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

[HoneyBunOne]

I'm not sure if all councils are the same.... as rate payers we receive 3 free tip tickets a year, I'm regional NSW. Without the free tickets it is as you have explained with the weighbridge.

Not all council's are the same. I don't get any hard waste/kerb side pick up at all, and just recently received a very generous 1 tip voucher for the year. Being rural, I also get fortnightly rubbish and recycling roadside waste collection.

 

[SouthAussie]

As someone who followed every day of the trial closely, I just can't get past how weak the prosecution case was.

I don't think the case was weak, at all.
Dr Rogers showed a clear chronological order of the lead-up to the poisonings, the actual poisonings, and the after-acts.

People can pick apart each individual thing but when you look at the totality of direct and circumstantial evidence, I do not believe there is any guessing game to be had.

<modsnip>

imo

 

[Bekind89]

If EP hadn’t factory reset her phone and the police were unable to find the other phone I think there would be much more evidence that points to her guilt.

And let's be honest, what innocent person would do that in the first place?
I don't understand why she wasn't also charged with tampering with evidence.

 

[LinasK]

I'm not the original recipient of this question, and I'm a new user, so feel free to ignore me if you'd like - but the short answer to this question is that the bare facts presented at trial are consistent with an accidental poisoning rather than a deliberate one.

I'd really like someone to sit me down and explain how it is possible to get to the level of certainty required by a guilty verdict in this case, without resorting to speculation or misrepresenting the evidence. Speculation is definitely an interesting exercise, as is bringing in evidence from outside the trial (eg Simon's allegations of previous illnesses), but I'm far more interested in how a juror could get to beyond reasonable doubt here. As someone who followed every day of the trial closely, I just can't get past how weak the prosecution case was.

To take just one example, the prosecution alleged Erin accessed iNaturalist posts about death cap sightings and then immediately travelled to those locations to harvest them. But no evidence was ever presented to show this, it was just pure speculation. The prosecution showed nothing from Erin's devices to show she saw the posts in question, and the evidence from Matthew Sorrell about the cellphone towers only proved Erin's phone connected to certain towers, not that she travelled to specific locations. A juror could fill in the gaps here to find whatever narrative they want, but they wouldn't be using actual evidence to do so.

I actually was addressing Tootsie, but since you asked. I don't feel it was a "weak" case at all. She bought her dehydrator the very day she looked up and ended up foraging the Death Caps. Her team admits that the 3 deaths and 1 attempted all had DC mushrooms in their system. It's totally logical. If she didn't forage them, how did they end up in her meal she served? Also, when she left the hospital, wasn't there cell phone evidence that placed her back in Outtrim, where the Death Caps grow?? Cell phone tower data CAN actually pinpoint fairly accurate locations. It communicates with more than one tower at a time. 3 readings can give you a good idea where the phone is. (It's called triangulation). Plus she's captured on CCTV footage dumping the dehydrator (which had traces of DC's in it) and other evidence in cardboard boxes- 30 min after the meal. Most likely the plates and cutlery. Circumstantial evidence can be just as powerful as Direct Evidence.

 

[MrJ]

Let’s say you committed a crime. You would want to destroy as much evidence as you can. There’s lots of circumstantial evidence that is very compelling. The death caps on the scales is very damning as is discharging yourself against medical advice and not bringing your children into the hospital as soon as the doctor mentioned death cap poisoning to ensure they were safe? Yeah she knew they weren’t poisoned like her guests were.

 

[SouthAussie]

What upsets me is that people have actually made formal complaints against the doctor .... to claims that he violated patient confidentiality by telling police what EP had told him.

And a doctor has every right and responsibility to breach patient confidentiality if ...

• express or implied consent by the patient
• mandatory disclosure under compulsion of law e.g. child abuse, notifiable diseases, subpoena
• an overriding duty to disclose information in the “public interest”.

They have an overriding duty in the “public interest” to disclose information where it is “necessary to prevent or lessen a serious or imminent threat to an individual’s life, health or safety, or a serious threat to public health and safety”.

