GUILTY Australia - 3 dead after eating wild mushrooms, Leongatha, Victoria, Aug 2023 *Arrest* #18

[ch_13]

What we don't know - and likely EP couldn't tell either - is whether the DCs were distributed evenly between the servings. Gail and Heather might have been unlucky enough to have a higher dose in the half portion they ate, but it may not have been by EP's design. (Not to excuse her. Including DCs at all is enough.)

Certainly possible that the death caps weren't distributed evenly. But, assuming the fungi were powdered and added the duxelles, then I think Erin would have made sure to stir thoroughly allowing the fungi powder to diffuse through the mixture.

If you've ever tried adding, say, chile powder to guacamole (because it's easy to see the red / green contrast), you'll know it really doesn't take much stirring for the powder to be distributed throughout.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

I listened to the final Mushroom Daily episode and found it interesting. They set it up as them saying what they really think, but then said they wouldn't say whether they thought she was guilty.

However, they basically did. Stocky and Kristian seemed more than OK with the verdict and were quite scathing of Erin at times. Rachael didn't think she'd be found guilty and defended aspects, saying there were way too many holes.

To be fair to her though, she did say something that personally I found key. She mentioned how she often found herself explaining how certain things could have happened, but then the sheer number of these made the whole harder to defend.

There was one thing it clarified that I've never fully got my head around. I didn't realise they hadn't found direct evidence that she had seen the posts on inaturalist.

I suppose this comes down to what was on Phone A. There was clearly something she thought was incriminating enough to hide it. Maybe that was an inaturalist account or location data.

 

[ch_13]

There was one thing it clarified that I've never fully got my head around. I didn't realise they hadn't found direct evidence that she had seen the posts on inaturalist.

I didn't hear the podcast, but can you clarify this? I understood that she did see the death cap pages. Here's the trial testimony...

A report created on March 16, 2024, was shown to the jury, depicting cache data of searches for “iNaturalist” using the Bing search engine at 7.20pm on May 28, 2022.

Asked to explain what that meant, Mr Fox-Henry said: “The search term iNaturalist was conducted by Bing using the Edge browser.”

Another record captures a visit to the iNaturalist web page at 7.20.42pm through the Microsoft Edge browser.
...
Mr Fox-Henry said another record captured a visit to a iNaturalist webpage at 7.23pm.

“Deathcap from Melbourne, Vic, Australia on May 18 2022 … Bricker Reserve, Moorabbin - iNaturalist,” the headline for the page captured reads, the jury was told.

https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/courts-law/erin-patterson-trial-jury-shown-2-minute-visit-to-bp-service-station-in-caldermeade/news-story/1e0f47969b1f65664d6a8ff4f5896f0c

 

[Deleted member 363451]

I listened to the final Mushroom Daily episode and found it interesting. They set it up as them saying what they really think, but then said they wouldn't say whether they thought she was guilty.

However, they basically did. Stocky and Kristian seemed more than OK with the verdict and were quite scathing of Erin at times. Rachael didn't think she'd be found guilty and defended aspects, saying there were way too many holes.

To be fair to her though, she did say something that personally I found key. She mentioned how she often found herself explaining how certain things could have happened, but then the sheer number of these made the whole harder to defend.

There was one thing it clarified that I've never fully got my head around. I didn't realise they hadn't found direct evidence that she had seen the posts on inaturalist.

I suppose this comes down to what was on Phone A. There was clearly something she thought was incriminating enough to hide it. Maybe that was an inaturalist account or location data.

Rachael from the Mushroom Case Daily podcast is still defending Erin Patterson and obviously hasn't accepted that she's a convicted triple murderer. She has been biased in Erin's favour from the very start and accepted everything Erin stated as being factual. She isn't a good journalist IMO.

 

[Susjay]

Rachael from the Mushroom Case Daily podcast is still defending Erin Patterson and obviously hasn't accepted that she's a convicted triple murderer. She has been biased in Erin's favour from the very start and accepted everything Erin stated as being factual. She isn't a good journalist IMO.

Ugh!

 

[JBowie]

There was one thing it clarified that I've never fully got my head around. I didn't realise they hadn't found direct evidence that she had seen the posts on inaturalist.

I suppose this comes down to what was on Phone A. There was clearly something she thought was incriminating enough to hide it. Maybe that was an inaturalist account or location data.

I mentioned earlier that I suspect she may have used GPS navigation on it. Another/additional possibility is that it may have revealed that she was using a different internet account on it -- an account that police were unaware of.

One thing is for sure: she disposed of/hid it deliberately.

 

[JBowie]

Asked to explain what that meant, Mr Fox-Henry said: “The search term iNaturalist was conducted by Bing using the Edge browser.”

Another record captures a visit to the iNaturalist web page at 7.20.42pm through the Microsoft Edge browser.

That suggests to me that she was using a Windows PC for those searches, rather than a phone.

