Australia - 3 dead after eating wild mushrooms, Leongatha, Victoria, Aug 2023 #8 *Arrest*

[TootsieFootsie]

Police probe after wild mushroom deaths

A major police probe has been launched into the deaths of three elderly people who died after eating wild and poisonous mushrooms.

au.lifestyle.yahoo.com

One man still fighting for life.

Thread #1
Thread #2
Thread #3
Thread #4
Thread #5
Thread #6
 Thread #7

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

IMPORTANT

Effective with Erin Patterson's arrest, sub judice is in effect and will be until a trial has concluded. For anyone not familiar with the judicial principle of sub judice, please review the following.

WS is based in the USA but we do try to manage the various discussions to comply with laws of other countries.

As this trial is in Australia, the case is under sub judice so please avoid anything that violates the following principles:

Basically anything that may prejudice the accused’s right to a fair trial
Any suggestion, opinion, or direct accusation that the accused is either guilty OR innocent
(i.e. the accused cannot be called "the killer"; use "the accused", "the alleged killer", or "the defendant")
A defendant’s previous history of any offences is off limits
Scandalizing the court (disparaging judges, lawyers, any officer of the Court) is off limits
Broadcasting anything about proceedings which happen in the jury's absence is off limits
Any non compliance with an Order of the court is off limits

Note in the event of an Appeal subsequent to verdict:
Appeals are usually heard by senior judges who are not likely to be influenced by the media, therefore responsible comment is usually considered acceptable once a trial has concluded, regardless of if there is going to be an appeal.

Posts that are determined to constitute a violation of sub judice will be removed. To avoid this, please review the following from the Victoria Law Reform Commission and post accordingly:
10. Sub judice contempt: restricting the publication of prejudicial information

 

[Knitty]

Please continue here.

 

[MrsAddick]

So, Simon allegedly suspected Erin of previous poisoning attempts. One landing him in the ICU for weeks in an induced coma

…yet, a surprise (and highly unusual) dinner invitation to the family in the midst of an emotive dispute didn’t raise any alarm bells

 

[You'reNicked]

'She booked the date a fortnight in advance, telling them after church she wanted to discuss the ramifications of medical news she'd received.' (www.abc.net.au 3/5/25)

So she knew she didn't have cancer, but lied about 'a medical issue' when issuing the lunch invitation.

Your daughter-in-law possibly being very ill would be a powerful lure, to people who were as caring as the Wilkinsons and Patterson's apparently were.

Such a conscious deception strengthens the appearance of premeditation, in my opinion.

 

[Old Soul]

For me, the fake cancer diagnosis news is a little bit of extra information that points toward intent.

For someone that had never or rarely hosted a meal for these people, or even invited them to her house, EP needed something compelling to lure them to the lunch, and also a reason for the children to be deliberately absent.

Had the meal been completely free of poison, what would be the point of the fake cancer story? To mess with their heads? Sympathy? Attention?
If no poisoning occurred EP would need to follow through with pretending she had cancer to the family for some time.

It will be interesting to hear Ian Wilkinson’s evidence.

 

[Detechtive]

​

I am really blown away by the way that Simon is still able to say nice things about Erin.

I think it shows what a saint he is. Also, how broken he is.

I think so, from her text:


I think she expected him to change his mind and when he didn't attend -

a/ the food was prepared and she had nothing else to serve up and
b/ she had already come to terms with killing them too, and if she called off the lunch on the spot it would look obvious she was only doing it to get her husband there, and it was not about her [fake] illness.

I would go further and say I think her husband was her main intended target and she decided to invite others to make accident more plausible.



JMO, if she's found guilty.

I think you're bang on here!

I would further add that she probably expected him to drop in when he dropped their daughter back at about 2pm that day because his parents were there, and she would have offered him his poisoned Beef Wellington, imo.

I saw in an article yesterday that it was discussed how he drove the child back to the home, and that he saw his parents cars in the driveway but didn't go in.

The way she spoke to him in the text had a controlling motherly tone. She fired back within 4 minutes with her guilt tripping, lies, and manipulation. It is very damning for her, I think.

