Australia - 3 dead after eating wild mushrooms, Leongatha, Victoria, Aug 2023 #9 *Arrest*

[katydid23]

Question -----at what point did EP know that her lunch guests were seriously ill?



30 Apr, 7:51pm

Erin Patterson told husband she was unwell, court hears​

​

By Judd Boaz​

Simon Patterson says in a conversation with his estranged wife Erin Patterson after the lunch, she had claimed she had also been ill.


Mr Patterson says Ms Patterson indicated she had been experiencing diarrhoea every 20 minutes or so, and that she had not wanted to get out of the car at risk of having an accident.

"She was worried that she'd poo her pants," he says.

He tells the court after a long day at the hospital, he returned to his own home at Korumburra at about 2:30am in the morning.


[Monday morning at 7 AM she called Simon?]
Mr Patterson says he received a call at 7am the next morning from Erin Patterson, who wanted to talk.


He says Ms Patterson told him of further diarrhoea and asked him to take her to the hospital.

Mr Patterson says he declined and told her to get an ambulance instead.

Simon Patterson tells court of 'strained' relationship with alleged mushroom killer

By Judd Boaz​

Today’s proceedings in the trial centred on evidence given by Simon Patterson, the estranged husband of Erin Patterson.

• A conversation at the hospital the day after the lunch was the first time Simon had heard of Erin using a food dehydrator.

By Judd Boaz​

Nanette Rogers has continued her questioning of Simon Patterson, estranged husband of Erin Patterson.

The questioning has resumed detailing the day after the lunch, when Mr Patterson picked up his children from school to bring them to hospital for tests and asked them about what they had eaten.

The children responded that they had eaten steak, green beans and mashed potato, but no mushrooms.

Mr Patterson confirms his children were found not to be ill at Monash, but were kept overnight.

He tells the court that while the children were being admitted to hospital, they saw Erin being brought into the hospital on a trolley.

He says there was no sign of vomiting or diarrhoea from Ms Patterson when he saw her.

Mr Patterson says one of his children raised the topic of mushrooms in the hospital.

He says during their time in hospital Erin had mentioned conducting a blind taste test with mushroom-infused muffins with her children, using a dehydrator.

"It felt like news to me that she dehydrated food," Mr Patterson says.

He tells the court he was not aware that Erin owned a dehydrator.

• 30 Apr, 8:01pm

Erin Patterson had 'barney' with hospital staff​

By Joseph Dunstan​

Simon Patterson recalls taking a phone call from Erin Patterson on the Monday after the lunch.

He tells the court she told him she had been to Leongatha Hospital and hospital staff had advised her to bring their children in for assessment.


Mr Patterson says his wife turned down his offer to pick up the children from school and says she wanted to pick up the children herself.

He says she told him she did not want the children to "feel scared" about why they were being picked up.

Mr Patterson says he thinks his wife "had a bit of a barney" with hospital staff about which hospital the children would be admitted to for observation as she wanted them at the same hospital as her.

He says she later told him she checked herself out of hospital and drove home, where she lay down and slept for 45 minutes.

According to the above testimony, Simon returned home from the hospital Sunday night, actually Monday at 2:30 am. He knew already that all 4 family members were very ill.

Monday morning by 7 am, Erin called him to say she felt unwell herself.


Simon Patterson tells court of 'strained' relationship with alleged mushroom killer

[Monday morning at 7 AM she called Simon?]

Mr Patterson says he received a call at 7am the next morning from Erin Patterson, who wanted to talk.
He says Ms Patterson told him of further diarrhoea and asked him to take her to the hospital.
Mr Patterson says he declined and told her to get an ambulance instead.
[So the doctors tried to get Erin to bring her children in to be examined, but she said NO, I don't want to stress them out. Eventually Simon went and picked them up himself.]


HERE IS WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR:

The questioning has resumed detailing the day after the lunch, when Mr Patterson picked up his children from school to bring them to hospital for tests and asked them about what they had eaten.

The children responded that they had eaten steak, green beans and mashed potato, but no mushrooms.

Mr Patterson confirms his children were found not to be ill at Monash, but were kept overnight.

