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

[Ellery84]

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.

I appreciate your point of view and I feel like you’re closer to the truth than any of us have bed. So far.

Why do you think she wanted acceptance from Simon’s family so much? She did have her own relatives and her own friends, presumably?

 

[Ellery84]

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.

I take your point. Erin’s claim about having cancer is still open to additional testimony or evidence, although the text messages between her and Simon do also indicate that it would be some kind of last supper: The text messages indicate there will be something final about the lunch, and the cancer story does fit with that. IMO

Being able to establish a reason or propose for the lunch is a very important fact when one is aiming to establish intent to murder.

The alleged lie about the positive cancer diagnosis is therefore important for the prosecution in terms of Erin crafting the perfect reason for why the children could not be at the lunch, hence sparing them from death.

 

[Ellery84]

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??

The defence want to portray him as the bad guy, imo. They’re throwing mud at him and seeing what sticks.

It’s not working though. He seems like such a thoroughly decent person - I can see why she may have wanted to marry him. He’s quite the catch in so many ways. IMO.

 

[katydid23]

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.

Eloise:
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

Okay, thank y'all for the clarification. That's kind of what I was thinking----this was analysed and standardised to compute his monthly child support bill.

So it's kind of unfair for the defense to try and 'shame' Simon for the paltry payment, if in fact it was the legally correct amount he owes. IMO

 

[Cartie]

If Ian Wilkinson, the surviving lunch guest, gives evidence I think it is likely he will confirm that the guests were told by EP that she had been diagnosed with ovarian cancer.

I thought this, but why question Simon about it, especially as they've already admitted it during opening statements.
It just makes the defence look bad IMO

Could Ian have some kind of memory loss from that day due to the trauma?

 

[Spectrix]

Could Ian have some kind of memory loss from that day due to the trauma?

Good point, we don't know what condition he's in. Ian may have technically survived but I'm not sure that his liver and kidneys did.
Anyone know if he's in permanent care or some such?

Edit -
Ian Wilkinson was hospitalized in critical condition and spent nearly two months in Melbourne's Austin Hospital, where he received intensive care. His recovery was described as remarkable, and he was discharged in late September 2023
9 News article
After his release, Wilkinson returned to his role as a pastor at Korumburra Baptist Church. In February 2024, he delivered his first sermon since the incident, expressing gratitude and faith

I don't know Mr Wilkinson, but I'm really pleased to read that.

Edit again -
Justice Beale told the jury that witnesses will include Simon Patterson and Ian Wilkinson, as well as several medical experts, doctors and police. 10 News article

 

[Megnut]

I take your point. Erin’s claim about having cancer is still open to additional testimony or evidence, although the text messages between her and Simon do also indicate that it would be some kind of last supper: The text messages indicate there will be something final about the lunch, and the cancer story does fit with that. IMO

Being able to establish a reason or propose for the lunch is a very important fact when one is aiming to establish intent to murder.

The alleged lie about the positive cancer diagnosis is therefore important for the prosecution in terms of Erin crafting the perfect reason for why the children could not be at the lunch, hence sparing them from death.

I'm still stuck on this.

If the Defense can eviscerate the cancer stuff, it doesn't change the known fact that she was claiming sober medical news. That was the whole pretense for this highly peculiar (suspicious) lunch.

That Erin may have been worried sick (she wasn't), the "look" is good for the Defense, on that it gives a reason for the lunch. Without it, she invited them for no other reason than to nosh on toxins, a fate which she managed to avoid.

If she didn't invite this odd party to her party to share health news, of the real or made up kind, why did she invite them? Yes, I'm looking at you, Defense. Unless she had a reason for the luncheon, outside of death by death cap, then death by death cap is all that remains.

Whose side is the Defense on?????

JMO

 

[drsleuth]

I thought this, but why question Simon about it, especially as they've already admitted it during opening statements.
It just makes the defence look bad IMO

Could Ian have some kind of memory loss from that day due to the trauma?

Because opening statements ( & closing ) are not evidence.

 

[JBowie]

Because opening statements ( & closing ) are not evidence.

True, they outline to the jury how each side's case will be presented via witnesses and their sworn evidence.

 

[arrogantcat]

I'm still stuck on this.

If the Defense can eviscerate the cancer stuff, it doesn't change the known fact that she was claiming sober medical news. That was the whole pretense for this highly peculiar (suspicious) lunch.

That Erin may have been worried sick (she wasn't), the "look" is good for the Defense, on that it gives a reason for the lunch. Without it, she invited them for no other reason than to nosh on toxins, a fate which she managed to avoid.

If she didn't invite this odd party to her party to share health news, of the real or made up kind, why did she invite them? Yes, I'm looking at you, Defense. Unless she had a reason for the luncheon, outside of death by death cap, then death by death cap is all that remains.

Whose side is the Defense on?????

