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

[Porky1]

True, and from what people have said about her Patterson has also considered herself a very smart woman. As she sits through this prosecution she may have to adjust that viewpoint.

Apparently, she is. Highly intelligent people overreach too. Their arrogance gets them too.

 

[Porky1]

Why? Why would you do this?

To add nutrients to your kids meals and introduce them to the flavours subtley

 

[dm799]

Iam sure it’s a lie and an odd one to tell but not all cancer or the treatment is obvious. If it was a lie, it was very calculating and deceitful.

Respectfully snipped. There's no if. She has already admitted the cancer diagnosis was a lie.

They said grace, dug in, and exchanged "banter" about how much they had eaten, before discussing how Ms Patterson should share her cancer diagnosis - which the defence admits was fake - with her children.

Source

 

[MrsAddick]

Why? Why would you do this?

As a mother I often try to hide vegetables in things
…but to be fair, that’s usually grated carrot in lasagna rather than powdered mushrooms in brownies

 

[MrsAddick]

Apparently, she is. Highly intelligent people overreach too. Their arrogance gets them too.

I think it would be a stretch to assume that the accused is an evil genius.

Perhaps some bookmarks, but completely lacking in street smarts…

 

[Bats]

Lying about having cancer?

Technically, the lying about having cancer was after the lunch. I am sure the defence will push this point.

Though granted, the reason for getting everyone together was to make that announcement.

 

[Salah11]

Iam sure it’s a lie and an odd one to tell but not all cancer or the treatment is obvious. If it was a lie, it was very calculating and deceitful.

Maybe….she was led to believe that there was a high chance but in the end she was found to have a benign cyst or pre-cancerous cells and removal of her ovaries was sufficient.

I had cancer 33 years ago, and monitored closely since. I’ve been through many scares where my specialist thought it returned and surgery was my only treatment. I do wonder what severity/level is reported. I’d be surprised if mine was recorded.

There will be records for her getting checked I am sure. So it will be easy to verify if she had been tested for cancer and the results.

 

[arrogantcat]

Respectfully snipped. There's no if. She has already admitted the cancer diagnosis was a lie.

They said grace, dug in, and exchanged "banter" about how much they had eaten, before discussing how Ms Patterson should share her cancer diagnosis - which the defence admits was fake - with her children.

Source

But also this (BBM):

“Prosecutors alleged that Ms Patterson lied about having cancer, using it as a pretence to have the adults at lunch without Ms Patterson's children present - the defence denied this and said Ms Patterson did have cancer”

source

 

[dm799]

I think we do often get this confusion when trials are covered (live streams please!)

But here are some more sources for the cancer being a lie:

A defence lawyer representing accused triple-murderer Erin Patterson has told a jury she lied about a cancer diagnosis and foraging mushrooms, but is innocent of murdering three relatives with a poisoned meal.

&

Patterson’s lawyer, Colin Mandy SC, told the court on Wednesday during his opening submission that it was also not in dispute that Patterson had never been diagnosed with cancer.

 

[JennieM]

But also this (BBM):

“Prosecutors alleged that Ms Patterson lied about having cancer, using it as a pretence to have the adults at lunch without Ms Patterson's children present - the defence denied this and said Ms Patterson did have cancer”

source

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

Patterson’s lawyer, Colin Mandy SC, told the court on Wednesday during his opening submission that it was also not in dispute that Patterson had never been diagnosed with cancer.

The court previously heard Patterson told her lunch guests she had ovarian cancer.

 

[arrogantcat]

I think we do often get this confusion when trials are covered (live streams please!)

But here are some more sources for the cancer being a lie:

A defence lawyer representing accused triple-murderer Erin Patterson has told a jury she lied about a cancer diagnosis and foraging mushrooms, but is innocent of murdering three relatives with a poisoned meal.

&

Patterson’s lawyer, Colin Mandy SC, told the court on Wednesday during his opening submission that it was also not in dispute that Patterson had never been diagnosed with cancer.

Thanks for this. I agree, live reporting can get messy! No doubt the full facts will come out in due course.

Oddly, I know two different people who have lied about having cancer. One had a pre-cancerous mole removed, and the other one some sort of lump that needed biopsy. Both went to town on social media calling it cancer, talking about their ‘cancer journey’, etc.

And of course they retained the plausible deniability of being able to say, “well the doctor mentioned cancer, I just got confused”.

