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

[Kemug]

Evil or crazy? Or both?

 

[Bats]

In a criminal trial, the defence's role is to represent and protect the rights of the accused, ensuring a fair trial and advocating for their interests. They do this by challenging the prosecution's evidence, presenting their own witnesses and evidence, and making arguments to establish reasonable doubt or an alternative explanation for the events. [bbm]

So far, I am not impressed with EP's defence team's efforts in any of the above, but especially the reasonable doubt and alternative explanation bit. IMO EP's actions, as testified by witnesses, does not leave the defence with much to work with.

@JBowie - the defence can say nothing for the whole trial. Sometimes that happens! All they would probably want to do in their closing argument is say "...yadda, yadda, yadda...and this is why you should find the defendent innocent", but they actually don't even need to do that if they don't see it necessary.

The onus is wholly on the prosecution.

You, or the jury, don't need to be impressed with the defence's efforts. It's not their job to prove anything or impress anyone.

At the end, you will need to be impressed with the prosecution at how they've made you beyond doubt the accused is guilty ...and currently, she is presumed to be innocent.

 

[Megnut]

Bear with me:

Interview with Erin’s son as played to the court May 9, 2025:

“Just like the interviewer did with his sister, he was asked a few questions about mushrooms and one of these questions evoked a memory he had of a period of time during the pandemic.

He explained how him and his mum took a walk through the botanic gardens near their home and they spotted some mushrooms that were growing. <Again, these are his words. It's not his voice.>

“It was just a very fond memory in my head. We were talking about how mushrooms grow, how they grow with the trees and they support each other.”



From The Mushroom Cook: The Trial: The son's testimony, 9 May 2025

The Trial: The son's testimony

Podcast Episode · The Mushroom Cook · 09/05/2025 · 10m

podcasts.apple.com

This material may be protected by copyright.

This is my theory: Mushrooms grow with the trees and they support each other: There is a symbiotic relationship there. That’s why I think she used mushrooms in her lunch and as a poison, because families are supposed to support each other and grow together, like the mushrooms and the trees - and her family wasn’t supporting her.

So it’s the irony, there.

Motive.
Mushrooms and trees have a symbiotic relationship, called mycorrhizae, where both benefit. Mushrooms, which are the fruiting bodies of fungi, form a network of hyphae (thread-like structures) in the soil that intertwines with tree roots. This network helps trees absorb water and nutrients from the soil, while the trees provide the fungi with carbohydrates produced during photosynthesis.

Put thusly, if guilty as charged, in one long event, Erin violated the symbiotic relationship between mushroom and tree while simultaneously destroying her children's family tree.

JMO

 

[Ellery84]

"He says his mother complained of dizziness and diarrhoea and did not eat any leftovers."

There ^^^we go! Mom was dizzy and had diarrhoea, so she didn't have any leftovers, just served them to her children????? WHO DOES THAT?

I hope the jury is picking up on that little tidbit.

Evil or crazy? Or both?

The fact that she’s up in her room playing Lego the night of the poisoning would really outline to me she was as calm and able to regulate her emotions: I would say if found guilty that she is bad, not mad.

 

[JBowie]

You, or the jury, don't need to be impressed with the defence's efforts. It's not their job to prove anything or impress anyone.

I'm not talking about impressions in that sense, I refer to arguments advanced.

In the jury room what is proposed by both sides will be (or should be) considered and argued back and forth. For example:

Juror A: "The prosecution claimed X."

Juror B: "But the defence countered that with Y. Which is more plausible?"

 

[Warshawski]

And maybe the grey plates were such a pale grey that the children perceived them as white.

I think the white plates that Son saw & cleared off the table were the smaller plates that were used for the fruit & cake.

Some children eat their food from smaller plates, hence perhaps his label of ‘dinner plates’.

Although - he was 14, and 14 year old boys in my experience tend to need a huge plate !

Also in my experience it would be a huge ask to expect kids to accurately remember these details more than 2 weeks after the event.

I wonder were the children asked if their parents discussed the events of the few days surrounding 29th > with them.

 

[Bats]

I'm not talking about impressions in that sense, I refer to arguments advanced.

In the jury room what is proposed by both sides will be (or should be) considered and argued back and forth. For example:

Juror A: "The prosecution claimed X."

Juror B: "But the defence countered that with Y. Which is more plausible?"

Got you. But again, the defence doesn't need to say anything at all throughout the trial. There could be 100 witnesses and all sorts of forensic evidence and the defence can sit there and say nothing.

The Jury need to ask themselves, has the prosecution presented evidence that proves to us the accused is guilty. That's it really.

 

[Ellery84]

Put thusly, if guilty as charged, in one long event, Erin violated the symbiotic relationship between mushroom and tree while simultaneously destroying her children's family tree.

JMO

That’s the gist of my theory, Megnut. Thank you for summarising the idea so eloquently.

The family tree is indeed destroyed, and whether Erin is found guilty or not guilty, there’s no bringing back the deceased - sadly. If she’s done something horrendous, she can’t take it back.

The cost is really borne by her children, which is very sad indeed - and it seems Erin has picked up on that, given her emotions in the court room in connection with viewing her own children.

IMO

 

[Ellery84]

DBM

 

[Ellery84]

I know whenever I feel dizzy and clammy, I go firstly for a nice long drive with kids, then I stop by the Koo Wee Rup (the name sounds so appealing) and purchase a hot dog, dim sims and a coffee. It just takes the edge off my nausea. But that’s just me. I’m calling BS on Erin’s illness - and I’m going to actually predict that on Monday the prosecution and defence may come to a joint position on Erin’s good health after the lunch, and in the days following. IMO

The boy said his mum was 'quite insistent' he go flying because there was less chance of her spreading illness at the airfield.

