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

[mmatk]

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.

Thanks for responding.

I think your post illustrates exactly what I was talking about, in terms of relying on speculation and misrepresentation of evidence.

You say "She bought her dehydrator the very day she looked up and ended up foraging the Death Caps" - but this isn't true! It's not disputed that Erin bought the dehydrator on that day, but the prosecution didn't present any evidence that Erin looked up the posts on iNaturalist. You can't just state something as fact when there's no evidence supporting it.

You also mention triangulation of cellphone tower data, but that's not true either. Matthew Sorrell testified that Erin's phone was only connecting to one "base station" at a time and it wasn't possible to do any triangulation. That's why he was only able to give approximate locations.

Erin might well have done it, I don't know. I'm just interested in the actual evidence, not outright falsehoods.

 

[Eloise]

In an exclusive interview with Daily Mail, Dr Webster said his clinic has received numerous formal complaints which may need to be investigated by the medical board.

The doctor said he will work to clear his name and get on with treating patients after numerous people accused him of being a 'misogynist'.
...
Dr Webster said the complaints had drained his and his family's energy.

'One of the complaints accused me of talking about a "patient of mine", they referred to Patterson as a "patient of mine", not as a convicted killer,' he said.



I don't get the Erin Patterson stans. Why are they going after the doctor? Because he recognized her for what she really was?

I don't get them either, but there are some people who seem to love convicted murderers. Chris Watts gets fan mail. It's pretty pathological, IMO.

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

Hmm. Who could these people possibly be, calling Dr Webster a misogynist because he used derogatory language about a murderer?

It's infuriating. A man can criticise a woman, and it not be misogyny. Women are human, and therefore they can be evil, bad, or wrong and deserve to be held to account if so. It is not feminism to put women beyond being held accountable for crimes.

 

[Deleted member 194006]

Thanks for responding.

I think your post illustrates exactly what I was talking about, in terms of relying on speculation and misrepresentation of evidence.

You say "She bought her dehydrator the very day she looked up and ended up foraging the Death Caps" - but this isn't true! It's not disputed that Erin bought the dehydrator on that day, but the prosecution didn't present any evidence that Erin looked up the posts on iNaturalist. You can't just state something as fact when there's no evidence supporting it.

You also mention triangulation of cellphone tower data, but that's not true either. Matthew Sorrell testified that Erin's phone was only connecting to one "base station" at a time and it wasn't possible to do any triangulation. That's why he was only able to give approximate locations.

Erin might well have done it, I don't know. I'm just interested in the actual evidence, not outright falsehoods.

Please see my posts - I’ve outlined the differences between speculating and inferring. It also answers the questions you have put here.

 

[Deleted member 194006]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

I think the people who still think she is innocent don’t understand, or choose to ignore, how the justice system works.

Those still defending her either can’t clearly explain why they think she is innocent of murder or just don’t understand what jurors are allowed to and not allowed to do.

Also, I wonder whether personal things come into play regarding their reasoning skills.

 

[Two SCents]

I just want to say...

Examining the evidence at trial and wondering how the jury came to their conclusions, DOES NOT make you a SUPPORTER of Erin Patterson's.

 

[LinasK]

Thanks for responding.

I think your post illustrates exactly what I was talking about, in terms of relying on speculation and misrepresentation of evidence.

You say "She bought her dehydrator the very day she looked up and ended up foraging the Death Caps" - but this isn't true! It's not disputed that Erin bought the dehydrator on that day, but the prosecution didn't present any evidence that Erin looked up the posts on iNaturalist. You can't just state something as fact when there's no evidence supporting it.

You also mention triangulation of cellphone tower data, but that's not true either. Matthew Sorrell testified that Erin's phone was only connecting to one "base station" at a time and it wasn't possible to do any triangulation. That's why he was only able to give approximate locations.

Erin might well have done it, I don't know. I'm just interested in the actual evidence, not outright falsehoods.

Okay if Erin wasn't the one on INaturalist, who did access her computer then? Her kids didn't like mushrooms, and she immediately ordered Pub food, so I think we can infer that it was Erin who had the interest in using INaturalist.

As far as the cell phone data, it CAN indicate time of day and direction of travel. None of which is exculpatory for Erin. These AREN'T "falsehoods" and 12 jurors of her peers convicted her on this evidence. You aren't re-litigating the evidence.

 

[Bekind89]

I honestly think they have to be mentally disturbed.

Maybe they see traits in Erin that they have themselves and that makes them defend them

Richard Allen , the Delphi Murderer, has an entire group of supporters as well who scream that he was framed by corrupt LE of Delphi.
He confessed over 60 times to anyone with a set of ears, was video taped by his victims stalking them across the MHB, but no, totally innocent they insist.
I don't understand it and I never will.

