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

[katydid23]

Yes. We have nightshade growing behind our house and it’s really hard to dispose of. The berries are a bright purple and quite pretty. Just a berry or two can be fatal.

Other nightshade vegetables are potatoes which can easily create solanine when they turn a greenish color. Somewhere there’s a story about an entire family being poisoned by solanine when potatoes in a root cellar turned.

Question---are Nightshade berries poisonous for birds and chipmunks etc?

 

[katydid23]

He said that his refusal of the bill was before he found out that he only had to contribute $40 a month. Once he discovered the amount, he told Erin and his family that he was coming back to the table and they would work it out.

OK, that's good to hear.

I guess my question was more about the Government Services people who allegedly told him not to pay those medical bills or he'd be overpaying, etc. That made it seem like, to me, that some social worker/tax guy or whatever, advised him and calculated that monthly 40 dollar amount based upon their comparable incomes?

 

[Bats]

The One Time she's done this, toiled over BW (so laborious it clouded her memory of foraging), to host a luncheon to tell four adults she's worried she might have cancer?

What story is the Defense going to run with? (Or maybe none. Maybe they won't put on a defense.)

She just really wanted to host all of a sudden? For funsies?

I think she’s guilty like everyone else here.

I just find trials all very fascinating.

The questions the defence are asking may seem bland, normal, perhaps even off- the- cuff questions, but they have been worked on for months. Quite often they are unwittingly leading witnesses into traps without them knowing. They are masters of theatrics. Even the order of questions has reason and has been carefully thought out. Quite often they go from one topic to another, then back to the first topic. There's a reason for that.
To good defence teams, getting the answers they want is like catching a fish in a trout farm.

 

[JLZ]

OK, that's good to hear.

I guess my question was more about the Government Services people who allegedly told him not to pay those medical bills or he'd be overpaying, etc. That made it seem like, to me, that some social worker/tax guy or whatever, advised him and calculated that monthly 40 dollar amount based upon their comparable incomes?

I take it to be an in-principle recommendation from a government agency that administers the benefit. Centrelink does have social workers. Nobody would be making back-of-envelope calculations. These things are very dependent on the big government computer systems.

 

[BreakingNews]

I think she’s guilty like everyone else here.

I just find trials all very fascinating.

The questions the defence are asking may seem bland, normal, perhaps even off- the- cuff questions, but they have been worked on for months. Quite often they are unwittingly leading witnesses into traps without them knowing. They are masters of theatrics. Even the order of questions has reason and has been carefully thought out. Quite often they go from one topic to another, then back to the first topic. There's a reason for that.
To good defence teams, getting the answers they want is like catching a fish in a trout farm.

Hi Bats. Not sure about her guilt or otherwise. As the trial continues, I keep going back to the questions the Judge has asked the jury to address. Reading here, I can understand why the attempted murder charges were dropped regarding SP. Definately no real evidence. Interesting weeks ahead.

 

[BreakingNews]

Thanks to all who are adding each day from the court and media.

 

[SouthAussie]

The questions the defence are asking may seem bland, normal, perhaps even off- the- cuff questions, but they have been worked on for months. Quite often they are unwittingly leading witnesses into traps without them knowing. They are masters of theatrics. Even the order of questions has reason and has been carefully thought out. Quite often they go from one topic to another, then back to the first topic. There's a reason for that.
To good defence teams, getting the answers they want is like catching a fish in a trout farm.

Trial lawyers rule #1 ... never ask a question for which you do not know the answer.

So the defence spent their time trying to make Simon look bad and EP look good.

You only pay $40 child support?
Erin lent money to your siblings for their homes?
You don't know if the mother of your children did or did not have cancer?

Playing on the emotions of the jury.

imo

 

[Bats]

Playing on the emotions of the jury

Absolutely @SouthAussie

I keep going back to the questions the Judge has asked the jury to address.

Yes, i do to @BreakingNews !

 

[JBowie]

So the defence spent their time trying to make Simon look bad and EP look good.

... and I trust that the jury found the attempt as futile as I did.

 

[arrogantcat]

I think it’s important to clarify that the defence did not concede that the cancer was a lie.

The quote, across many publications, is “the defence do not dispute that she did not have cancer”, but so far they have not conceded that she told anyone she did.

I assume they will argue that the surviving victim was confused or mistaken, and that she did not lie or claim to have cancer.

 

[JBowie]

I assume they will argue that the surviving victim was confused or mistaken, and that she did not lie on that occasion.

Well I say good luck with that, given this:

prosecutors had an intensive care specialist, Andrew Bersten, review Patterson's medical files. They said Bersten saw no evidence that she suffered an acute illness on July 30, or that she had been diagnosed with cancer in mid-2023 as she claimed. The Victorian Cancer Registry — to which diagnoses are legally required to be reported — also said it has no record of it. [bbm]

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/02/nx-s1-5383874/erin-patterson-murder-trial-poison-mushroom-australia#:~:text=Much%20later%2C%20prosecutors%20had%20an,mid%2D2023%20as%20she%20claimed.

 

[arrogantcat]

Question---are Nightshade berries poisonous for birds and chipmunks etc?

Not sure about chipmunks etc, but birds are immune to their toxins I believe. Bird physiology is quite different to mammals.

 

[JBowie]

Question---are Nightshade berries poisonous for birds and chipmunks etc?

