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

[JBowie]

I don't know why she had to drag Simon's parents into every single argument and problem, I think she was making their lives a misery before ending them.

As I said a bit earlier re narcissists, woe betide those near to them.

 

[Kemug]

I also think that most murderers are so arrogant, so sure of themselves, that they think they can fool the police and get away with it.

For Hercule Poirot fans, he was once asked if all the murderers he had known had anything in common. His answer was "Cocky. They were all cocky."

 

[katydid23]

'Mr Patterson said his wife was reluctant to have her kids checked out by doctors and did not want to "scare" them following previous bad experiences'. (www.abc.net.au)

It seems very strange to me that a parent who has, up until this point of the testimony, been painted as someone who is extremely devoted to the health and wellbeing of their children - and who had been told they were possibly poisoned - would not want them to stay under observation for at least as long as it took the Wilkinsons and Pattersons to become ill (which was some 11 hours after they had consumed the deadly meal, as I recall reading yesterday).

Yes, hospitals can be especially frightening for children - but surely the idea that the young ones might be very ill or possibly die, would far outweigh any anxiety a parent might feel at being under observation for another day or so?

I totally agree. It would be very easy to calm the kids and keep it low key---let them watch TV and eat jello , and just tell them everything is OK, just need to wait it out.

 

[Montrealaise]

Oh my.

And yet she’s still pleading “not guilty.”

I wonder how long it will take for the jury to come back after they begin to deliberate in 5 weeks?

The defense isn't disputing the fact that she cooked the Beef Wellington with Death Cap mushrooms - they are claiming she didn't know they were poisonous and what happened was a tragic mistake. So the fact that traces of the mushrooms were found in the dehydrator aren't an issue; what looks bad for her is that she tried to get rid of it by throwing it into a garbage bin some distance from her home.

 

[JennieM]

The defense isn't disputing the fact that she cooked the Beef Wellington with Death Cap mushrooms - they are claiming she didn't know they were poisonous and what happened was a tragic mistake. So the fact that traces of the mushrooms were found in the dehydrator aren't an issue; what looks bad for her is that she tried to get rid of it by throwing it into a garbage bin some distance from her home.

Also that she was the only one not poisoned.

 

[Salah11]

I think there HAD to be a separate Wellington without Death Caps because LE tested the leftovers found in EP's bin----and there were no toxins found.

So that means to me that she made a separate Wellington for her and the kids. And the leftovers that LE picked up must have been from the kid's portion of the meal. IMO

We know there was traces of Death Cap on the dehydrator. And both male victims had traces in their urine. So some of the meals were toxic. But not all of them.

To me that means it was not accidental. IMO

Yep that’s why she made individual Wellingtons so she could control who had what instead of a traditional Wellington which is a big block.

 

[Salah11]

I don't know why she had to drag Simon's parents into every single argument and problem, I think she was making their lives a misery - before ending them.

Because she was obviously close to them before the marriage break-down and her parents were dead ( I believe).

Asked about how his wife got on with his parents, Don and Gail Patterson, Mr Patterson said: "She especially got on with dad. They shared a love of knowledge and learning in the world.

Mushroom trial: 'very rare' for accused to hold gatherings, says husband - BBC News

Three people died in hospital after being poisoned with death cap mushrooms.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[katydid23]

Imagine if Simon had gone to the lunch and hadn't been poisoned. He would probably have been an alternative suspect. He wasn't the cook, but he had a better financial motive.

If Erin is the poisoner and that was the plan, there would have been another 'innocent' beef wellington. As he didn't turn up, it would have been available to feed to the children as proof that Erin didn't know that the meal was poisoned.

That^^^ is an interesting idea. If he had attended the luncheon, she could have framed him for the deaths. Or at least made it very hard to know who actually did it.

He would have the financial motive, assuming his parents have some property and some savings. And he would be able to taint someone's meal or drinks or the desserts, quite easily.

I could see her making a plan like that----framing him. He gets arrested and all of the inheritance goes to her kids. And she doesn't have any more custody issues or co-parenting headaches.