 

[Susjay]

Rachael from the Mushroom Case Daily podcast is still defending Erin Patterson and obviously hasn't accepted that she's a convicted triple murderer. She has been biased in Erin's favour from the very start and accepted everything Erin stated as being factual. She isn't a good journalist IMO.

Rachael’s work on the podcast let the whole thing down. She always presented what the accused said as fact. I cannot understand her logic. It made the whole podcast feel biased and flawed.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

I didn't hear the podcast, but can you clarify this? I understood that she did see the death cap pages. Here's the trial testimony...

A report created on March 16, 2024, was shown to the jury, depicting cache data of searches for “iNaturalist” using the Bing search engine at 7.20pm on May 28, 2022.

Asked to explain what that meant, Mr Fox-Henry said: “The search term iNaturalist was conducted by Bing using the Edge browser.”

Another record captures a visit to the iNaturalist web page at 7.20.42pm through the Microsoft Edge browser.
...
Mr Fox-Henry said another record captured a visit to a iNaturalist webpage at 7.23pm.

“Deathcap from Melbourne, Vic, Australia on May 18 2022 … Bricker Reserve, Moorabbin - iNaturalist,” the headline for the page captured reads, the jury was told.

https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/courts-law/erin-patterson-trial-jury-shown-2-minute-visit-to-bp-service-station-in-caldermeade/news-story/1e0f47969b1f65664d6a8ff4f5896f0c

I'm really not sure!

I do remember the defence making a big deal about what were the chances that she would see the only 2 posts about DC. I didn't really get what they were getting at at the time. I think I thought they were implying she hadn't necessarily seen them.

 

[JBowie]

Rachael’s work on the podcast let the whole thing down. She always presented what the accused said as fact. I cannot understand her logic. It made the whole podcast feel biased and flawed.

I didn't bother with that podcast, but maybe the producer decided that one person on it should be pro-Patterson for "balance".

 

[MaxDecimus13]

Rachael’s work on the podcast let the whole thing down. She always presented what the accused said as fact. I cannot understand her logic. It made the whole podcast feel biased and flawed.

It really annoyed me when EP was on the stand and they asked her what had stood out that week, and she said hearing Erin talk about her connections with the family and what they meant to her.

This was the same week where she'd been caught out lying etc

 

[Susjay]

And as we understand it, despite the internal havoc, completely undetectable after 48 hours.

She never intended for that toxin to be found. Nor for her victims to survive OR to give witness prior to their deaths. Individual wellies, dead with them. In fact, what they ate, long gone, untraceable, flushed, many times over.

Her (dark) "genuis" would look like this IMO.

All four would consume the deadly toxin, they'd get sick, rebound a bit, then die. Would never bother with the hospital, thinking they could wait it out at home. They'd die, toxin would not be detectable. If EP was tested at that point, it would be undetectable in her too, so she could claim the same stomach bug and they'd be none the wiser.

And her motive would be buried. Who kills four people just to hurt one person? Who kills anybody over perceived slights? Who kills two people with whom one has no problems, just to kill two others? Who would do that? Someone with a hidden agenda, that's whom.

What about stealing beloved grandparents from the children? EP supplied that as a defense iirc, why would she do that to the children? Right, a normal person wouldn't. IMO EP WAS done with them, they wouldn't take her side, wouldn't tell SP to do as EP desired, so she rused to kill them all. If they children knew how she'd been "disrespected " (in her head), she predetermined that they'd side with her. IMO EP had a HABIT of making sure they ALWAYS sided with her. Manipulative, triangulating, covert popularity contest.

IMO EP thought she'd figured out the perfect crime. A disappearing weapon.

But when the hospital went straight to mushroom poisoning and then death caps, she had no plan for that and IMO sverige thst followed was a mad scramble (panic indeed) to erase all traces of DC, which is the EXACT OPPOSITE of omg could I have accidentally used bad mushrooms?

Nope, she made a decision. To bin evidence of DC and fully deny being the source of it, accidental or otherwise.

Because the evidence was overwhelming, IMO her defense decided it best to admit she was the source of the DCs, which they could only do by putting her on the stand, and then try to convince the jury it was by pure accident that BW's containing undetectable PIECES of DC mushrooms, contained dehydrated and powdered DC toxin, as if.

All that hiding mushrooms in her kids desserts, never one used the accidentally acquired, conveniently powdered DCs? Never once popped a bit of one in her mouth to test to make sure "nothing happened"? No prior tainted meal with powdered DCs? Not even a quick test as she prepared the duxelle and, having found it bland, added powdered mushrooms to taste, but didn't taste it again?

In the months she had dehydrated DCs in her house, she didn't even one time use them in any of the ways she might normally use mushrooms, until THAT day....

Her intent is revealed in her cover up.

JMO

And this is what we’ve already known pretty much.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

I didn't bother with that podcast, but maybe the producer decided that one person on it should be pro-Patterson for "balance".