I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a similarly murky explanation offered here.

 

[arrogantcat]

The evidence is certainly compelling. Deleting her phone looks suspicious, but perhaps far less so than whatever was on there!

Weirdly, the best support for her innocence so far for me is how ill-prepared she was for the fallout that followed. I’ve never planned a murder, but I imagine most killers have pre-planned their cover story, and taken steps to carefully conceal their acts.

She could have foraged, dehydrated and disposed of the dehydrator months in advance. She could so easily have claimed a foraging mistake.

Her scattergun lies and sloppy disposal of the dehydrator *do* really resemble acts of panic, which might work in her favour somewhat.

That and the general timeline seems to suggest that, if guilty, this all was a somewhat impulsive act.

 

[SouthAussie]

The evidence is certainly compelling. Deleting her phone looks suspicious, but perhaps far less so than whatever was on there!

Weirdly, the best support for her innocence so far for me is how ill-prepared she was for the fallout that followed. I’ve never planned a murder, but I imagine most killers have pre-planned their cover story, and taken steps to carefully conceal their acts.

She could have foraged, dehydrated and disposed of the dehydrator months in advance. She could so easily have claimed a foraging mistake.

Her scattergun lies and sloppy disposal of the dehydrator *do* really resemble acts of panic, which might work in her favour somewhat.

That and the general timeline seems to suggest that, if guilty, this all was a somewhat impulsive act.

And that is why alleged murderers get caught. Because they poorly plan for after the alleged murder(s). They fail to think of many aspects that the police already know need investigating, through experience.

Eg:
If she is guilty, she knew enough to make herself seem sick (even though a blood test showed she was not very sick, just a bit dehydrated).
She knew enough to stash devices all over the place, so only technology dogs could find them.

But she didn't think through that the children would need to be tested, that the police would track down when she bought that dehydrator ("maybe I had one years ago"), that the hospital would want to rigorously test her (for her own good), that her alleged victims may cotton on to what happened and tell people before they died .... and probably other things that we will hear throughout the upcoming testimony.

imo

 

[drsleuth]

https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/courts-law/erin-patterson-trial-jury-set-to-hear-first-piece-of-evidence-in-mushroom-murder-trial/news-story/2d8ffa71c9b531ca9698380af8a4fa94

Erin Patterson trial: Jury set to hear first piece of evidence in mushroom murder trial​

Delivering her opening remarks to the jury over the course of about three hours on Wednesday, crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC said there were “a lot” of witnesses and the prosecution would seek to present the case in a “chronological order”.

“We will do our best to play or call the witnesses in a rough chronological order but sometimes this isn’t always possible,” she said.

 

[Detechtive]

Erin has already scored 2 small wins. Firstly managing to reset her phone whilst the police were present. Secondly the dropping of the charges of attempted murder of Simon.

Her many admitted lies and the colour of the dinner plates prove nothing.

Her odd behaviour at the hospital and refusal to have the children tested may just point to an aversion to medical treatment.

I'm trying to stay open minded here in terms of "beyond reasonable doubt". Too soon to reach any conclusion.

Yikes. Are we reading the same coverage?

Iam sure it’s a lie and an odd one to tell but not all cancer or the treatment is obvious. If it was a lie, it was very calculating and deceitful.

Maybe….she was led to believe that there was a high chance but in the end she was found to have a benign cyst or pre-cancerous cells and removal of her ovaries was sufficient.

I had cancer 33 years ago, and monitored closely since. I’ve been through many scares where my specialist thought it returned and surgery was my only treatment. I do wonder what severity/level is reported. I’d be surprised if mine was recorded.

I'm finding it difficult to believe that an elbow lump morphed into Ovarian cancer in the first place. Then we have the prosecution saying it was a lie outright.

Technically, the lying about having cancer was after the lunch. I am sure the defence will push this point.

Though granted, the reason for getting everyone together was to make that announcement.

The lying about the "health issues" was a month prior to the lunch. Allegedly this lie was created to lure them there and explain why the children wouldn't be present to be inadvertently poisoned.
In my opinion, this points to a clear motive; to get rid of him and his family and keep the children and herself alive, for whatever the reasons were in her mind at the time.

And that is why alleged murderers get caught. Because they poorly plan for after the alleged murder(s). They fail to think of many aspects that the police already know need investigating, through experience.