 

[Cartie]

She might have been asset rich but cash poor. He was on a Civil Engineers salary paying $39 a week - pffff. Once you go down the legal path/child support, there goes any civility. He did the wrong thing imho. There was no need for it. They were functioning and still taking family holidays, it seemed, responsible parenting. School fees were probably for a Baptist/Christian school in the area such as https://www.chairo.vic.edu.au/leongatha. Perhaps Erin as the Athesist decided to pull them out if he wasn’t contributing to school fees and an up yours as it escalated.

Raising children is expensive and asking for a split of medical expenses and then hearing the response re child support, the insulting $39? etc, I can see why she was pi**ed. He was financially secure very early due to Erin’s inheritance, smarts and generosity. It doesn’t sound like she was greedy, just an astute financially savvy woman and was clearly not rushed to go through a financial split. He seems nice enough but there are always two sides.

At the time he refused to pay the medical bill, he had not been given the amount child support would be.
He could of suspected he would be asked to pay a considerable amount more.

 

[Ellery84]

What’s the ‘death wall’?

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/death-wall-inside-mushroom-chefs-house/news-story/a879b2505a32b22dc16214201659dab4?amp

 

[Ellery84]

Because she was obviously close to them before the marriage break-down and her parents were dead ( I believe).

Mushroom trial: 'very rare' for accused to hold gatherings, says husband - BBC News

Three people died in hospital after being poisoned with death cap mushrooms.

www.bbc.co.uk

How did Erin’s parents die?

 

[Porky1]

Seems this point had been missed by many people and bears reiterating each time, IMO.

Don’t they suggest a minimum rate but I believe you can contribute more, either through payroll deduction or one-offs for unplanned expenses. It seems to be a system where no-one wins and perhaps advice is processed based, very scripted, no-one willing to review due to potential backlash. The whole point is to capture everything ‘officially’.

 

[Ellery84]

I totally agree. It would be very easy to calm the kids and keep it low key---let them watch TV and eat jello , and just tell them everything is OK, just need to wait it out.

She lost custody of the kids before she got arrested and after the lunch. AFAIK they were taken into care before she was arrested. For their safety.

 

[brisbanemum]

Licensed Professional Counselor of Mental Health Dr. Todd Grande has been following this case from the USA. His recently-stated opinion of EP via his YouTube channel is:

"Self-centred, impulsive, irresponsible, insecure, desperate, vindictive, petty, sadistic, possessive, manipulative, deceptive, has a sense of entitlement and is moderately creepy".

To me these personality characteristics are traits of a narcissist.

I tend to agree with this. Narcs typically go absolutely postal when they perceive loss control of a person, in this case SP. I think him listing their marital status as ‘separated’ on the tax return was the trigger here. A chain of events then began to try and reel him back in which ultimately ended up with the death of 3 people. I think this may have been a coercive control situation, and it is said that the most dangerous time for a victim is when they are trying to leave a relationship.

 

[Ellery84]

Don’t they suggest a minimum rate but I believe you can contribute more, either through payroll deduction or one-offs for unplanned expenses. It seems to be a system where no-one wins and perhaps advice is processed based, very scripted, no-one willing to review due to potential backlash. The whole point is to capture everything ‘officially’.

It’s meant to be a red herring and a massive distraction from the actual case. IMO

 

[JennieM]

Australia’s mushroom murders trial: who are Erin Patterson and the other key figures?​

As the trial over the deadly 2023 beef wellington lunch continues in the Victorian supreme court, here’s what you need to know about the people involved

Australia’s mushroom murders trial: who are Erin Patterson and the other key figures?

As the trial over the deadly 2023 beef wellington lunch continues in the Victorian supreme court, here’s what you need to know about the people involved

www.theguardian.com

 

[Ellery84]

I tend to agree with this. Narcs typically go absolutely postal when they perceive loss control of a person, in this case SP. I think him listing their marital status as ‘separated’ on the tax return was the trigger here. A chain of events then began to try and reel him back in which ultimately ended up with the death of 3 people. I think this may have been a coercive control situation, and it is said that the most dangerous time for a victim is when they are trying to leave a relationship.

If that is the case it is honestly a miracle that Simon is still alive, and Ian also.

 

[Kemug]

That^^^ is an interesting idea. If he had attended the luncheon, she could have framed him for the deaths. Or at least made it very hard to know who actually did it.

He would have the financial motive, assuming his parents have some property and some savings. And he would be able to taint someone's meal or drinks or the desserts, quite easily.