He tells the court that while the children were being admitted to hospital, they saw Erin being brought into the hospital on a trolley.

He says there was no sign of vomiting or diarrhoea from Ms Patterson when he saw her.

Mr Patterson says one of his children raised the topic of mushrooms in the hospital.

He says during their time in hospital Erin had mentioned conducting a blind taste test with mushroom-infused muffins with her children, using a dehydrator.

"It felt like news to me that she dehydrated food," Mr Patterson says.

He tells the court he was not aware that Erin owned a dehydrator.


SO BY MONDAY, 2 days later, the doctors were already focusing in on possibility of mushroom poisoning, and asked the kids if they had eaten mushrooms at home.

So how many days later did she finally admit she had foraged?

 

[Kemug]

I've got to the point where I now believe that it would be very odd if she had never tried to poison Simon.

 

[SouthAussie]

So how many days later did she finally admit she had foraged?

I posted a little further back about her 5-page written statement to the police, delivered to them on Friday 11th August. She said she got the mushrooms from the supermarket and an Asian grocery store in that written statement.

 

[SouthAussie]

Yes. We all know that. It's been said repeatedly, and I expect everyone is familiar with the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

But, in the end this case turns on intent. Did Erin intend to poison her guests or was it all a terrible mistake? I expect the state is going to show all the elements of the crime, and they will have lots of evidence that exhibits bad intent, e.g. the fake cancer, the lack of toxin in her system, the lying about where the mushrooms came from, the destruction of evidence, and so on.

IMO, with the plethora of evidence that has come out so far, the defense can't simply claim that the case hasn't been proven and rest. They need to mount some kind of counter-argument that rebuts the prosecution's version, whether or not they put Erin on the stand.

Well, they will say the prosecution hasn't proven their case and move for an aquittal. It seems to be a standard move.

But when the judge denies that, I imagine they will have at least a specialist who says how hard it is to identify a Death Cap, maybe a specialist who says the toxins in each Death Cap are variable, maybe a psychiatrist who says a person can think they have cancer and not actually have it, maybe a specialist that will say what a person's traumatic panic reaction could be.

 

[Old Soul]

So how many days later did she finally admit she had foraged?

My guess is anywhere between her arrest (November 2nd, 2023) and the beginning of this trial (April 29th, 2025). So probably hundreds of days later…..

 

[Spectrix]

So how many days later did she finally admit she had foraged?

As above we're not sure exactly, but what we do know is that 13 days after the lunch she was still claiming that the mushrooms were from an Asian grocer and a supermarket. (Written statement on Friday 11th August claiming as much).
And that was well after the lunch guests had perished.

I gather we'll hear from the detectives about the particulars of when her lies changed to different lies.
Also keen to hear about the text communication and phones calls between the accused and her inlaws, I'd be very surprised if they'd hadn't checked up on her the morning after the lunch in case she was sick as well.

 

[katydid23]

As above we're not sure exactly, but what we do know is that 13 days after the lunch she was still claiming that the mushrooms were from an Asian grocer and a supermarket. (Written statement on Friday 11th August claiming as much).
And that was well after the lunch guests had perished.

I gather we'll hear from the detectives about the particulars of when her lies changed to different lies.
Also keen to hear about the text communication and phones calls between the accused and her inlaws, I'd be very surprised if they'd hadn't checked up on her the morning after the lunch in case she was sick as well.

And I posted testimony above, showing that the doctors were already focused upon a possible mushroom poisoning by Monday, just 2 days after the Luncheon.

They had asked the children if they had eaten mushrooms in their leftovers and Simon was fixated upon the dehydrator that the kids spoke about. And they began discussing the issue with Erin already.

And if she had told them she had foraged, on Monday, they would have given them the proper antidotes immediately. Probably they all would have lived.

 

[Detechtive]

In Australia, she is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a jury. The onus is on the prosecution to prove her guilt. Not on her to prove her innocence. It is her right to remain silent. Rarely do accused murderers testify in their own trial.

CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES ACT 2006 - SECT 25 Rights in criminal proceedings

classic.austlii.edu.au

We all know this. Right now she is looking very guilty, IMO

It is not her responsibility to prove her innocence. The Prosecution is responsible for proving her guilt.

