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

[mirage1]

I think most of us understand, having followed many cases here.

The question is how much harm did EP (allegedly) intend to inflict.
The defence will minimise it - "it was a mistake".
The prosecution will maximise it - "it was murder".
Will there be reasonable doubt, which may lead the jury to acquit or elect to convict on the lesser charge of manslaughter?

All i kept hearing about was intent to kill, when murder is obviously much broader.

When you feed someone deadly mushrooms intentionally I think it qualifies for this.

Acted with reckless indifference to human life: This means the accused disregarded the risk of death or serious harm to the victim

 

[SouthAussie]

All i kept hearing about was intent to kill, when murder is obviously much broader.

When you feed someone deadly mushrooms intentionally I think it qualifies for this.

One thing is for sure, she is not going to say she did it intentionally.

So we are speculating on what may happen during the trial.

Juries come up with some unpleasing verdicts sometimes. I think there were very few people who thought that Greg Lynn would be acquitted of Russell Hill's murder (or even manslaughter), especially when Lynn made sure he completely burned Russell's body and then smashed any remains to smithereens to destroy all evidence.

No matter how straightforward an alleged crime may seem to us, we are not behind that closed jury deliberation door.

imo

 

[LadyL]

Ms Patterson said the mushrooms were a mixture of button mushrooms purchased at a major supermarket chain, and dried mushrooms bought at an Asian grocery store in Melbourne months previously.

Woman who cooked suspected poisoned meal details where she bought mushrooms

The woman who cooked a meal that is believed to have contained poisonous mushrooms and led to the deaths of three people gives a lengthy written statement to police detailing her account of what happened, and revealing she was hospitalised after the incident.

www.abc.net.au

There was also a story that police took Erin to Mt Waverley and she was unable to find the Asian grocery store again.

oh wow I don't know how I missed this
I only remembered the Asian grocery store being mentioned

 

[wallyworld]

There are 3 things that may decide Erin's fate, none of which have been publicly disclosed:
1) Forensic testing results for the dehydrator.
2) The testimony of the Pastor who survived the dinner.
3) What was found during police searches of the house.

Five iPads, a mobile phone, a USB and a smartwatch found by the detector dogs - may have contained incriminating evidence

 

[Nadal]

All i kept hearing about was intent to kill, when murder is obviously much broader.

When you feed someone deadly mushrooms intentionally I think it qualifies for this.

I don't know legally but it should be far more than that IMO. I'd think of that more as say giving a young child alcholol, it wasn't a clear attempt to seriously harm but they recognized the risk. Feeding people poisonous mushrooms without their knowledge is a clear intentional attempt to harm, there's no other purpose to that action but harm, just as pouring Antifreeze in their drink would be.

 

[Salah11]

When Is the trial?

 

[Kittybunny]

When Is the trial?

I don’t know, but I can’t wait! I’m apparently in the minority here in believing nothing about this was accidental, so I look forward to seeing the evidence.

 

[Salah11]

I don’t know, but I can’t wait! I’m apparently in the minority here in believing nothing about this was accidental, so I look forward to seeing the evidence.

I am with you - it’s been awhile since I posted about it, but it’s as clear as day this was no accident.

I just did a google search and an old article said the trial is at the end of April. It’s crazy how time flies as I can’t believe this happened in 2023.

IMO

 

[SouthAussie]

I don’t know, but I can’t wait! I’m apparently in the minority here in believing nothing about this was accidental, so I look forward to seeing the evidence.

I don't know where you got that impression. It seems pretty clear that all of this is suspicious, and VicPol are generally right on the money. Their track record is good.

The trial is 28th April, 2025, in the Supreme Court in Morwell, Victoria

We have been discussing possible outcomes is all. And possible defence approaches. It is not going to be any easy case to defend, so that stuff is interesting to some.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

I don’t know, but I can’t wait! I’m apparently in the minority here in believing nothing about this was accidental, so I look forward to seeing the evidence.

I would say you are in the majority.

 

[Nadal]

I would say you are in the majority.

I'd go further, vast majority. Almost no one thinks she is innocent IMO.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I'm looking forwards to hearing this case and what evidence has been gathered.

I do think there's a high possibility of a different explanation than intent to murder, simply based on how ludicrous it would be to expect to get away with such a crime

JMO

 

[Salah11]

I'm looking forwards to hearing this case and what evidence has been gathered.

I do think there's a high possibility of a different explanation than intent to murder, simply based on how ludicrous it would be to expect to get away with such a crime

JMO

I believe she had made multiple attempts at the ex husband so maybe she got arrogant?

Imo

 

[JLZ]

I believe she had made multiple attempts at the ex husband so maybe she got arrogant?

Imo

Or the reverse--she'd failed multiple times so she needed to prove herself.

 

[SouthAussie]

I believe she had made multiple attempts at the ex husband so maybe she got arrogant?

Imo

She could have been ramping up. Tried a bit of this and that with her husband. Nobody discovered any poisons at that time. So went the whole hog ... only husband bowed out of the lunch.

I am reading another M William Phelps book (Lethal Guardian). He noted, as said by detectives, that (alleged) murderers who are not professionals - hit men - often do not plan for after the event. They plan for the murder, and don't plan very well for afterwards. Made me think of the dehydrator dumping in this case.

imo

 

[LinasK]

I'd go further, vast majority. Almost no one thinks she is innocent IMO.

Yes, even outside Australia, people know that you don't "accidentally" feed someone DeathCap mushrooms and not know that that they are toxic, especially if you have a reputation as I've heard she has as an experienced forager.

 

[LinasK]

I'm looking forwards to hearing this case and what evidence has been gathered.

I do think there's a high possibility of a different explanation than intent to murder, simply based on how ludicrous it would be to expect to get away with such a crime

JMO

And yet stupid criminals get caught all the time. Check out the Bryan Kohlberger thread.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Like a line from a song from Oliver:

I'm reviewing the situation.

 

[Charlot123]

I believe she had made multiple attempts at the ex husband so maybe she got arrogant?

Imo

From what I read about poisoners, they are almost obsessive. Once they choose the victim, they keep on trying unless they succeed. Very strange, but they don’t care how many people die in the process as long as they get at their true target. I still think that the goal was her husband.

If I were to guess, Erin’s main goal is her husband Simon (and she meant business, as he spent 16 days in induced coma after one attempt and had three surgeries). He planned to come, remember, but changed plans the last moment. Maybe she didn’t know that he won’t show up. She probably disliked the Pattersons; as to the Wilkinsons, she probably didn’t aim at them, but they were “who cares as long as I get to him?” victims.

 

[JLZ]

From what I read about poisoners, they are almost obsessive. Once they choose the victim, they keep on trying unless they succeed. Very strange, but they don’t care how many people die in the process as long as they get at their true target. I still think that the goal was her husband.

If I were to guess, Erin’s main goal is her husband Simon (and she meant business, as he spent 16 days in induced coma after one attempt and had three surgeries). He planned to come, remember, but changed plans the last moment. Maybe she didn’t know that he won’t show up. She probably disliked the Pattersons; as to the Wilkinsons, she probably didn’t aim at them, but they were “who cares as long as I get to him?” victims.

Surely she had to see that a successful attack on his family would make it harder for her to poison Simon in future?