I could see her making a plan like that----framing him. He gets arrested and all of the inheritance goes to her kids. And she doesn't have any more custody issues or co-parenting headaches.

Yes, maybe! And then in her fury when he didn't come, she said !-$&% it, and went ahead anyway!

 

[Megnut]

Theory, and I won't make it personal to her.

A person wants to murder one person. Decides poisoning is the way to go. Decides it would be too suspicious if just one person dies from it so develops a plan for multiple casualties, including some liked people too.

Now the attention turns to the how. Let's say a person has knowledge of mushroom toxicity and chooses this as the vehicle. Now how to deliver it. A luncheon. Now how to get a suitable group together, best potluck.

Find a test group, like children. Practice disguising mushrooms in strange places, like brownies. Betting it didn't go well.

Why not disguise mushrooms in mushrooms?

Voilà!

The natural pungency of nontoxic mushrooms will mask the presence of the toxic ones. The perfect place to hide powdered mushrooms is in mushrooms.

And if a person added dehydrated, toxic mushroom powder individually to all but one, the portions would be virtually identical and any leftover food would likewise be "untreated", perfectly safe to feed to anyone, like children, who happen apparently not to like the taste of mushrooms, so it might be natural -- but also of no consequence -- to scrape the -- perfectly harmless ("untreated") -- mushrooms off their servings, not because the mushrooms were toxic (they weren't) but because the children didn't prefer them and a person  knew that, knowing there was no chance of unscraped mushroom causing any risk. Those mushrooms never touched the toxic mushroom powder.

I am guessing that a person never expected the hospital/LE would think of mushroom poisoning. In my scenario, everyone at the luncheon was supposed to get sick, but only one by nonfatal means (self-induced vomiting, dehydration, etc), potentially no one would even know which food got everyone sick. IMO it was only after the hospital zeroed in on the mushrooms, that a person would have to shift (didn't remove the mushrooms from the children's servings because the mushrooms were poisonous -- they weren't -- but simply because the children didn't like them, a person couldn't admit then to foreknowledge that those mushrooms were perfectly safe, never tainted by the toxin).

That's why there was no spoiled beef wellington to be found. There were never two. Just one. The pot on the stove, so to speak, was always safe mushrooms, suitable for serving anyone.

IMO it went south fast at the hospital because someone there happened to have awareness and the forethought to think of poisonous mushrooms, and from there the the defendant was caught unprepared, quickly spinning a tale that the mushrooms must have been poisonous and she just didn't know it, the children weren't sick because she scraped off the mushrooms (ding, ding, ding -- ONLY someone who KNOWS THOSE mushrooms never came in contact with toxic mushrooms would be confident the children were fine -- any OTHER person would panic, thinking even the tiniest bit of cross-contamination could be dangerous).

If this defendant is ultimately found guilty as charged, at that point, she genuinely had no concern for children's health (the mushrooms she scraped off never touched the toxin) but one huge concern about the dehydrator at home, because that was essentially the syringe by which the poison was administered.

Clever. Diabolical.

If I were Encyclopedia Brown and this was the Case of the Not So Well Beef Wellington, I'd solve the case by asking, how could the chef be sure the children didn't get sick? That's the clue that breaks the case. (It's not from scraping. No mother would accept that risk.) (The mother should have  demanded they be examined, treated, protected in order to solidify the PRETENSE that all the mushrooms were evenly, unknowingly, accidentally and unassistedly toxic.)

Encyclopedia Brown solves another case.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

Could someone please remind me of the age of the children at the time of the lunch?

I just don’t understand how the defense are going to convince the jury this was a tragic accident.

1) She made individual wellingtons.


2) She had her own special coloured plate.

3) Lied about letting her guests pick out their plates first.

4) Left hospital even though at this stage she knew her guests were seriously sick.

5) Lied about having cancer at lunch which got everyone’s to go to lunch.

6) She lied about where she got the mushrooms when time was of an essence.

7) She tried to unsuccessfully throw away evidence.


Probably stuff I’m missing but so far signs don’t look good. IMO

8) She knew her in-laws were deathly ill and she knew her 2 kids ate some of the same toxic meal but she resisted taking them to the hospital for immediate treatment.