 

[wallyworld]

What upsets me is that people have actually made formal complaints against the doctor, for notifying the police in the first place that EP might have poisoned the patients he was treating, and then for testifying at EP's trial. The complaints range from accusations of misogyny (?????) to claims that he violated patient confidentiality by telling police what EP had told him. Unbelievable. Would these people have preferred that the doctor remained silent and let EP continue to murder people?

It is all part of the blame game. Not happy with the verdict, so let's start looking for people to blame. The doctor exercised his duty of care by reporting his suspicions.

 

[LinasK]

I just want to say...

Examining the evidence at trial and wondering how the jury came to their conclusions, DOES NOT make you a SUPPORTER of Erin Patterson's.

Well unless Australia permits jurors to give post-trial interviews, like they can in the US, you'll never know how they came to their conclusions.

 

[wallyworld]

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.

<modsnip> If you have followed the whole trial, we have all heard the same evidence. It all comes down to interpretation. It isn't our decision that counts; it was that of the Jury.

 

[Bekind89]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>
Can you imagine what poor Simon has gone through with her even before the poisoning?
People like Erin are simply exhausting. You start to just give up and agree with them to avoid all of the arguments.

 

[Detechtive]

<modsnip>
Can you imagine what poor Simon has gone through with her even before the poisoning?
People like Erin are simply exhausting. You start to just give up and agree with them to avoid all of the arguments.

I know too well. When I was friends with her she would go off the deep end over the smallest stuff. Then it would be this exhausting multiple day ordeal with multi paragraph explanations and rationalisations. So exhausting. I ended up just noping out of those arguments and stopped confronting her because it was too exhausting, not because she was convincing.

 

[wallyworld]

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.

That phone has got to be somewhere..... wouldn't it be wonderful if it turned up one day. Highly unlikely, though. She more than likely put it in a sanitary waste bin and it has been incinerated.

 

[Bekind89]

I know too well. When I was friends with her she would go off the deep end over the smallest stuff. Then it would be this exhausting multiple day ordeal with multi paragraph explanations and rationalisations. So exhausting. I ended up just noping out of those arguments and stopped confronting her because it was too exhausting, not because she was convincing.

A psych eval on her would be fascinating to read.

 

[Detechtive]

A psych eval on her would be fascinating to read.

We will likely be getting an insight into her psych eval during sentencing. IMO

 

[musicaljoke]

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.

Juries consider whether the evidence, even if circumstantial, is consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence. There certainly was a solid amount of evidence presented in which guilt was the only reasonable inference.

 

[mmatk]

Examining the evidence at trial and wondering how the jury came to their conclusions, DOES NOT make you a SUPPORTER of Erin Patterson's.

Exactly. I don't really have an opinion about whether Erin did it, I just came away from the trial very unimpressed by the prosecution's evidence and am wondering how a jury would get to beyond reasonable doubt. I came here because you all seem very convinced and I hoped I might get some answers, but so far it's just been personal attacks and overstating the evidence.

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?

This is a good question! It depends whether you believe Erin's testimony or not. She says she has an eating disorder and vomited after the lunch, I happen to find that believable because it's consistent with her other behaviour (eg having an existing appointment at a clinic for possible cosmetic medical intervention). The prosecution never presented any evidence to refute this (eg evidence that Erin didn't have an eating disorder, or that vomiting wouldn't have stopped absorption of the amatoxins), so I lean towards it being the most plausible explanation.

I also think we need to be careful not to make blanket statements like 'Erin never got death cap poisoning". She was treated in hospital and had symptoms consistent with death cap poisoning, albeit much milder than the others. Remember it was established during the trial there are 4 levels of death cap poisoning and not all patients reach beyond the first level. Also note there were beta-amanatins in the leftovers at Erin's house.

 

[Bekind89]

Juries consider whether the evidence, even if circumstantial, is consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence. There certainly was a solid amount of evidence presented in which guilt was the only reasonable inference.

She also certainly didn't do herself any favors by taking the stand testifying. Jmo.

 

[jesse]

In the photo of Erin in the police vehicle after the verdicts , she is reading a large book. After just being found guilty on 4 charges, I find it a bit weird, that she can calmly read. It seems rather cold and detached behaviour IMO

The photo was taken in May, not on verdict day.

 

[SilentHill]

Erin might well have done it, I don't know. I'm just interested in the actual evidence, not outright falsehoods.

That's an interesting take considering the actual evidence also includes outright falsehoods by the one and only convicted murderer herself.