He said the pair turned around and went back home but on the way, stopped at Koo Wee Rup to get some dim sims and hot dogs from a donut van.

'We got three dim sims, a hot dog, and we got mum a coffee,' he said.


Erin Patterson mushroom murder trial LIVE updates

 

[Baby baby Jane]

The fact that she’s up in her room playing Lego the night of the poisoning would really outline to me she was as calm and able to regulate her emotions: I would say if found guilty that she is bad, not mad.

What was she building with the Lego?? … what was on her mind?? one doesn’t just “play Lego”
Was she was just clucking random pieces together or
Building an object?

 

[Detechtive]

When did Erin pull the children from private school? Before or after Simon changed his tax status to 'separated'?

If after, it seems like -- asking other reasons -- it might have been in part a financial thing, after the loss of the tax credit.

A questionable tax credit. Yes, they were still married but they were living apart. Ethically, were they stretching the law?

Supposedly, for the purposes of the luncheon, Erin wanted advice on how to tell the children about the cancer she didn't have, the children were told that the adults were going to be talking about "adult things" so Erin certainly seemed aware of protecting children from adult affairs. However, in practice, was she? The son sure has an impression of his father's shortcomings, and they all appear to have been served to him by Erin, involving a child in adult things.

Was Simon supposed to defend himself? Same, with his parents? His ailing mother? The other couple? Engage in back in forth in front of the children? Involve his family? And if he doesn't defend himself? Does that make Erin right? Or does that simply show that Simon was trying to do right, by not pulling other people into their private differences?

It sure looks like Erin was purposefully drawing up sides, attempting to influence the war by pulling all the soldiers to her side.

JMO

She wasn't receiving any government benefits at all when she pulled them out of school. She wanted Simon to pay school fees, medical bills, and also child support. He refused to pay school fees and medical bills, so she pulled them out of the private religious school.

 

[Baby baby Jane]

I know whenever I feel dizzy and clammy, I go firstly for a nice long drive with kids, then I stop by and purchase a hot dog, dim sims and a coffee. It just takes the edge off my nausea. But that’s just me. I’m calling BS on Erin’s illness - and I’m going to actually predict that on Monday the prosecution may come to a joint position on Erin’s good health after the lunch, and in the days following. IMO

The boy said his mum was 'quite insistent' he go flying because there was less chance of her spreading illness at the airfield.

He said the pair turned around and went back home but on the way, stopped at Koo Wee Rup to get some dim sims and hot dogs from a donut van.

'We got three dim sims, a hot dog, and we got mum a coffee,' he said.


Erin Patterson mushroom murder trial LIVE updates

Were the grey plates going to be dumped an hour away whilst son was up in a plane?
Or at Koo Wee Rup-
Oh kids, run ahead and order me a coffee … while I dump this bag in the skip behind these shops …

 

[Spectrix]

Reusing a dehydrator that has been used for highly toxic mushrooms is just crazy. She can't have washed it very well given that forensics were able to detect death cap toxin in it. I do have to wonder about EPs supposed intelligence.

Was she planning to reuse it later to poison Simon?

 

[Detechtive]

Maybe her original plan was simply to poison Simon. She could have invited all the other dinner guests as a cover, with only Simon meant to fall ill and die —no one else affected. His death might have been put down as another unexplained illness, like the one he had before, avoiding any investigation. But when Simon turned down the invite the day before, was she furious and decided to retaliate by poisoning his family instead.

I don't know. She prepared the food the day prior, apparently. That is, prior to his declining invitation, and it seems to me that she pressured him sufficiently after his text at 7pm that she thought he probably would end up coming.

I still think she planned to kill them all. At least 2 months in advance.

 

[Detechtive]

@JBowie - the defence can say nothing for the whole trial. Sometimes that happens! All they would probably want to do in their closing argument is say "...yadda, yadda, yadda...and this is why you should find the defendent innocent", but they actually don't even need to do that if they don't see it necessary.

The onus is wholly on the prosecution.

You, or the jury, don't need to be impressed with the defence's efforts. It's not their job to prove anything or impress anyone.

At the end, you will need to be impressed with the prosecution at how they've made you beyond doubt the accused is guilty ...and currently, she is presumed to be innocent.

Yes the onus is on the prosecution, but it is the defences job to create reasonable doubt. It is not simply to sit idly by while Erin proves her case. Technically you are correct, but how it happens in reality is different. And the defence is required to cast doubt on the claims by the prosecution in a good defence strategy.

 

[Spectrix]

I still think she planned to kill them all. At least 2 months in advance.

I do too.
In my opinion, the fake cancer diagnosis was craftily designed to be heard only by people who would end up dead.

 

[Detechtive]

In my opinion, the fake cancer diagnosis was craftily designed to be heard only by people who would end up dead.

Agree 100%. So far, in my opinion, the evidence most definitely points to a long-con. A premeditated crafted planned death event - and I think the motive was control (over the children and money). I think if I was a juror, it would be hard to change my mind at this juncture.

 

[Detechtive]

Were the grey plates going to be dumped an hour away whilst son was up in a plane?
Or at Koo Wee Rup-
Oh kids, run ahead and order me a coffee … while I dump this bag in the skip behind these shops …

oooh interesting!

 

[JBowie]

Was she planning to reuse it later to poison Simon?

Maybe, but that assumes that she expected Simon would be gullible enough to consume another meal made by her after his previous experiences, including 16 days in an induced coma.