JMO

Maybe she saw the same Australian doctor as Belle Gibson for her cancer diagnosis

 

[Cartie]

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.

imimo

I agree, but for me if I was on the jury I'd see as a possible motive.

 

[JBowie]

Maybe she saw the same Australian doctor as Belle Gibson for her cancer diagnosis

Dial-a-Diagnosis 1-800-GET-SICK

 

[arrogantcat]

I thought this, but why question Simon about it, especially as they've already admitted it during opening statements.

This is why I keep stressing that the defence have not conceded that she lied, despite what many posts here say.

They have only agreed that she did not have cancer, and not that she ever claimed otherwise.

So, questioning Simon is designed to create some doubt: could the sick, elderly man have misheard or misremembered? Could he have been confused about the facts?

It’s tenuous but worth a try, I suppose.

If she did have some sort of medical issue going on it might will help her case here a little. I note the medical expert so far is only quoted as saying she had “no acute illness” at the time, so perhaps there was something more chronic or ongoing. Whether the Defence will be able to spin that into something worthy of a ‘last meal like this for a long time’ occasion remains to be seen, but it feels pretty unlikely

 

[arrogantcat]

What’s funny about this case is how much of the evidence *could* have a plausible explanation, if each piece is taken alone.

She could have just picked the wrong mushrooms in error
She could have just been lucky to get a lot less sick
She could have just panicked about the dehydrator and made the false statement
SM’s father could have been mistaken about her claiming to have cancer
She could just be phobic of hospitals
She could have only had 4 matching plates
The mushroom brownie thing could just be an unrelated coincidence
The forum death cap locations could just be locally known mushroom foraging spots

Taken in isolation, each one of these can be made to sound somewhat plausible. Enough to even create some reasonable doubt, probably.

But when you put them all together, the scales really tip. Believing that all of these things are true together means believing the accused is one of the world’s most unfortunate people, suffering a perfect storm of terrible coincidences and incredibly unlikely events.

I can see why she had a crack at pleading not guilty, I suppose, but I really don’t think there’s any chance she’ll be getting off.

 

[JBowie]

What’s funny about this case is how much of the evidence *could* have a plausible explanation, if each piece is taken alone.

And Simon could have been poisoned accidentally three times after being fed by her.

(And pigs could fly, too, if she gets off this)

 

[whitelilac]

What’s funny about this case is how much of the evidence *could* have a plausible explanation, if each piece is taken alone.

She could have just picked the wrong mushrooms in error
She could have just been lucky to get a lot less sick
She could have just panicked about the dehydrator and made the false statement
SM’s father could have been mistaken about her claiming to have cancer
She could just be phobic of hospitals
She could have only had 4 matching plates
The mushroom brownie thing could just be an unrelated coincidence
The forum death cap locations could just be locally known mushroom foraging spots

Taken in isolation, each one of these can be made to sound somewhat plausible. Enough to even create some reasonable doubt, probably.

But when you put them all together, the scales really tip. Believing that all of these things are true together means believing the accused is one of the world’s most unfortunate people, suffering a perfect storm of terrible coincidences and incredibly unlikely events.

I can see why she had a crack at pleading not guilty, I suppose, but I really don’t think there’s any chance she’ll be getting off.

Exactly. You take one of those pieces and it would be 50/50 whether true or not. But the more pieces there are, the probability factor climbs exponentially.

 

[Rumination1]

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

That’s true . She had long been collecting the mushrooms and that day cooked up the toxic bw . If any of this were accidental it would make sense

Her behaviour after the meal is the damning . Multiple facts point to her hiding guilt

 

[Rumination1]

I appreciate your point of view and I feel like you’re closer to the truth than any of us have bed. So far.

Why do you think she wanted acceptance from Simon’s family so much? She did have her own relatives and her own friends, presumably?

Just a thought but did she blame the aunt n uncle for leaving her out of the 70 th birthday
Hence they got mushroomed too

I do believe it was intentional but she thought they d all just get sick
She didn’t believe the food was deadly
And she still can’t bring herself to say it !!

 

[SouthAussie]

Simon is back on the stand this morning. Continuing cross examination by the defence.


"The estranged husband of a mushroom cook accused of murdering his parents and aunt will return to the stand in her trial."

"Mr Patterson, who declined an invitation to attend the lunch, gave evidence to a jury of 15 last week and his cross-examination by defence barrister Colin Mandy SC will continue today."

"The jury will return to Latrobe Valley court house about 10.30am on Monday."

Evidence continues in mushroom cook triple-murder case

www.9news.com.au

 

[BreakingNews]

The defence want to portray him as the bad guy, imo. They’re throwing mud at him and seeing what sticks.

It’s not working though. He seems like such a thoroughly decent person - I can see why she may have wanted to marry him. He’s quite the catch in so many ways. IMO.

He wanted the marriage to work, more than she did, iny opinion.