Confessions Regarding a Criminal Act - MDA National

 

[Deleted member 194006]

I'm not the original recipient of this question, and I'm a new user, so feel free to ignore me if you'd like - but the short answer to this question is that the bare facts presented at trial are consistent with an accidental poisoning rather than a deliberate one.

I'd really like someone to sit me down and explain how it is possible to get to the level of certainty required by a guilty verdict in this case, without resorting to speculation or misrepresenting the evidence. Speculation is definitely an interesting exercise, as is bringing in evidence from outside the trial (eg Simon's allegations of previous illnesses), but I'm far more interested in how a juror could get to beyond reasonable doubt here. As someone who followed every day of the trial closely, I just can't get past how weak the prosecution case was.

To take just one example, the prosecution alleged Erin accessed iNaturalist posts about death cap sightings and then immediately travelled to those locations to harvest them. But no evidence was ever presented to show this, it was just pure speculation. The prosecution showed nothing from Erin's devices to show she saw the posts in question, and the evidence from Matthew Sorrell about the cellphone towers only proved Erin's phone connected to certain towers, not that she travelled to specific locations. A juror could fill in the gaps here to find whatever narrative they want, but they wouldn't be using actual evidence to do so.

There’s a difference between speculation and making inferences. Jurors are not allowed to speculate, but they are allowed to infer. They are actually encouraged to infer and use their reasoning skills. Using your example, there was enough evidence for the jurors to infer that Erin visited the death cap locations because she saw the posts.

Here’s a ChatGPT breakdown:

The difference between speculating and inferring comes down to evidence and certainty:

Inferring

• Based on evidence.
• You draw a logical conclusion from known facts or observations.
• It’s grounded in reasoning.

Example:

You see someone running with an umbrella, and the ground is wet.

→ You infer that it’s raining or just rained.

Speculating

• Based more on guesswork.
• You form an idea or theory without strong evidence.
• It often involves imagination or possibility.

Example:


You see someone running with an umbrella, but the sky is clear and the ground is dry.


→ You speculate that they might be practicing for a play or worried about sun exposure.

 

[MrJ]

Also consider that the office of public prosecutions would’ve had a standard of evidence to be presented to substantiate EP’s charges. All the admissible evidence painted a very clear picture in the jurors’ minds. Her lies and changing stories just made her even more guilty

 

[Deleted member 194006]

There’s a difference between speculation and making inferences. Jurors are not allowed to speculate, but they are allowed to infer. They are actually encouraged to infer and use their reasoning skills. Using your example, there was enough evidence for the jurors to infer that Erin visited the death cap locations because she saw the posts.

Here’s a ChatGPT breakdown:

The difference between speculating and inferring comes down to evidence and certainty:

Inferring

• Based on evidence.
• You draw a logical conclusion from known facts or observations.
• It’s grounded in reasoning.

Example:

You see someone running with an umbrella, and the ground is wet.

→ You infer that it’s raining or just rained.

Speculating

• Based more on guesswork.
• You form an idea or theory without strong evidence.
• It often involves imagination or possibility.

Example:


You see someone running with an umbrella, but the sky is clear and the ground is dry.


→ You speculate that they might be practicing for a play or worried about sun exposure.

Further to my point above and to provide a clearer example, the jury likely used the following points to infer that Erin did visit Loch and Outrim to deliberately gather death cap mushrooms:

- Erin was familiar with the iNaturalist website
- Just before the visits, there were posts on the iNaturalist website detailing that death caps were found in these areas (with location information). These posts were not a regular occurrence.
- Mobile phone data showed that it appeared that Erin was stationary in the Outrim and Loch areas during the time of foraging (not just passing through). This has only happened a handful of times over the previous 18 months.
- An expert said it was likely that Erin was in these areas.
- Erin purchased a dehydrator on the day the prosecution claimed that she foraged in one of these areas.
- There was no alternate reason regarding why Erin may have been in these areas.
- Erin did have some issues with her in-laws and Simon.
- Erin has lied in the past and therefore, may not be credible.
- Erin does not have an established history of foraging. In fact, it is really only her word that can be used as “evidence” that she was a forager.

