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

[browneyes]

When is the next hearing or sentencing?

 

[Lisa4]

Okay going to put down how I think she saw it.

In brief -

Single narcissistic mum wants to live rest of her life with sole control and no interference from children's relatives.

How to achieve:

1. Deathcaps -
a) symptoms appear as contagious gastro so no reason any suspicion will fall on her
b) guaranteed to work as they won't get treated in time
c) not traceable
d) easily obtainable and no paper trail

2. Dehydrator - dried so they are available to hand when the time is right

3. Beef wellingtons - individual serves ensuring plotter can safely partake of the meal

4. Cancer story - plausible excuse for children not to attend meal. (ETA note - not to lure the guests)

 

[browneyes]

I don't understand this blind deference to a jury trial verdict. Plenty of innocent people have been convicted by a jury. And even if someone is actually guilty, a verdict doesn't necessarily mean every aspect of the prosecution's case has been proven to be true.

Someone's state of mind is fundamentally unknowable, IMO. You can make reasonable inferences about it, but you may never actually know for sure. But that might just be a philosophical difference between us.


This is an extremely weak argument for a motive. Even the prosecution admitted (in opening statements) it didn't have a motive for Erin. In those circumstances, I'm pretty comfortable stating there wasn't a motive. A motive isn't required for a conviction, obviously, but lack of motive is evidence against intent.

I agree with you about the lying though. I suspect it was basically what caused the jury to land on guilty. If you don't believe anything Erin says, all you are left with is the prosecution's murder narrative, which as I've admitted before is very compelling when zoomed out.


Thanks for the list (not sarcasm, it's actually useful to have everything laid out). That's essentially what the prosecution did at trial: Zoom out, provide a long list of circumstantial evidence and ask the jury to fill in the gaps. The problem with that approach is it encourages hindsight reasoning (working backwards from an intended result).

When you actually examine these items, a lot of them are either irrelevant, incorrect, or have an alternative benign explanation (granted, you need to believe some of what Erin said to accept those explanations. As above, I understand why some people might not do that).

For example: The cancer story. You say Erin lied to her guests about having cancer "in order to lure them to her luncheon", but that's incorrect. The only testimony we have about the cancer is Ian's, and he said Erin did not mention it until after everyone had finished eating. Erin didn't need the cancer story to "lure" people to lunch, by all accounts they came willingly. That is, except for Simon, who Erin did tell she had medical news. She didn't say cancer though.

Another example: The plates. First of all, Ian's story about the plates hasn't been proven. The police search of Erin's house didn't show plates matching Ian's description, and Erin's son's police interview disagrees with Ian too. But more importantly, it is totally reasonable to conclude Erin just didn't have 5 matching plates. Simon confirmed she had mismatching plate sets under cross-examination. Personally, I don't have 5 matching plates in my house either. If I was serving a meal for 5 people, I would definitely give my guests the matching plates and eat off the odd one myself. Erin's behaviour here is only suspicious if you already assume she is guilty. It's just not relevant.

One more, just to illustrate what I categorised above as something with a possible benign explanation: The Asian grocer. Erin's testimony was that, as far as she knew, she did use dried mushrooms from an Asian grocer in the meal, and so that's what she initially told medical staff. It was only later she realised she might have accidentally use foraged mushrooms as well. You might not believe Erin's testimony, but for me her story is more plausible than the prosecution's contention that Erin deliberately led authorities on a wild goose chase for purchased mushrooms so she could cover up the murders. As I've said before, if Erin was trying to cover up murders she would have immediately admitted to foraging.


Disagree. The prosecution didn't blow Erin's story apart, if nothing else than because it didn't have the opportunity to do so. You might say that's not fair, but that's how criminal trials work.


I don't need to come up with my own theory about why she didn't immediately own up - the defence presented one. Once Erin realised there might have been foraged mushrooms in the meal, she panicked and tried to shield herself from allegations of being a danger to her kids.

As above, if Erin had wanted to "walk away free", she would have admitted foraging, not lied about it.


That's not consistent with the prosecution's case though. The prosecution said Erin deliberately harvested death caps and purchased the dehydrator on that same day, it wasn't just an innocent household purchase. You can't have it both ways.