I think that is what gets to me, too.

No ... "OMG they all fell sick! And I felt a bit sick too. I foraged some mushrooms and used them. I hope the mushrooms were okay."

Then it may truly have been an accidental poisoning, if she had actually lifted a finger to help the doctors in their diagnosis.

We have read of accidental mushroom poisonings (in our prior research) and no-one was charged with murder.

Agreed!

 

[Bats]

So, Simon allegedly suspected Erin of previous poisoning attempts. One landing him in the ICU for weeks in an induced coma

…yet, a surprise (and highly unusual) dinner invitation to the family in the midst of an emotive dispute didn’t raise any alarm bells

I have a feeling the suspicion only started after the lunch.

https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/news/mushroom-chefs-exhusband-reaches-out-to-locals-after-nearly-dying-from-mystery-illness-last-year/news-story/7c5bea17efbb5046040f9dac4251888d

 

[Detechtive]

It's one of those things many people experience where they look back in hindsight and realise those times when you were ill after you ate together, and it all comes into focus.

I'm finding it difficult not to think that people looking at Simon as somehow responsible is a form of victim blaming, and I am wondering if it's because the gender roles are reversed here, with the accused being a woman. I can't imagine if it were a man in this situation that people would be in any way blaming the woman.

This woman is accused of annihilating Simon's family.

It really wasn't Simons fault in any way that he didn't suspect she was trying to poison him or his family.

 

[Megnut]

For me, the fake cancer diagnosis news is a little bit of extra information that points toward intent.

For someone that had never or rarely hosted a meal for these people, or even invited them to her house, EP needed something compelling to lure them to the lunch, and also a reason for the children to be deliberately absent.

Had the meal been completely free of poison, what would be the point of the fake cancer story? To mess with their heads? Sympathy? Attention?
If no poisoning occurred EP would need to follow through with pretending she had cancer to the family for some time.

It will be interesting to hear Ian Wilkinson’s evidence.

And honestly, who does that? Hosts a luncheon to announce one's cancer diagnosis? (Especially when they don't have cancer, but that's beside my point.) Even the faux reason, for help in how to tell the children. (Indeed, how do you tell young children you have a cancer, um, when you don't?)

Dear Esteemed Invitees, I know I snubbed you for your 70th birthday party but I cordially invite you to my party where I've prepared an elaborate meal with mystery ingredients. Once I have you gathered, we can all focus on me. I will begin with a dramatic reading of WebMD, next we will dialogue about me and how we can mitigate the heaviness of my burden (having to bear the weight of my imaginary cancer) and close with your adoration, for how well I'm handling (not) having cancer, and prayers to carry me through (also not having cancer).

You can't imagine how hard it is.

JMO

 

[Detechtive]

And honestly, who does that? Hosts a luncheon to announce one's cancer diagnosis? (Especially when they don't have cancer, but that's beside my point.) Even the faux reason, for help in how to tell the children. (Indeed, how do you tell young children you have a cancer, um, when you don't?)

Dear Esteemed Invitees, I know I snubbed you for your 70th birthday party but I cordially invite you to my party where I've prepared an elaborate meal with mystery ingredients. Once I have you gathered, we can all focus on me. I will begin with a dramatic reading of WebMD, next we will dialogue about me and how we can mitigate the heaviness of my burden (having to bear the weight of my imaginary cancer) and close with your adoration, for how well I'm handling (not) having cancer, and prayers to carry me through (also not having cancer).

You can't imagine how hard it is.

JMO

I laughed out loud at this!

It's preposterous, isn't it?

In the text message she sent to Simon allegedly attempting to compel him to attend after his withdrawal, I noticed she used very dramatic 'i'm dying' type manipulation, such as "I won't be able to do a lunch like this for some time" which I took it as her saying she will be too sick soon.
Ironically, and for reasons other than what she was trying to say, the sentence was probably the only truthful thing she said - in other words, I won't be able to do this again because I have used all of the deathcaps from my foraging in May in this 'special meal', and they won't be back in bloom until next year in May, by which time you will have probably divorced me and taken half of all of my assets, and also, nobody invited will be alive by then to have a lunch like this again.