There are multiple pieces of evidence that the jurors have used to safely infer/reason that Erin visited Loch and Outrim to specifically forage for death caps on these days. This is not speculating. If jurors were not allowed to make inferences, most people wouldn’t be convicted.

 

[otto]

I'm not the original recipient of this question, and I'm a new user, so feel free to ignore me if you'd like - but the short answer to this question is that the bare facts presented at trial are consistent with an accidental poisoning rather than a deliberate one.

I'd really like someone to sit me down and explain how it is possible to get to the level of certainty required by a guilty verdict in this case, without resorting to speculation or misrepresenting the evidence. Speculation is definitely an interesting exercise, as is bringing in evidence from outside the trial (eg Simon's allegations of previous illnesses), but I'm far more interested in how a juror could get to beyond reasonable doubt here. As someone who followed every day of the trial closely, I just can't get past how weak the prosecution case was.

To take just one example, the prosecution alleged Erin accessed iNaturalist posts about death cap sightings and then immediately travelled to those locations to harvest them. But no evidence was ever presented to show this, it was just pure speculation. The prosecution showed nothing from Erin's devices to show she saw the posts in question, and the evidence from Matthew Sorrell about the cellphone towers only proved Erin's phone connected to certain towers, not that she travelled to specific locations. A juror could fill in the gaps here to find whatever narrative they want, but they wouldn't be using actual evidence to do so.

Accidental poisoning is interesting.

Where did the poisonous mushrooms come from?

 

[LinasK]

Accidental poisoning is interesting.

Where did the poisonous mushrooms come from?

Humor me here: is the theory that she "accidentally" picked the DC's or that she accidentally added them in with other dehydrated mushrooms? Since they were pulverized, I postulate that there's no chance she accidentally added them, and she researched what DC's look like and went to areas known for DC's- Loch and Outrim, so I think she deliberately foraged for the DC's.

 

[Deleted member 363451]

Former Victorian Chief Magistrate on murder mushroom verdict | Sunrise​

 

[Detechtive]

Humor me here: is the theory that she "accidentally" picked the DC's or that she accidentally added them in with other dehydrated mushrooms? Since they were pulverized, I postulate that there's no chance she accidentally added them, and she researched what DC's look like and went to areas known for DC's- Loch and Outrim, so I think she deliberately foraged for the DC's.

I wonder why she accidentally got rid of the dehydrator packaging et al at the tip immediately after her victims left her house.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

She wasn't in the same room as Heather and Ian, she was in the room next door or close by.

Erin Patterson labelled 'evil' by doctor who came face-to-face with killer

A doctor who first alerted police to now convicted triple-murderer Erin Patterson describes the moment he grew suspicious of her.

www.abc.net.au

He said her actions whilst there set off alarm bells in his mind as she sat down "not far from Ian and Heather".

"Erin sat in a chair and I don't even remember her looking in the direction of Ian and Heather Wilkinson … they weren't barriered, there were opened curtains on the cubicle," he said.

He said she lacked "any sort of expected normal human emotional response" to being in that situation.

"When people come through the doors that I led Erin through, they usually make a beeline for their [loved one]. They go straight to that bed and they embrace the loved one," he said.

"They usually cry or shake or respond in an emotive way and then they spin around and they try to find a nurse or a doctor to come over and explain what's going on to their loved one."

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I'm not the original recipient of this question, and I'm a new user, so feel free to ignore me if you'd like - but the short answer to this question is that the bare facts presented at trial are consistent with an accidental poisoning rather than a deliberate one.

I'd really like someone to sit me down and explain how it is possible to get to the level of certainty required by a guilty verdict in this case, without resorting to speculation or misrepresenting the evidence. Speculation is definitely an interesting exercise, as is bringing in evidence from outside the trial (eg Simon's allegations of previous illnesses), but I'm far more interested in how a juror could get to beyond reasonable doubt here. As someone who followed every day of the trial closely, I just can't get past how weak the prosecution case was.

To take just one example, the prosecution alleged Erin accessed iNaturalist posts about death cap sightings and then immediately travelled to those locations to harvest them. But no evidence was ever presented to show this, it was just pure speculation. The prosecution showed nothing from Erin's devices to show she saw the posts in question, and the evidence from Matthew Sorrell about the cellphone towers only proved Erin's phone connected to certain towers, not that she travelled to specific locations. A juror could fill in the gaps here to find whatever narrative they want, but they wouldn't be using actual evidence to do so.