Eg:
If she is guilty, she knew enough to make herself seem sick (even though a blood test showed she was not very sick, just a bit dehydrated).
She knew enough to stash devices all over the place, so only technology dogs could find them.

But she didn't think through that the children would need to be tested, that the police would track down when she bought that dehydrator ("maybe I had one years ago"), that the hospital would want to rigorously test her (for her own good), that her alleged victims may cotton on to what happened and tell people before they died .... and probably other things that we will hear throughout the upcoming testimony.

imo

So true. The alleged missteps this alleged murderer appears to have taken don't appear to be sophisticated at all.

Even the alleged factory resetting won't hide a digital footprint. That data is easily subpoena'd from telecommunications companies. Social media data can be obtained through subpoena too, along with email account information, gps data from Icloud, gps data from her car, etc etc etc. If for any reason some data is missing, they can subpoena other peoples data who communicated with her to plug the gaps in the timeline.

 

[SouthAussie]

The lying about the "health issues" was a month prior to the lunch. Allegedly this lie was created to lure them there and explain why the children wouldn't be present to be inadvertently poisoned.
In my opinion, this points to a clear motive; to get rid of him and his family and keep the children and herself alive, for whatever the reasons were in her mind at the time.

I am guessing that the 'health issues' weren't having the desired effect. SP wasn't coming back this time. He would talk on the phone, but he wasn't coming back.

imo

 

[drsleuth]

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/mushroom-trial-first-came-the-lies-then-came-the-tears/news-story/72950f7626e7cdf3bc9c2b371833b474?amp

Mushroom trial: First came the lies, then came the tears​

Erin Patterson, the cook behind the lethal mushroom lunch that killed three people, was overcome with emotion in the dock as her murder trial began.

Anthony Dowsley

April 30, 2025 - 10:03PM

Paraphrased

Part of the evidence will be that Erin had two phones & she reset one ( the 2nd phone has never been found )

Phone data will show Erin went to two areas, not far from her Leongatha home where death cap mushrooms had been sighted & posted to a site called iNaturalist.

Some of the family of her former husband, Simon Patterson were in court.

Approx 40 people in the court room.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I'm completely baffled by this case. It's so confusing.

People are saying murderers often forget to plan for the aftermath but bearing in mind how much planning went into this event, that sounds really unlikely.

Such a time consuming and elaborate plan, yet the person who orchestrated it takes the dehydrator to a recycling centre and pays for that in her own name. Why didn't she just hide it somewhere in a remote barn or throw it in a deep lake? Also 'forgets' that she's publicly published comments about owning and using a dehydrator?

She was crafty and manipulative enough to serve herself a totally different meal right in front of everyone on an orange plate without being challenged but abjectly fails to consider any planning for the aftermath? It makes no sense.

The only way I can make it make sense is a) profound mental illness - some sort of psychosis and magical thinking; b) she didn't think anyone would die - if nothing of note was going to happen, she didn't need to cover anything up; c) she lives in an environment where even if several people do die, nobody cares or investigates; d) she no longer cared what became of her and decided to harm / kill people and let the consequences unfold, no anxiety about rest of life in prison etc;

JMO MOO

 

[Salah11]

Well if the 4th victim had died would the police have found out about the individual pies and her smaller orange plate?

 

[Little Jack]

Two thoughts.

First, am I correct in my understanding that after claiming to have woken up from a rough night of stomach upset Erin then claims to have served dinner leftovers to her children? Even if she was unaware at that point of all her other guests being violently ill, this is impossible to me. Who would not suspect that perhaps they had food poisoning (the usual kind) from the last thing they ate and throw away all the leftovers?? This is as suspicious or more to me than declining treatment for herself and her children. To me as a mother it tells me she knew whatever she had given her children was safe.

Second for people wondering about the logic of this and how she could have thought shed get away with it etc, my assumption is she has gotten away with many many outrageous lies, manipulations, and tampering with foodstuffs (such as hiding mushroom powder in her kids food up to possibly attempting to poison simon previously)

I think she seemed unprepared for the aftermath because she genuinely thought there wouldn't be any, because there never had been before.

Ps: I never thought anything of the kids weird wall art. My kids drew stuff like at all the time when they were little. In fact once I even found creepy messages theyd carved in the baseboards. They thought it was hilarious. I did not.