder, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused:

• Had an intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm: This means the accused intended to cause serious injury, or death, to the victim.
  
  
• Acted with reckless indifference to human life: This means the accused disregarded the risk of death or serious harm to the victim.
  
  
• Killed the victim in the course of a serious crime: This is known as "constructive murder" or "felony murder," where the death occurs while committing a serious offense