Yes and they are so far failing at this. But I do feel for them, they don’t have much to work with. All they can really do at this point is try to cause doubt about testing methodology and try to raise doubt about strong witness recollections.

According to the above testimony, Simon returned home from the hospital Sunday night, actually Monday at 2:30 am. He knew already that all 4 family members were very ill.

Monday morning by 7 am, Erin called him to say she felt unwell herself.


Simon Patterson tells court of 'strained' relationship with alleged mushroom killer

[Monday morning at 7 AM she called Simon?]

Mr Patterson says he received a call at 7am the next morning from Erin Patterson, who wanted to talk.
He says Ms Patterson told him of further diarrhoea and asked him to take her to the hospital.
Mr Patterson says he declined and told her to get an ambulance instead.
[So the doctors tried to get Erin to bring her children in to be examined, but she said NO, I don't want to stress them out. Eventually Simon went and picked them up himself.]


HERE IS WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR:

The questioning has resumed detailing the day after the lunch, when Mr Patterson picked up his children from school to bring them to hospital for tests and asked them about what they had eaten.

The children responded that they had eaten steak, green beans and mashed potato, but no mushrooms.

Mr Patterson confirms his children were found not to be ill at Monash, but were kept overnight.

He tells the court that while the children were being admitted to hospital, they saw Erin being brought into the hospital on a trolley.

He says there was no sign of vomiting or diarrhoea from Ms Patterson when he saw her.

Mr Patterson says one of his children raised the topic of mushrooms in the hospital.

He says during their time in hospital Erin had mentioned conducting a blind taste test with mushroom-infused muffins with her children, using a dehydrator.

"It felt like news to me that she dehydrated food," Mr Patterson says.

He tells the court he was not aware that Erin owned a dehydrator.


SO BY MONDAY, 2 days later, the doctors were already focusing in on possibility of mushroom poisoning, and asked the kids if they had eaten mushrooms at home.

So how many days later did she finally admit she had foraged?

As far as I’m aware, we have not heard until the trial that she admitted to foraging and that would only be because the brief of evidence shows her gps and I-natural website history, imo. To continue that lie at this point would be extremely foolish. I’m sure her representatives “jogged her memory” on this pre trial.

 

[Detechtive]

I think the problem for the defense is that there is no one who can provide evidence of Erin's thoughts and actions except for Erin.

Why did she break some of the most elementary rules of foraging? Why did she host this party and what did she say to the group about a cancer diagnosis? Why did she not tell her guests there were wild mushrooms in the food? What made her panic and lie afterwards?

All questions that I think the jury is going to want answered. But of course, they also don't want her subject to cross-examination. The prosecution would eviscerate her.

It's a real quandary for the defense.

I think she will insist on testifying to try to reframe the narrative, just like how she sent that statement to police and the media 2 weeks after the lunch, which was full of lies.

“People who have nothing to hide, hide nothing “.

 

[katydid23]

And I posted testimony above, showing that the doctors were already focused upon a possible mushroom poisoning by Monday, just 2 days after the Luncheon.

They had asked the children if they had eaten mushrooms in their leftovers and Simon was fixated upon the dehydrator that the kids spoke about. And they began discussing the issue with Erin already.

And if she had told them she had foraged, on Monday, they would have given them the proper antidotes immediately. Probably they all would have lived.

So the meal was served Saturday, July 29th.
The couples went into the hospital on the 30th.
Don and Gail were diagnosed with 'suspected mushroom poisoning; on the night of the 30th. By the 31st both couples were in intensive care.
Erin was still lying to the hospital about the mushrooms while her lunch guests were in comas.

The trial of mushroom cook Erin Patterson

Witnesses testify at the trial of Erin Patterson, as the Crown tries to prove she intentionally killed three family members by poisoning them at a lunch in 2023.

www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au

...the meal was cooked by the accused on Saturday, July 29, 2023.

“We had vomiting and diarrhoea and, yes, that continued right through the night,” the now 71-year-old told the court about his experience after the lunch. The father of four first thought it was “just gastro, and we’d be right”.