I agree, it is normal. But that's not what the prosecution alleged here. There wasn't just a couple of little mistakes, there was a whole litany of bizarre actions that directly contradict the prosecution's story of Erin as a calculating person who planned the murders for over a year.

I've thought about this some more, and I think there might be a case to be made that Erin was actually a bumbling idiot type killer. Someone who did things on the fly and never thought much about what story she needed to tell to get out of it or what evidence to dispose of. She might even have just meant to make her guests sick rather than kill them. That would at least be consistent with the facts. The problem is, that's not what the prosecution alleged.

Verdicts are based on the totality of the evidence…beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Lisa4]

Hey. She must have known all along she was going to miss church that Sunday - because the flying lesson was booked.

 

[SouthAussie]

When is the next hearing or sentencing?

I think the next hearing will likely be during the 1st week of August. To decide when the sentencing will happen. The judge is taking some leave before that.


“She’ll be put in that prison van and she’ll travel to Dame Phyllis Frost. And there we are, unlikely to see her again until about August.

“That’s when her next court hearing has been scheduled. So of course, if she was found not guilty, she’d walk free. But now that she’s been found guilty, the next part in the court process is to set a plea hearing or a pre-sentence hearing.

“That’s when we’re expecting to hear victim impact statements from family members affected by this tragedy. And then after that, we’ll proceed to sentence.

“But sometimes that takes a while. So the first hearing will be in August, and that’s just a mention to discuss these proceedings going forward. But she potentially could appear at that in person. So she would need to be brought in a prison van for that as well.”

*************************************

From 19:42 ish Says in this video that Justice Beale is going on leave & a pre-sentence hearing will probably be in the 1st week of August

Link

 

[Scooby-Doo]

​

Jury verdict as easy as A, B, C, D, E, F, G says Crown Prosecutor​

Dr Rogers concluded her closing remarks, the last time the prosecution will be heard in the trial, following a presentation which took almost exactly a day and a half.

And she finished with a flourish claiming that the accused had come up with a narrative that attempted to fit the evidence already assembled against her, and if not to say she couldn’t remember or to reject the accounts given by others, even her own children.

Ultimately, she gave the jury an A, B, C, D, E, F and G guide to why they should reject the proposition that it was just a terrible accident that death cap mushrooms found their way into the meal, as follows:

A. She had prepared and allocated the meal

B. She was the only person to eat the meal without getting seriously ill

C. She knew how to use the iNaturalist website to find death cap mushrooms in her local area

D. Cell phone tower data was consistent with her visiting and remaining in those areas long enough to forage for mushrooms

E. There were remnants of death cap mushrooms in the dehydrator

F. The extent she went to concealing her primary mobile phone from police

G. The many lies that she told along the way.

She claimed Erin Patterson deliberately sourced death cap mushrooms for the meal and deliberately served death cap mushrooms to her lunch guests Don and Gail Patterson and Ian and Heather Wilkinson with the intention of killing them or causing them serious harm.

This, she said, should lead the jury to finding the accused guilty.

‘Are you making this up as you go along, Ms Patterson?’​

Dr Rogers had been probing Mrs Patterson about her invitation to her husband Simon on July 16, 2023, about also attending the lunch,

which he ultimately declined, saying on July 28, the day before the lunch date, that while he felt “too uncomfortable about coming to the lunch with you, mum, dad, Heather and Ian tomorrow”,

He was still happy to “talk about your health and implications of that at another time.”

Dr Rogers put it to Mrs Patterson that it was a lie that she had medical issues to discuss with Simon, a reference to an exchange she had with Mrs Patterson a day earlier about messages between Simon’s mother Gail and Erin early in July 2023 about an alleged lump on her arm and medical tests including an MRI and needle biopsy that proved to be fictitious.

• “In this message (July 7, 2023), you purported to carry on the fiction of having a very serious illness, did you not?” asked Dr Rogers.
• “Yeah, that's fair,” said Erin.

Dr Rogers had also been probing Mrs Patterson about claims she told the lunch guests she had a diagnosis for cancer.