JMO!

 

[Detechtive]

Assuming that 5 individual pies contained Deathcap Mushrooms were prepared;

Each mature death cap mushroom weighs about 40 grams and contains around 0.36 mg of amatoxins per gram of fresh weight. Given that the estimated lethal dose of amatoxins for an adult (weighing approximately 70kgs, which it looks like the 5 were, probably, on average) is approximately 7–10 mg (but this is only true between 10-30% of the time), consuming about 20–30 grams of mushroom cap per pie would almost always deliver a fatal dose. Therefore, for five pies, a total of 100–150 grams of mushroom cap would be needed, equating to roughly 3 to 4 mature mushrooms.

I am assuming that Ian survived because the treating doctors were aware by that point what they were dealing with, so he was administered antidotes hastily, but this is just speculation...

In other words, it is highly unlikely that 75% would have died if the dose was lower than 20-30 grams (going by statistics). It would appear to me that the pies were much higher in Death Cap concentration than 7-10mg which delivers a fatal dose 10-30% of the time, given that 3/4 or the people who ate them died, especially considering the women didn't eat as much of them., in one case, less than half. So perhaps up to 5-7 Deathcaps were used, IMO. At the very minimum, it looks as though 3-4 mature Death Caps were used.

And given that a mushroom duxelle isn't made separately for each pie - it would be one batch, it is not possible she wouldn't have at least been incredibly sick (requiring organ transplant possibly) but definitely in intensive care, or dead even if she consumed less than half of one - taking into consideration that her body weight looks higher than the average of 70kgs used to form this view.

This to me, doesn't look like "one accidental Deathcap" found its way into these pies.

link

JMO!

 

[brisbanemum]

Assuming that 5 individual pies contained Deathcap Mushrooms were prepared;

Each mature death cap mushroom weighs about 40 grams and contains around 0.36 mg of amatoxins per gram of fresh weight. Given that the estimated lethal dose of amatoxins for an adult (weighing approximately 70kgs, which it looks like the 5 were, probably, on average) is approximately 7–10 mg (but this is only true between 10-30% of the time), consuming about 20–30 grams of mushroom cap per pie would almost always deliver a fatal dose. Therefore, for five pies, a total of 100–150 grams of mushroom cap would be needed, equating to roughly 3 to 4 mature mushrooms.

I am assuming that Ian survived because the treating doctors were aware by that point what they were dealing with, so he was administered antidotes hastily, but this is just speculation...

In other words, it is highly unlikely that 75% would have died if the dose was lower than 20-30 grams (going by statistics). It would appear to me that the pies were much higher in Death Cap concentration than 7-10mg which delivers a fatal dose 10-30% of the time, given that 3/4 or the people who ate them died, especially considering the women didn't eat as much of them., in one case, less than half. So perhaps up to 5-7 Deathcaps were used, IMO. At the very minimum, it looks as though 3-4 mature Death Caps were used.

And given that a mushroom duxelle isn't made separately for each pie - it would be one batch, it is not possible she wouldn't have at least been incredibly sick (requiring organ transplant possibly) but definitely in intensive care, or dead even if she consumed less than half of one - taking into consideration that her body weight looks higher than the average of 70kgs used to form this view.

This to me, doesn't look like "one accidental Deathcap" found its way into these pies.

link

JMO!

Great work Detechtive. I have no doubt a calculation of this nature from a toxicologist will form part of the prosecution evidence. The more death caps required for a fatal dose, the less it starts to look like an accident right? Allegedly of course!

 

[JLZ]

Great work Detechtive. I have no doubt a calculation of this nature from a toxicologist will form part of the prosecution evidence. The more death caps required for a fatal dose, the less it starts to look like an accident right? Allegedly of course!

Not if she picked them all together. If she didn't know the difference, she could just as easily have a dozen deathcaps as one deathcap plus eleven of an edible kind. Arguably it's only one mistake either way.

 

[Bats]

When I read back at the defence questions to Simon, I can't help but think....skillful and very clever.

