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

[Jake18]

Many of us have discussed this here over the months. I think they were the actions of a pre-meditated killer who thought that their crime was not ever going to be discovered or known so quickly.

The bit that took EP by surprise and she failed to account for is that SP had already shared his concerns with Don that he'd previously been poisoned by EP, that all the victims gained rapid medical intervention and that medical staff were immediately alerted to the concept of some form of poison / toxin delivered via food.

Were it not for that direct and swift action (which still yet did not save three lives sadly), EP would have got away with her crime. So, she was very nearly correct in her planning. She nearly got away with it!

JMO MOO

Don’t forget the young medical registrar on night shift as well - Dr Beth Morgan? - she was looking after Don and Gail and notified toxicology when they got sicker instead of better and their tests showed signs of liver damage with rapidly rising lactate and worsening liver functions. She talked to Dr Webster (or Dr Webster’s colleagues) as well.

 

[Neet_Mc]

What do you all think would have been on Erin's phone/ sim card that she discarded?
Police still retrieved the dehydrated mushroom photos, inaturalist look ups, messages and photos shared with her Facebook friends. What more incriminating evidence would the phone have held?

Perhaps a journal. Perhaps a series of notes on mass of mushrooms wet weight v dehydrated.

 

[JBowie]

Former Victorian Chief Magistrate on murder mushroom verdict
[7 Sunrise]

What he has to say about appeals is instructive.

 

[Monstradamus]

Former Victorian Chief Magistrate on murder mushroom verdict
[7 Sunrise]

What he has to say about appeals is instructive.

Interesting. He also says Life, with maybe a chance of Parole. LWOP would be more fitting to the crime, imo.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Your comments about Erin's actions post-lunch are interesting. For me, those actions are evidence against Erin's guilt, not in favour of it. The actions are consistent with a person who accidentally poisoned her family, then panicked and tried to hide it so she wouldn't lose her kids. They're not the actions of a premeditated killer.

I agree.

 

[Baby baby Jane]

I don't agree that it is unknowable. That is what trial's are for.

Yes, for you it created reasonable doubt. But apparently the jurors, who listened to every word of testimony and saw every picture and video, it was enough to clear the bar of BEYOND reasonable doubt.

Apparently they couldn't? How can we say the prosecution failed when they delivered a unanimous Guilty Verdict?

There were a few obvious motives that became evident. Basic ordinary ones, like a woman and mother going through divorce and wanting no interference from her ex and his family. She took the kids out of the religious school and moved them further away from her in-laws---seemed like she was moving on from them.

It also became apparent that EP was a habitual, if not pathological liar. And she had anger issues that we saw pop up. It created the possibility that she had emotional disorders which would mean she did not need a logical or rational motivation to do this compulsive act. IMO

Intent was shown in several ways.
--Buying the dehydrator but then lying about it's very existence. And tipping it.
--Spending so much time learning to 'hide' mushrooms in people's food in order to fool them.
--Looking up info about Death Caps but then claiming she accidentally picked some ---
--Picking wild mushrooms but never identifying them or checking them for safety, just putting the in her pantry to serve to others
--Lying to the guests about her cancer scare in order to lure them to her luncheon
--Then lying about her scheduled bariatric surgery to explain her Cancer Lie
--Making sure her kids are not at the lunch, to protect them, then backtracking later and denying she did so
--The mismatched plates
--Pretending to have 'explosive poo' every 10 minutes, but then putting on white pants to go on a 3 hour road trip
--Feeding her kids the leftovers, even though she knew her lunch guests were severely ill
--Lying to the Doctors, CPS and Public Health officials about the source of the poison
--Making up stories about the elusive Asian Market full of deadly dried mushrooms

And I'm sure there is more...


They blew her story apart, imo. She looked very much like a deceitful, dishonest person.

You ignored so much of the incriminating evidence apparently.

Evidently it was enough to clear the bar because she was convicted.

She should have done so. She probably would not have been charged with murder if so.