Mrs Patterson denied she said she had a diagnosis for cancer but acknowledged she told them she had some treatment coming up.

• “You wanted your lunch guests, I suggest, to believe that you would be having treatment for cancer, agree or disagree?” asked Dr Rogers.
• “Yeah, I agree with that,” said Erin.

She followed later with this accusation, which Mrs Patterson denied.

• “I suggest that you never thought you would have to account for this lie about having cancer because you thought that the lunch guests would die?” said Dr Rogers.
• “That's not true,” said Erin.
• “And your lie would never be found out; correct or incorrect?”
• “That's not true.”

That morphed into further questioning on Friday by Dr Rogers about what medical issues may or may not have existed before the meal.

• “But you weren't confronting any medical issues, were you; correct?” asked Dr Rogers.

Erin gave a “yeah, no, yeah” answer, saying she was going to have gastric bypass surgery soon, for which she had a pre-surgery appointment in September 2023 at the Enrich Clinic in Melbourne, a response to her weight loss worries, she said.

Fast-forward to Tuesday this week, and Dr Rogers put it to Mrs Patterson that the Enrich Clinic in Howitt Street South Yarra was a cosmetic dermatology clinic, and that they didn’t offer gastric by-pass or gastric sleeve surgery, nor do they conduct assessments for such procedures.

Mrs Patterson admitted to being “puzzled” by that, saying that perhaps it was a different procedure, that she was looking into liposuction as well.

• “When you gave sworn evidence to this jury last Friday that you had a pre-surgery appointment for gastric bypass surgery booked in for early September with the Enrich Clinic in Melbourne, that was a lie; agree or disagree?” asked Dr Rogers.
• “No, it wasn't a lie. That's what my memory was,” said Erin.

Dr Rogers continued probing Mrs Patterson about other aspects of the case, including Erin searching the iNaturalist website for references to death cap mushrooms, including at Moorabbin at 7.20pm on May 28, 2023,

And three minutes later putting in an order of food from the Korumburra Middle Pub in Korumburra.

• “You did that for this iNaturalist post about death cap mushrooms in Moorabbin, correct or incorrect?”
• “Well, somebody did, and that somebody could have been me.”

Dr Rogers also asked Erin Patterson about the plates used for the meal and claims made by the only surviving lunch guest, Ian Wilkinson, that the guests had all been served on large, grey plates, and Erin on a smaller orangey-tan plate.

Dr Rogers reminded Mrs Patterson of her evidence that she said she only owned “couple of black, a couple of white, one that's red on top and black underneath” and one that her daughter had made at kindergarten.

• “The only way I can reconcile that is if I had had [daughter's] kindergarten plate, but that looks nothing like what Ian described.”

But Mrs Patterson had earlier repeated that she couldn’t remember which plate she ate her own meal from at the lunch.

There followed a string of accusations by Dr Rogers:

• Dr Rogers: I suggest that after you had plated the food, you carried the smaller plate over to the dining table for yourself, agree or disagree?
• Erin Patterson: There was no smaller plate.
• Dr Rogers: And you ate from that plate, agree or disagree?
• Erin Patterson: Incorrect.
• Dr Rogers: I suggest that you knowingly served death cap mushrooms in the four separate beef Wellingtons you dished up to your four lunch guests, agree or disagree?
• Erin Patterson: Disagree.
• Dr Rogers: And that you served yourself a beef Wellington which did not have death cap mushrooms in it, agree or disagree?
• Erin Patterson: Disagree.
• Dr Rogers: And you knew that did not contain death cap mushrooms, agree or disagree?
• Erin Patterson: Disagree.
• Dr Rogers: And I suggest that to avoid any, error, in case you accidentally ate one of the poisoned beef Wellingtons, you took the extra precaution of using a different and smaller plate to plate your non-poisoned serve, correct or incorrect?
• Erin Patterson: Incorrect.
• Dr Rogers: And that is why you never suffered the severe illnesses that Donald, Gail, Ian and Heather suffered, correct or incorrect?
• Erin Patterson: Incorrect.
• Dr Rogers: And that's why you did not have amanita phalloides poisoning, correct or incorrect?
• Erin Patterson: Incorrect.