Here's an example of what I mean...

Mr Mandy says Simon did not contact Erin after the lunch to enquire about the “medical issue” she had mentioned

....Mr Mandy says given Don's poor condition and the short nature of their conversation, whether it would be possible that he misremembered what had been relayed.

Mr Patterson is adamant that his father relayed Erin's diagnosis of cancer to him.

Mr Mandy again asks if it's possible that Mr Patterson misunderstood his father, which receives a sharp reply


...but later in the questioning....

During questioning about conversations with Erin in the aftermath of the lunch, Simon says his estranged wife didn't make detailed inquiries about how her in-laws were.

"It intrigued me that she didn't actually ask," Simon says



In my opinion, that's very clever.

 

[Kemug]

I laughed out loud at this!

It's preposterous, isn't it?

In the text message she sent to Simon allegedly attempting to compel him to attend after his withdrawal, I noticed she used very dramatic 'i'm dying' type manipulation, such as "I won't be able to do a lunch like this for some time" which I took it as her saying she will be too sick soon.
Ironically, and for reasons other than what she was trying to say, the sentence was probably the only truthful thing she said - in other words, I won't be able to do this again because I have used all of the deathcaps from my foraging in May in this 'special meal', and they won't be back in bloom until next year in May, by which time you will have probably divorced me and taken half of all of my assets, and also, nobody invited will be alive by then to have a lunch like this again.

JMO!

And if she is found guilty, and I don't see how she can't be, she won't be hosting any meals anyway for a long long time, if ever.

 

[ch_13]

Not if she picked them all together. If she didn't know the difference, she could just as easily have a dozen deathcaps as one deathcap plus eleven of an edible kind. Arguably it's only one mistake either way.

It'll be interesting to see what the defense claims. If they are going to say that she picked them by mistake, then they'll have to say what mushroom species she mistook them for.

Apparently, the edible fungi that's closest in appearance to the death cap is the paddy straw mushroom, but those only grow naturally in Asia. Which is why many of the accidental poisoning cases occur in immigrant communities.

From what I can tell, there doesn't seem to be an edible mushroom that grows in Victoria and is a death cap look-alike.

I suppose it's possible that a misshapen death cap could have been mistaken for another species. But to have made the same mistake 12 times? Seems hard to fathom.

 

[Spectrix]

From what I can tell, there doesn't seem to be an edible mushroom that grows in Victoria and is a death cap look-alike.

I suppose it's possible that a misshapen death cap could have been mistaken for another species. But to have made the same mistake 12 times? Seems hard to fathom.

Yes, Death Caps are very distinct Mushrooms and they're easy to identify, particularly for an experienced forager.

 

[Detechtive]

Not if she picked them all together. If she didn't know the difference, she could just as easily have a dozen deathcaps as one deathcap plus eleven of an edible kind. Arguably it's only one mistake either way.

That wouldn't make sense, considering she didn't use big chunky bits of mushrooms in the Beef Wellington(s). A duxelle is a paste of mushrooms. The mushroom paste is blitzed together for application to all (individual or otherwise) Beef Wellingtons.
It would not stand to reason that everyone who ate them except her died or were seriously ill, in this case, because individual mushrooms were not used in the different pies. A duxelle excludes this possibility.

 

[Detechtive]

When I read back at the defence questions to Simon, I can't help but think....skillful and very clever.

Here's an example of what I mean...

Mr Mandy says Simon did not contact Erin after the lunch to enquire about the “medical issue” she had mentioned

....Mr Mandy says given Don's poor condition and the short nature of their conversation, whether it would be possible that he misremembered what had been relayed.

Mr Patterson is adamant that his father relayed Erin's diagnosis of cancer to him.

Mr Mandy again asks if it's possible that Mr Patterson misunderstood his father, which receives a sharp reply


...but later in the questioning....

During questioning about conversations with Erin in the aftermath of the lunch, Simon says his estranged wife didn't make detailed inquiries about how her in-laws were.

"It intrigued me that she didn't actually ask," Simon says



In my opinion, that's very clever.

It is clever, or just uncaring?