Ian and his wife each camped at the door of a bathroom until they were taken by Simon Patterson to Leongatha Hospital, at his insistence, the next morning. His own parents had already been admitted to the smaller Korumburra Hospital with similar symptoms. [Sunday 30th]

The next morning – Monday, July 31 – panic ensued.

A senior doctor, Chris Webster, was waiting for them in urgent care and explained he’d had communication from Dandenong Hospital, where the Pattersons had been transferred the previous evening, that the diagnosis was “suspected mushroom poisoning”.

Don Patterson, who had consumed his own portion of beef Wellington and also half of his wife’s, was so unwell he had been placed in intensive care before midnight. His wife was about to follow.

“He was very frank,” Wilkinson said of the conversation with Dr Webster. “He said it’s an extremely serious situation. He said there is time-critical treatment available and he was very concerned that we be transported quickly to Dandenong.”

Before the couple were taken in separate ambulances, Ian Wilkinson said he became aware staff at the hospital were looking for Erin Patterson.

Simon Patterson’s brother, Matthew, told the court that later that day he had asked Erin by phone where she’d sourced the mushrooms for the beef Wellington. He said she told him she “bought fresh mushrooms from Woolies” and the dried mushrooms from a Chinese grocer or supermarket in the Oakleigh area of Melbourne.

The two couples were soon transferred to the Austin Hospital in Heidelberg and placed in intensive care, under the treatment of the Liver Transplant Unit and toxicology specialists.

 

[Detechtive]

We all know this. Right now she is looking very guilty, IMO



Yes and they are so far failing at this. But I do feel for them, they don’t have much to work with. All they can really do at this point is try to cause doubt about testing methodology and try to raise doubt about strong witness recollections.



As far as I’m aware, we have not heard until the trial that she admitted to foraging and that would only be because the brief of evidence shows her gps and I-natural website history, imo. To continue that lie at this point would be extremely foolish. I’m sure her representatives “jogged her memory” on this pre trial.

To add to this, her barristers are not allowed to continue representing her if they know she is lying.

It’s quite the quandary for Erin, imo.

But I really don’t blame her for going to trial. Her goose was cooked! (Pardon the pun!) If she plead guilty it was a guaranteed life sentence. Going to trial means she gets to roll the dice. She only has to convince two jurors (because you only need 11 unanimous in Australia after 6 hours of deliberation) that there’s reasonable doubt to walk. I’m not sure she cares about the cost to tax payers and the trauma the trial inflicts upon her alleged loved ones, self preservation seems to be her MO.

My opinion only.

 

[HoneyBunOne]

But I really don’t blame her for going to trial. Her goose was cooked! (Pardon the pun!) If she plead guilty it was a guaranteed life sentence. Going to trial means she gets to roll the dice. She only has to convince two jurors (because you only need 11 unanimous in Australia after 6 hours of deliberation) that there’s reasonable doubt to walk. I’m not sure she cares about the cost to tax payers and the trauma the trial inflicts upon her alleged loved ones, self preservation seems to be her MO.

My opinion only.

Shortened by me. I was not aware of this, I thought it had to be all 12 jurors agreeing on the verdict. That's interesting to me, thanks for the info.

 

[SouthAussie]

She only has to convince two jurors (because you only need 11 unanimous in Australia after 6 hours of deliberation) that there’s reasonable doubt to walk.

I think for a murder trial in Victoria (and South Australia, and Tasmania) the verdict must be unanimous. The majority verdict doesn't apply for murder in those states.

I used to think it applied, too, but someone showed me otherwise.


A majority verdict cannot be considered if the offence is murder, treason, an offence against section 71 or 72 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 or a Commonwealth offence.

https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-01/VCE%20Companion%20Booklet_web.pdf

 

[Spectrix]

I’m not sure she cares about the cost to tax payers and the trauma the trial inflicts upon her alleged loved ones, self preservation seems to be her MO.

She's made it pretty clear throughout this ordeal that she cares only about herself.
I think it's debatable whether or not she even cares about her own children given the trauma she intended to put them through by killing their entire family at once. (allegedly)

To add to this, her barristers are not allowed to continue representing her if they know she is lying.