Mrs Patterson was also asked about the leftovers in the bin and how much everyone ate.

Dr Rogers suggested Erin did not tell a single medical person that she had vomited up after the lunch and also quizzed her on the telephone exchange with husband Simon over who would pick up the children from school once it was identified they also needed to be assessed for exposure to mushroom poisoning.

• Rogers suggested that Patterson might have been able to source a whole cut of meat from a local butcher to prepare the beef Wellington as a log. “I may have been able to, but I don’t know,” Patterson said.
• Patterson said she bought a kilogram of sliced mushrooms from Woolworths and another 750 grams on two separate dates leading up to the fatal lunch on July 29, 2023. She said she ate a kilo of mushrooms between July 23 and July 27, leaving her with 750 grams for the recipe. Rogers suggested Patterson was lying about eating the mushrooms, which she denied.

• “I suggest that you paused because you realised that if you insisted on going to pick up the children, that it would undermine your being unwell?” said Dr Rogers.

Erin Patterson disagreed, noting that if she paused during the conversation, it might have been because she was put off by Simon’s sarcasm when he said: “I'm glad to hear you're well enough to drive to Phillip Island.”

This was on Monday, July 31, after Erin had presented at the Leongatha hospital, two days after the meal, complaining of diarrhoea and nausea.

• “Are you making this up as you go along, Ms Patterson?” asked Dr Rogers.
• “No,” said Erin.

Prosecutor Dr Nanette Rogers, SC cuts a solemn figure walking through heavy fog towards the courthouse

Mushroom murder trial: 'Are you making this up as you go along, Ms Patterson?' - South Gippsland Sentinel Times

ERIN Patterson, the Leongatha mother of two charged with the murders of three of her estranged husband’s relatives, and the attempted murder of another, was in the witness box for her sixth straight day on Tuesday, June 10. It was Day 29 of the...

www.sgst.com.au

Jury verdict as easy as A, B, C, D, E, F, G says Crown Prosecutor - South Gippsland Sentinel Times

THE prosecution wrapped up its case just before lunch on Day 33 of the marathon mushroom murder trial in the Supreme Court at Morwell on Tuesday this week. Crown Prosecutor Dr Nanette Rogers SC used the last moments of her closing submission to the...

www.sgst.com.au

 

[Two SCents]

Hey. She must have known all along she was going to miss church that Sunday - because the flying lesson was booked.

Church in the morning, flying lesson in the afternoon.

 

[LinasK]

I don't understand this blind deference to a jury trial verdict. Plenty of innocent people have been convicted by a jury. And even if someone is actually guilty, a verdict doesn't necessarily mean every aspect of the prosecution's case has been proven to be true.

Someone's state of mind is fundamentally unknowable, IMO. You can make reasonable inferences about it, but you may never actually know for sure. But that might just be a philosophical difference between us.


This is an extremely weak argument for a motive. Even the prosecution admitted (in opening statements) it didn't have a motive for Erin. In those circumstances, I'm pretty comfortable stating there wasn't a motive. A motive isn't required for a conviction, obviously, but lack of motive is evidence against intent.

I agree with you about the lying though. I suspect it was basically what caused the jury to land on guilty. If you don't believe anything Erin says, all you are left with is the prosecution's murder narrative, which as I've admitted before is very compelling when zoomed out.


Thanks for the list (not sarcasm, it's actually useful to have everything laid out). That's essentially what the prosecution did at trial: Zoom out, provide a long list of circumstantial evidence and ask the jury to fill in the gaps. The problem with that approach is it encourages hindsight reasoning (working backwards from an intended result).

When you actually examine these items, a lot of them are either irrelevant, incorrect, or have an alternative benign explanation (granted, you need to believe some of what Erin said to accept those explanations. As above, I understand why some people might not do that).

For example: The cancer story. You say Erin lied to her guests about having cancer "in order to lure them to her luncheon", but that's incorrect. The only testimony we have about the cancer is Ian's, and he said Erin did not mention it until after everyone had finished eating. Erin didn't need the cancer story to "lure" people to lunch, by all accounts they came willingly. That is, except for Simon, who Erin did tell she had medical news. She didn't say cancer though.