Why didn't she do so since she DID, in fact, serve them foraged mushrooms. Do you have a theory why she didn't just own up to her mistake?

I have one. I think she has some personality disorders which made it hard for her to admit anything. She wanted to walk away free. No accountability. That was her goal, imo

That was months ago. She may not have had her plan fully thought out yet. At the time she was just ibuying a kitchen appliance. She did not think it through apparently.She had no idea it would/could tie back to her.

How many mass murders have you followed? It is entirely 'normal' for the perpetrator to have an organised, methodical plan, but somehow messes up here and there. So it makes total sense to me.

She overlooked the importance of the dehydrator because she underestimated the hospital's ability to focus in on death caps so freaking quickly. It did put her in a tail spin because she had not planned for that.

Murderers do not usually have convincing logical reasons for doing such things. Murder makes no sense to rational people.



Those questions can only make sense if you think non rationally about it. There is no logic involved.

Erin felt disrespected by her ex and her in-laws, IMO. She did not want them to continue to interfere in her parenting decisions. She did not want the kids bonding with her in-laws and their religious views. Erin wanted to part ways. And she wanted to move on so in her illogical, devious way of thinking, it made sense. As she said "she was done with them.'

Highlighting the lies or testimony where EP says others are mistaken would have been an important step in jury decision making.

If the jury decides EP is lying for any of EP claims, they then remove her “evidence” and rely on prosecution.

For example
-the roadside bush poop. Her son didn’t mention it, EP says he was mistaken - remove this one proof of diarrhea.
-EP says SP accused her of using the dehydrator to kill parents. He denies saying it. Remove this reason for chucking dehydrator.
-Lying about cancer as purpose for lunch
-Disagreeing about plate color.
Etc

If jury chose to discard testimony where it’s very likely EP is lying because others have no motive. It could have helped in decision making, EP defense becomes very weak.

Erin didn’t have diarrhea during long car journey
EP threw out dehydrator because she knew she used it DC drying
Lunch purpose was to get all the Pattersons at her house for purpose other than cancer
The plates were as guests described
Etc

IMO weighing her testimony, and disregarding where she lied, just removing from it, makes decisions easier.

 

[Tortoise]

Post mushroom trial, experts suggest changes to location sharing on iNaturalist

Experts are weighing up whether to continue posting the locations of poisonous mushrooms on public databases like iNaturalist in the wake of the Erin Patterson trial.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Lisa4]

<modsnip>

As I said, I don't have a strong opinion on whether Erin actually murdered anyone. It's essentially unknowable. What has struck me though is the lack of evidence against her. For me, it's enough to create reasonable doubt.

Prior to the trial I was actually on the side of guilt. It's such a compelling story when you zoom out - 5 people have lunch and they all get really sick except the cook. But in a trial, you can't just rely on narrative, you have to focus on each individual action and introduce evidence to prove them. I thought the prosecution was going to be able to do that, but apparently they couldn't.

10 weeks of trial, and the prosecution was never able to point to any real motive, never able to show any evidence regarding intent, never able to conclusively disprove Erin's version of the story. All they could do was show a few flimsy items (eg two messages venting on facebook, vague cellphone pings) and ask the jury to draw inferences from there.

Inferring stuff is fine, but when your entire case depends on it,. The reason why this case is so interesting is that it's completely based on needing to prove intent. It's not disputed that Erin killed people, it's only disputed that she did so with intent. But the prosecution had very little direct evidence that spoke to intent. Usually, when circumstantial evidence is presented a jury is asked to make inferences to fill in gaps between direct evidence, but in this case there was basically no direct evidence to rest on and the jury was essentially asked to completely infer intent. I don't think that's enough to clear the bar of the highest possible legal standard.

If you were to ask me to make a positive case for Erin's innocence, I'm not sure I can do it without making the same errors as the prosecution (i.e. relying on baseless speculation). But of course defendants don't need to make a case for their innocence.