I have one question for you. Why didn't EP ever get poisoned from the DCs she picked, dried and (allegedly) kept in her pantry?

 

[Deleted member 363451]

Erin Patterson labelled 'evil' by doctor who came face-to-face with killer

A doctor who first alerted police to now convicted triple-murderer Erin Patterson describes the moment he grew suspicious of her.

www.abc.net.au

He said her actions whilst there set off alarm bells in his mind as she sat down "not far from Ian and Heather".

"Erin sat in a chair and I don't even remember her looking in the direction of Ian and Heather Wilkinson … they weren't barriered, there were opened curtains on the cubicle," he said.

He said she lacked "any sort of expected normal human emotional response" to being in that situation.

"When people come through the doors that I led Erin through, they usually make a beeline for their [loved one]. They go straight to that bed and they embrace the loved one," he said.

"They usually cry or shake or respond in an emotive way and then they spin around and they try to find a nurse or a doctor to come over and explain what's going on to their loved one."

OMG! I'm so sorry, I didn't realise. This makes it 100 times worse! No wonder Dr Webster was so angry. It was obvious to him that she had no interest or care in Ian and Heather's welfare, nor Don or Gails for that matter...

 

[Detechtive]

I'm not the original recipient of this question, and I'm a new user, so feel free to ignore me if you'd like - but the short answer to this question is that the bare facts presented at trial are consistent with an accidental poisoning rather than a deliberate one.

I'd really like someone to sit me down and explain how it is possible to get to the level of certainty required by a guilty verdict in this case, without resorting to speculation or misrepresenting the evidence. Speculation is definitely an interesting exercise, as is bringing in evidence from outside the trial (eg Simon's allegations of previous illnesses), but I'm far more interested in how a juror could get to beyond reasonable doubt here. As someone who followed every day of the trial closely, I just can't get past how weak the prosecution case was.

To take just one example, the prosecution alleged Erin accessed iNaturalist posts about death cap sightings and then immediately travelled to those locations to harvest them. But no evidence was ever presented to show this, it was just pure speculation. The prosecution showed nothing from Erin's devices to show she saw the posts in question, and the evidence from Matthew Sorrell about the cellphone towers only proved Erin's phone connected to certain towers, not that she travelled to specific locations. A juror could fill in the gaps here to find whatever narrative they want, but they wouldn't be using actual evidence to do so.

Clearly the prosecution case wasn't weak, considering 12 jurors came back with a unanimous verdict.

Can you list out all of the ways that the prosecution case was weak? And also list out the evidence you thought was strong for the prosecution?

 

[Bekind89]

OMG! I'm so sorry, I didn't realise. This makes it 100 times worse! No wonder Dr Webster was so angry. It was obvious to him that she had no interest or care in Ian and Heather's welfare, nor Don or Gails for that matter...

She couldn't even fake any concern for them or even fake concern that her children may have consumed deadly DC's.
That is what I find completely baffling about her.

 

[Detechtive]

And a doctor has every right and responsibility to breach patient confidentiality if ...

• express or implied consent by the patient
• mandatory disclosure under compulsion of law e.g. child abuse, notifiable diseases, subpoena
• an overriding duty to disclose information in the “public interest”.

They have an overriding duty in the “public interest” to disclose information where it is “necessary to prevent or lessen a serious or imminent threat to an individual’s life, health or safety, or a serious threat to public health and safety”.

Confessions Regarding a Criminal Act - MDA National

Exactly!

And he didn't breach patient confidentiality anyway. It was public knowledge which conversations he had with her - introduced during evidence. His personal opinion on her guilt isn't breaching anything.

If he was handing out her complete medical history to the press, sure, that is unethical.

This is not.

He's a doctor, he's not a fool.

I think he's a legend!

 

[Deleted member 363451]

She couldn't even fake any concern for them or even fake concern that her children may have consumed deadly DC's.
That is what I find completely baffling about her.

Poor Simon married a psychopath.