Another example: The plates. First of all, Ian's story about the plates hasn't been proven. The police search of Erin's house didn't show plates matching Ian's description, and Erin's son's police interview disagrees with Ian too. But more importantly, it is totally reasonable to conclude Erin just didn't have 5 matching plates. Simon confirmed she had mismatching plate sets under cross-examination. Personally, I don't have 5 matching plates in my house either. If I was serving a meal for 5 people, I would definitely give my guests the matching plates and eat off the odd one myself. Erin's behaviour here is only suspicious if you already assume she is guilty. It's just not relevant.

One more, just to illustrate what I categorised above as something with a possible benign explanation: The Asian grocer. Erin's testimony was that, as far as she knew, she did use dried mushrooms from an Asian grocer in the meal, and so that's what she initially told medical staff. It was only later she realised she might have accidentally use foraged mushrooms as well. You might not believe Erin's testimony, but for me her story is more plausible than the prosecution's contention that Erin deliberately led authorities on a wild goose chase for purchased mushrooms so she could cover up the murders. As I've said before, if Erin was trying to cover up murders she would have immediately admitted to foraging.


Disagree. The prosecution didn't blow Erin's story apart, if nothing else than because it didn't have the opportunity to do so. You might say that's not fair, but that's how criminal trials work.


I don't need to come up with my own theory about why she didn't immediately own up - the defence presented one. Once Erin realised there might have been foraged mushrooms in the meal, she panicked and tried to shield herself from allegations of being a danger to her kids.

As above, if Erin had wanted to "walk away free", she would have admitted foraging, not lied about it.


That's not consistent with the prosecution's case though. The prosecution said Erin deliberately harvested death caps and purchased the dehydrator on that same day, it wasn't just an innocent household purchase. You can't have it both ways.


I agree, it is normal. But that's not what the prosecution alleged here. There wasn't just a couple of little mistakes, there was a whole litany of bizarre actions that directly contradict the prosecution's story of Erin as a calculating person who planned the murders for over a year.

I've thought about this some more, and I think there might be a case to be made that Erin was actually a bumbling idiot type killer. Someone who did things on the fly and never thought much about what story she needed to tell to get out of it or what evidence to dispose of. She might even have just meant to make her guests sick rather than kill them. That would at least be consistent with the facts. The problem is, that's not what the prosecution alleged.

Juries do sometimes get it wrong, and sometimes verdicts are overturned. I don't believe either happened or will happen in this case. And the motive was obvious to me: Erin hated her in-laws and wanted to punish Simon as well, whether he lived or died. This is all about revenge, not money. She literally texted that she was "done" with this family. I believe the eyewitness Ian that Erin did bring up her Cancer lie. That was the motive to get them there. And I believe him about the different colored plates. Erin most likely disposed of them in her first trip to the dump 30 min after the meal. She's caught on surveillance camera dumping cardboard boxes of stuff.

 

[LinasK]

This is exactly the reason that I have always believed she is guilty. No parent anywhere on the planet would not panic at the slightest chance their children had ingested a deadly toxin and that parent would be rushing them to the hospital STAT.
But no, not Erin.
She didn't want to upset them. Guilty, guilty, guilty. Jmo.

Because Erin KNEW that they hadn't ingested any Death Caps, unlike her other chosen guests.

 

[Ellery84]

I think the next hearing will likely be during the 1st week of August. To decide when the sentencing will happen. The judge is taking some leave before that.


“She’ll be put in that prison van and she’ll travel to Dame Phyllis Frost. And there we are, unlikely to see her again until about August.

“That’s when her next court hearing has been scheduled. So of course, if she was found not guilty, she’d walk free. But now that she’s been found guilty, the next part in the court process is to set a plea hearing or a pre-sentence hearing.

“That’s when we’re expecting to hear victim impact statements from family members affected by this tragedy. And then after that, we’ll proceed to sentence.

“But sometimes that takes a while. So the first hearing will be in August, and that’s just a mention to discuss these proceedings going forward. But she potentially could appear at that in person. So she would need to be brought in a prison van for that as well.”