I suppose the best I can do is point out that Erin's story of an accidental poisoning seems to fit the facts better than the prosecution narrative of Erin as a smart, calculating murderer. If Erin had actually wanted to murder people, she would have immediately told the police she used foraged mushrooms and tried to play the whole thing off as a mistake. She certainly wouldn't have bought a dehydrator with her own card and then posted photos of it. Sure, sometimes people do stupid things, but the prosecution argument wasn't that Erin was a bumbling idiot who had a go at poisoning people, it was that she was a cold blooded killer who spent over a year planning this. Just doesn't make sense to me.

And that's without getting into the lack of motive. Nobody has been able to give a convincing reason why she would want to murder people. There's a couple of facebook messages, but that's not sufficient to override the rest of the evidence showing she had a good relationship with her in-laws. And why kill Heather and Ian too?

Hello mmatk
Thank you so very much for responding. You may know from my other posts that I do believe she is guilty and I 100% stand by that. However, I really appreciate you for taking the time to explain why you think what you think. It is critically important to me that we should always attempt to understand others' reasonings.

As I said, I wouldn't try and argue or persuade. I do want to just quietly say that I hope for your own peace of mind that you do consider and keep an open mind, and one day may find something that helps you accept what is the sad and awful truth of this situation. KR... Lisa.

 

[MrJ]

Post mushroom trial, experts suggest changes to location sharing on iNaturalist

Experts are weighing up whether to continue posting the locations of poisonous mushrooms on public databases like iNaturalist in the wake of the Erin Patterson trial.

www.abc.net.au

I think that, to be honest, they should keep precise locations up. It's a situation of one lone murderer ruining things for thousands of users who very probably don't intend anything nefarious. Removing poisonous mushrooms is an issue of public safety.

 

[MrJ]

I can just picture the sentencing hearing 'mitigating factors' being:
1. EP's pillow in her cell isn't fluffy enough
2. Her new diagnosis of elbow chicken pox
3. That she can't have photos of mushrooms on her cell walls
4. That not enough people are sympathetic to this hard-done-by ordinary wife and mum
and importantly
5. that Nanette Rogers was MEAN to her

 

[Two SCents]

Post mushroom trial, experts suggest changes to location sharing on iNaturalist

Experts are weighing up whether to continue posting the locations of poisonous mushrooms on public databases like iNaturalist in the wake of the Erin Patterson trial.

www.abc.net.au

Unpopular idea I'm sure... just thinking it might possibly one day be a recommendation.

Death caps have a symbiotic relationship with exotic oak species introduced from Europe. Death caps could probably be eradicated if the oaks required for symbiosis were declared a noxious weed, similar to other introduced species such as the South African Tulip tree which is poisonous to our bees.

 

[303gmf]

It's my opinion that she STILL thought he was going to attend or pop in until the guests left that day. Or even later. He was dropping their daughter back later in the day, and her guilt laden text the night previous were clearly to force him to come IMO.

Or sent home to him as a leftover

 

[dothetime]

No, its not the egg shells part. I mean all these cooking-related prison stories coming out about her. Highly doubt she's ever been let near the kitchen.

I feel like fellow prisoners might be making up stories. Another poster shared a link saying the prison themselves have denied it.

Thinking of the meals that Erin had cooked for Simon which made him violently ill, needing hospital admissions and treatments. (Two times I think was mentioned he nearly died).

November 2021- Penne Pasta Bolognese - Then May 2022 'His chosen meal' making me think he asked for that to be cooked, not sure what that was.

The Beef Stew meal Erin made in July 2022, the Chicken wrap she made on September 2022.

Did she cook those solely for Simon, as for sure she or their children were never mentioned to have been rushed into hospital desperately ill as he was.

And finally the cookies she said were made by their daughter.
Erin continually asked him, via phone, if he had eaten them yet. Luckily he had his strong suspicions and threw those away.

I have no doubt whatsoever that Erin is guilty as charged.

My heart goes out to Simon and his children for the dreadful loss of his Mum/Grandma, Dad/Granddad and Auntie/Great auntie (God bless them).
And now in the realisation that those 5 attempts on his health/life causing him such severe illness was more than likely caused by Erin.