I'm going to hazard a guess that they know she couldn't lie straight in bed, but she's entitled to a fair trial either way and someone needs to represent her.

 

[Ellery84]

Do we think that the Juror 84’s phone was bugged as part of a jury member compliance covert surveillance ioeration in such a high profile trial?

About 11am on Thursday morning, Justice Christopher Beale brought the remaining 14 members into the courtroom as he told them one of their numbers had been discharged.

The judge told jurors he’d received information the juror had discussed the case with friends and family contrary to directions given to jurors at the start of the trial.

He said he formed the view the information was “credible”, but did not make a positive finding that the juror did discuss the case, only that there was a reasonable possibility it occured.

“I remind you to only discuss the case with your fellow jurors, not anyone else,” he said.

“On that unhappy note, we’re now ready to resume the trial.”

https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/courts-law/erin-patterson-trial-alleged-mushroom-poisoner-was-ill-intensive-care-specialist-tells-court/news-story/2a1417ea5465148399f0c13da4735ad2?amp

 

[Baby baby Jane]

She's made it pretty clear throughout this ordeal that she cares only about herself.
I think it's debatable whether or not she even cares about her own children given the trauma she intended to put them through by killing their entire family at once. (allegedly)



I'm going to hazard a guess that they know she couldn't lie straight in bed, but she's entitled to a fair trial either way and someone needs to represent her.

Agree and realise that everyone reacts to stress or illness or accident in different ways, but her “indifference” in regards to sick relatives, and indifference to her own “illness” which had the potential to escalate (unless she knew it would not), and her indifference in regards to her kids …. will be difficult for the jury to ignore or to excuse as “everyone reacts to crisis differently”.

Hard to reconcile that she would have overblown worry for her own potential elbow-ovary cancer
And
Lack of concern for potential poisoning of self and kids.

 

[Ellery84]

My guess is anywhere between her arrest (November 2nd, 2023) and the beginning of this trial (April 29th, 2025). So probably hundreds of days later…..

It’s not really good enough, is it, because she could have potentially saved 3 lives if she told the truth when asked.

IMO

 

[Spectrix]

In Australia, she is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a jury. The onus is on the prosecution to prove her guilt. Not on her to prove her innocence.

You can argue technicalities all you want, but the reality of the situation is that she's proven her own guilt, both by her actions and by her inactions, and all the prosecution needed to do was document it.

If she wants any chance of staying out of jail, her defence are going to need to explain away a very long list of indiscretions.

 

[Eloise]

A barrister can continue to represent someone who's told them they did it.

Regarding a person who has told their barrister they did it, but insists on pleading not guilty, from Legal Profession Uniform Conduct (Barristers) Rules 2015:
80
A barrister briefed to appear in criminal proceedings whose client confesses guilt to the barrister but maintains a plea of not guilty:

(a) should, subject to the client accepting the constraints set out in (b)–(h) but not otherwise, continue to act in the client’s defence,

(b) must not falsely suggest that some other person committed the offence charged,

(c) must not set up an affirmative case inconsistent with the confession,

(d) must ensure that the prosecution is put to proof of its case,

(e) may argue that the evidence as a whole does not prove that the client is guilty of the offence charged,

(f) may argue that for some reason of law the client is not guilty of the offence charged,

(g) may argue that for any other reason not prohibited by (b) or (c) the client should not be convicted of the offence charged, and

(h) must not continue to act if the client insists on giving evidence denying guilt or requires the making of a statement asserting the client’s innocence.

 

[Detechtive]

A barrister can continue to represent someone who's told them they did it.

Regarding a person who has told their barrister they did it, but insists on pleading not guilty, from Legal Profession Uniform Conduct (Barristers) Rules 2015:
80
A barrister briefed to appear in criminal proceedings whose client confesses guilt to the barrister but maintains a plea of not guilty:

They can continue to represent a client they knew did it, but they cannot knowingly submit false evidence or allow the accused to testify if they know they are going to lie.

Barristers and solicitors are officers Of the court first and foremost and must recuse themselves if they know their client is lying and subtitling false evidence or testimony.