*************************************

From 19:42 ish Says in this video that Justice Beale is going on leave & a pre-sentence hearing will probably be in the 1st week of August

Link

You are fabulous - thank you!

 

[drsleuth]

Mushroom trial spawns toxic media hot takes after Erin Patterson’s guilty verdict | Weekly Beast

Coverage ranges from psychedelic gifs to ‘full-on Walking Dead-style zombie stuff’. Plus: is the ABC really listening?

www.theguardian.com

Mushroom trial spores toxic media hot takes after Erin Patterson’s guilty verdict​

Amanda Meade

The extraordinary photographs of the triple murderer in a prison van in May were published by every media outlet, bought from the wire agency AFP for more than $1,500 each or a discounted rate for the set of six.

 

[LadyL]

Know for certain, no; however, I suspect that she didn't know (edit: for sure) until the time of the lunch that he wasn't coming.

I base that on the fact that they found what was purportedly a spare Wellington in the trash (a poisoned one), and you have to prepare it ahead of time, so she'd likely have made his when she made the rest, assuming he'd attend. He only told her just the night before that he didn't plan to come, but then by her response, I still think she believed he'd give in and come.

On top of that, someone else pointed out that photos taken very soon after the lunch showed 6 chairs at the dining table, and that she'd likely have removed one for a formal meal if she had known in advance that one invitee wouldn't be attending.

Not proof positive, but those are the things I've seen elsewhere/speculated regarding this point.

[bbm]

that's interesting about removing the chair ... is that common in Australia? I've never seen that here in Canada

 

[Lisa4]

Church in the morning, flying lesson in the afternoon.

Ah ok thanks. Had assumed it was later that morning.

 

[SouthAussie]

I've thought about this some more, and I think there might be a case to be made that Erin was actually a bumbling idiot type killer. Someone who did things on the fly and never thought much about what story she needed to tell to get out of it or what evidence to dispose of. She might even have just meant to make her guests sick rather than kill them. That would at least be consistent with the facts. The problem is, that's not what the prosecution alleged.

I think that the prosecution does allege that Erin was a bumbling idiot type of killer.

imo

 

[Kemug]

I've always considered that she saw Heather and Ian as collateral damage. She invited them because no one would think she'd have motive to kill all four of them. It sounds preposterous.

Plus, she had maybe become full of hatred toward any and all of the Pattersons - they were just too pleasant and moral for her.

 

[Two SCents]

[bbm]

that's interesting about removing the chair ... is that common in Australia? I've never seen that here in Canada

Aussie here. I was surprised when I read about a chair being removed. I've never heard of this being done. Also, your average Aussie is not usually the formal dinner type.

 

[LinasK]

I think that the prosecution does allege that Erin was a bumbling idiot type of killer.

imo

Erin thought she planned well for the murder and was smarter than everyone. She didn't plan well for the after-math.

 

[LinasK]

Aussie here. I was surprised when I read about a chair being removed. I've never heard of this being done. Also, your average Aussie is not usually the formal dinner type.

Honestly, when I first learned of this murder, I was under the impression that she had served the luncheon outside in her garden.

 

[SilentHill]

Have we had any update yet on why Dr Rogers didn't attend the verdict hearing?

 

[browneyes]

I think the next hearing will likely be during the 1st week of August. To decide when the sentencing will happen. The judge is taking some leave before that.


“She’ll be put in that prison van and she’ll travel to Dame Phyllis Frost. And there we are, unlikely to see her again until about August.

“That’s when her next court hearing has been scheduled. So of course, if she was found not guilty, she’d walk free. But now that she’s been found guilty, the next part in the court process is to set a plea hearing or a pre-sentence hearing.

“That’s when we’re expecting to hear victim impact statements from family members affected by this tragedy. And then after that, we’ll proceed to sentence.

“But sometimes that takes a while. So the first hearing will be in August, and that’s just a mention to discuss these proceedings going forward. But she potentially could appear at that in person. So she would need to be brought in a prison van for that as well.”

*************************************

From 19:42 ish Says in this video that Justice Beale is going on leave & a pre-sentence hearing will probably be in the 1st week of August

Link

Thank you!