My thoughts and prayers are with Ian for all he has been through, and still going through. (God bless his wife Heather).

Ian and Heather (invited to the tragic lunch) / Eitan and Heather (Erin's parents.) I just realised if you take away her father, Eitan's, 't' the names are the same . . . !

 

[MaxDecimus13]

I'm aware there isn't a legal requirement to prove motive. However, in a case entirely revolving around intent, with very little direct evidence, motive is very important. Or to put it another way, the lack of motive is very good evidence of lack of intent.

Your comments about Erin's actions post-lunch are interesting. For me, those actions are evidence against Erin's guilt, not in favour of it. The actions are consistent with a person who accidentally poisoned her family, then panicked and tried to hide it so she wouldn't lose her kids. They're not the actions of a premeditated killer.

I appreciate your perspective, and understand it but I do think you're not quite looking at it right.

Motive doesn't need to be proved and that's important. In the UK, the worst serial killer by number was Harold Shipman who murdered old people in a way that almost went undetected. There is no normal obvious motive for it to this day. However, the level of proof was so high that some of the more obscure motives must be true - in his case, they suspect he had a God complex.

For a good while, I was the person on here who argued from your perspective, as I didn't think the case was so cut and dry that we could consider some of these less likely motives. I also thought that her lack of planning for the aftermath, were factors that were strong for the defense.

I always suspected that she might have done it, but since the verdict I'm now almost certain that she did. As a result, I know suspect she must have had motives that are not obvious, and also that she didn't plan the aftermath well. However, that is easier to accept because she might have never thought it would be pinned to her.

I get how it is different from a jurors perspective, but I think the thing that you are discounting is the effect her lies and very shady behaviour (like wiping phones) had on her testimony. Not only did she lie to the police, but she was caught lying on the stand (about gastric-band) and almost certainly lying about factors such as how ill she was. The cumulative effect was that the jury were able to pretty much discount anything she said that wasn't backed up elsewhere. She had 2 years to concoct a story, and if I was a juror I would have thought the bulimia was part of that.

Evidence wise they had some significant things to go on: the fact that she didn't really get ill despite the others having a dose that caused horrendous damage; all medical staff said she didn't appear unwell at all. The fact that she made individual beef wellingtons and served them on different plates; the obvious lie as a pretense to getting them to the meal; her behaviour once it seemed she and her children might be in mortal danger etc.

 

[Moll]

I must say that, unlike Max, I do not appreciate the perspective of people who do not trouble to listen to the evidence that has been given and is clear - such as the fact that EP certainly did not show symptoms of death cap poisoning. I think this is a modern heresy - (the 'my truth' heresy, perhaps!) that anyone's opinion is as good as anyone else's regardless of their respective knowledge and understanding .

 

[JBowie]

Or sent home to him as a leftover

... and had she not tried to poison him before (as alleged by police) then he may well be dead now, too.

 

[CityKid]

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!

I agree. And he said she was "sociopathic" (which is not a medical diagnosis), not that she had antisocial personality disorder (which is a medical diagnosis).

 

[JBowie]

I think this is a modern heresy - (the 'my truth' heresy, perhaps!) that anyone's opinion is as good as anyone else's regardless of their respective knowledge and understanding .

I guess the right to express one's opinion is the point and is essentially the basis of democracy.

Similarly there's the right to simply ignore an opinion, too.

 

[Moll]

I guess the right to express one's opinion is the point and is essentially the basis of democracy.

Similarly there's the right to simply ignore an opinion, too.

I didn't argue with that first point. I'm saying, an ignorant opinion does not have to be appreciated, and exercising my right to express my non-appreciation!

 

[JBowie]

I didn't argue with that first point. I'm saying, an ignorant opinion does not have to be appreciated, and exercising my right to express my non-appreciation!

True. However, when an expressed opinion is so contrary to my take on something, I choose to simply ignore it.

Some people, especially on the interweb, publish directly opposite views simply to stir. Those are the ones that I choose to ignore completely. "Don't feed them" is the usual advice.