The whole point of the pod was impartiality, so they were simply explaining what had happened that day with no opinion. Other pods did this and it's been interesting hearing them all be much more open since the verdict.

The minute they changed to Rachael, you could tell this was someone who was sympathetic to the Erin cause. Her first contribution was to bring up the Lindy Chamberlain case.

 

[Sarahlou]

The whole point of the pod was impartiality, so they were simply explaining what had happened that day with no opinion. Other pods did this and it's been interesting hearing them all be much more open since the verdict.

The minute they changed to Rachael, you could tell this was someone who was sympathetic to the Erin cause. Her first contribution was to bring up the Lindy Chamberlain case.

Erm...does she have an account on here?

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I didn't hear the podcast, but can you clarify this? I understood that she did see the death cap pages. Here's the trial testimony...

A report created on March 16, 2024, was shown to the jury, depicting cache data of searches for “iNaturalist” using the Bing search engine at 7.20pm on May 28, 2022.

Asked to explain what that meant, Mr Fox-Henry said: “The search term iNaturalist was conducted by Bing using the Edge browser.”

Another record captures a visit to the iNaturalist web page at 7.20.42pm through the Microsoft Edge browser.
...
Mr Fox-Henry said another record captured a visit to a iNaturalist webpage at 7.23pm.

“Deathcap from Melbourne, Vic, Australia on May 18 2022 … Bricker Reserve, Moorabbin - iNaturalist,” the headline for the page captured reads, the jury was told.

https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/courts-law/erin-patterson-trial-jury-shown-2-minute-visit-to-bp-service-station-in-caldermeade/news-story/1e0f47969b1f65664d6a8ff4f5896f0c

They found evidence she went on the website in 2022 but didn't find any evidence for 2023. But her phone was in the area of DC sightings in 2023 soon after it was reported on iNaturalist on 2 occasions, once in April (10 days after) and once in May (1 day after).

So it's still too big a coincidence that she was in those areas at those times. Especially when you compound the coincidence that she bought the dehydrator the same day after the first visit in April.

Mandy also tried to argue it would be unlikely she would be refreshing the website every day to see if there's been a DC sighting. That would be very easy really though. I do that all the time myself on some sites. And it's also possible she had the iNaturalist app where you can set alerts for specific plants.

And since the first outing was 10 days after the sighting, maybe she wasn't checking every day at that time. But then after that first outing she did start checking every day until the sighting in May where she goes out there the very next day.

 

[Deleted member 363451]

Ugh!

What does that mean?

 

[MaxDecimus13]

I mentioned earlier that I suspect she may have used GPS navigation on it. Another/additional possibility is that it may have revealed that she was using a different internet account on it -- an account that police were unaware of.

One thing is for sure: she disposed of/hid it deliberately.

Absolutely, there is no doubt that she didn't want to see phone A. I don't think those still unsure about the verdict fully see how dodgy situations like this looked. She literally changed it over while the police were there.

In reality, if she was innocent, her main phone could have helped exonerate her. It might have tracked her locations and confirmed some of her reports.

She clearly didn't want them to have it. If you were being generous to EP, you'd say it was because it would confirm that she'd had a dehydrator and maybe been the tip etc.

For those like myself who are less inclined to do so, it's obvious there was things she thought were incriminating. We'll probably never know what it was.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I also listened to the last Mushroom Case Daily episode. That was my first time, and yeah Rachel was very generous to Erin. The others were better but they also got some things wrong about the trial. There was an interesting point made though, but it was from a listener email. They remarked about how when Erin was asked about what was in her vomit she said you can't see anything unless there's maybe some corn or beans. But that sounds more commonly like what you would say if you were talking about what comes out your other end. Which might be unusual for someone who claims to be a habitual purger. Because there are lots of foods you can see in your vomit. You can also taste what came up.

Apologies for the visuals.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

They found evidence she went on the website in 2022 but didn't find any evidence for 2023. But her phone was in the area of DC sightings in 2023 soon after it was reported on iNaturalist on 2 occasions, once in April (10 days after) and once in May (1 day after).

So it's still too big a coincidence that she was in those areas at those times. Especially when you compound the coincidence that she bought the dehydrator the same day after the first visit in April.

Mandy also tried to argue it would be unlikely she would be refreshing the website every day to see if there's been a DC sighting. That would be very easy really though. I do that all the time myself on some sites. And it's also possible she had the iNaturalist app where you can set alerts for specific plants.

And since the first outing was 10 days after the sighting, maybe she wasn't checking every day at that time. But then after that first outing she did start checking every day until the sighting in May where she goes out there the very next day.

Yes, anybody who has used a forum knows that it is easy to be looking for specific things. She was probably regularly checking for that region of Australia.

If you don't, somebody saying that what are the chances she'd seen one of those 100,000 posts etc might be persuasive.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

One thing I did pick up on, was mention of a lengthy statement from Erin that was leaked.

Does anybody know where I see this? Apparently it had things like the bulimia that she didn't mention.