ASPCA says: Toxic to Dogs, Toxic to Cats, Toxic to Horses

Bird Vet Melbourne says:

• Tomato leaves and other plants in deadly nightshade family can be toxic to birds and should be avoided.

 

[Eloise]

Question---are Nightshade berries poisonous for birds and chipmunks etc?

Toxic to some animals but not all. Worst for humans, dogs, cats and horses. Cattle, rabbits and birds can eat it

OK, that's good to hear.

I guess my question was more about the Government Services people who allegedly told him not to pay those medical bills or he'd be overpaying, etc. That made it seem like, to me, that some social worker/tax guy or whatever, advised him and calculated that monthly 40 dollar amount based upon their comparable incomes?

Child support is decided by formulas made by Services Australia. They're quite standardised and based on incomes and care percentages of both parents as well as age/s of the child/ren, and then collected through the tax system. https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/basic-child-support-formula?context=21911

 

[MsMarple]

Question---are Nightshade berries poisonous for birds and chipmunks etc?

I don’t know which specific animals are affected but I know larger animals like bears or horses can be poisoned if they eat a bunch, like pounds of the whole plant. I’m pretty sure birds and small animals tend not to be affected, maybe they don’t bother to eat large amounts. The entire plant contains alkaloids like atropine and other nasty stuff so they’re bad for humans for sure.

When my youngest was little she and her piano partner brought me a handful of berries that they had picked. I freaked out and took them to the hospital even though they both said they hadn’t eaten any. Doctor gave them Ipecac to make them throw up. Luckily the berries turned out to be harmless. So scary.

 

[Kemug]

I am quite keen to hear the testimony of all the hospital staff. What a busy and horrendous time for them too. But they seem to have done excellently in their various positions. Although they may not have felt like it at the time, with 3 of their patients dying.

 

[tillytatler]

Here's a run down of the nightshade family since some of you are asking.

It's a large family and most of it is toxic *to some degree*. The members of the family you'll be most familiar with are potatoes, tomatoes, and aubergines. Even with these edible nightshades, it is very common for people to have allergies due to the mild toxins.

While we eat the potato tubers, potato plants also grow berries that look like little green tomatoes - which are toxic. Potato leaves are toxic too. If a potato starts turning green or sprouting a lot, avoid eating it. However if you do eat some other part of a potato plant it likely wouldn't kill you, it would just give you a tummy ache.

Tomatoes and aubergines are unusual amongst the family in that their berries/fruits are edible. Again, allergies are common. For those on low histamine diets, this is why tomatoes are a really high histamine food btw and cause inflammation in the body.

You can eat tomatoes when green and underripe without issue. The leaves are also fine to eat.

The most well known wild nightshades are the woody nightshade and the deadly nightshade. You may also hear deadly nightshade referred to as "belladonna", because it used to be dropped into the eyes as a beauty aid as it makes your pupils dilate. Both woody and deadly are toxic, with the deadly being more so. The berries of both, if you look at them closely, look like really small purple tomatoes. I know some foragers who have eaten woody nightshade berries as a hallucinogen, but it is not recommended.

Edited: typo

 

[Ellery84]

I think a couple of you posted that Erin was angry with Simon because "he refused to come to his own death"! So funny - but probably more than a grain of truth in it.

Absolutely. How rude.

But if she has made single size portions of Wellington and poisoned them, surely she had always planned to kill his family, also, even before he cancelled. IMO

 

[MrsAddick]

I'll start with saying there is no excuse for murdering anyone.

Upon really thinking about this case and reading between the lines and the more we know of EP I think the signs were there from the beginning that the marriage was never going to work and her leaving and going back numerous times was her futile attempt to make the marriage work.

I believe she didn't just marry one person, she married the entire family plus their religious beliefs.

And no I don't believe she suddenly became converted to the religion. She did it in the hope that she would be accepted as a valued member of the family.

I don't think she ever felt valued or appreciated or accepted. Or loved.

I know this feeling because it's what I felt during my entire marriage and no amount of trying changed anything.

I think when she received the inheritance, she thought sharing it with other family members would change the way others perceived her.
Yes I think she tried to buy their affections.

Lending money to family or friends can lead to problems and even though EP said they can pay back when they could,
it can lead to family seeing you in a different light, and not the happy light she thought they would.

It could very well lead to those people wanting to keep their distance, maybe because of embarrassment out of not paying the money back sooner, rather than the feeling of gratitude and love she might have been expecting.

They do say don't lend to families

I think all this built up resentment in her, til even small signs of being left out festered away at her.

Yes @TootsieFootsie I’ve shifted my view somewhat and completely agree with all of this.
This seems very emotionally driven. I’d argue that these alleged actions (and cover-up) were impulsive and clumsy, despite having months to prepare. There seems to be little regard for consequences after-the-fact.
I think deep feelings of hurt, betrayal…and then anger…are at the center of this

 

[Little Jack]

Trial lawyers rule #1 ... never ask a question for which you do not know the answer.

So the defence spent their time trying to make Simon look bad and EP look good.

You only pay $40 child support?
Erin lent money to your siblings for their homes?
You don't know if the mother of your children did or did not have cancer?

Playing on the emotions of the jury.

imo

But the end result to me is that they have helped explain the motive ... if the story they wanted to go with is she had no reason to harm anyone why do they want to show ways simon has upset her??