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

[Monstradamus]

Is the wall under a suppression order?

No.

 

[katydid23]

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.

It's not 'blind deference', it's respect for the time and energy they put into that process. They all know much more than you or I do about the evidence from the trial.

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.

Yep, let's chalk it up to a fundamental philosophical difference.

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.

You can only be 'comfortable' stating there was 'no motive' if you believe she is innocent. Another fundamental philosophical difference. ...

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.

The persistent lying did obviously damage her credibility. And the entire defense was was based upon her testimony, so ...

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).

Just because some of them have 'potentially' benign explanations, it does not mean those are the correct explanations. Once we have a long list of incriminating circumstances, it is hard to explain away every single one. As you noted, especially if the jury believes she is a liar.

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.

So? I wouldn't expect her to start with that cancer story. Serve lunch first---get the mission done, then relax and say whatever she wants. It's not like she has to talk to them anymore after that day.

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.

It had two purposes, IMO. The cancer story gave them a theme, and a reason to show up for the luncheon. They had to support her in her time of need. But it also gave an excuse for her to send the kids away while poison was served.

And I do believe she made a big mistake when she tried to deny that story about telling them she had medical issues to discuss. The P tore her apart with texts and messages where she had discussed upcoming medical issues and she had told the children they needed to leave so adults could talk, Who she disagreed with her kids testimony, and Simon's and Ian's about that---IT WAS A BAD MISTAKE BY HER.

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.

She dumped something 30 minutes after the lunch was over. It looked like it could have been the plates.

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.

I believe Heather because she had picked up on something being very suspicious. I take Heather and Ian's word over Erin's any day.

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.

NO, she initially said the mushrooms were from Woolies. It was later on that she said Asian market---and every time she told the story she said a different town.

It was only later she realised she might have accidentally use foraged mushrooms as well.

That makes no sense. Someone tells her that her lunch guests have severe mushroom poisoning, and she does not immediately know sh had foraged mushrooms in her pantry? Come on, that is not believable, in any way.

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.

That I^^^ s exactly what she did. Total wild goose chase, giving four different suburbs to search.
And there were never any Asian Market mushrooms anyway---totally bogus story

As I've said before, if Erin was trying to cover up murders she would have immediately admitted to foraging.

She should have but it is not in her nature to do so

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.

They blew it apart by asking her questions and letting her true self be revealed. She argued tiny details in a detailed fashion, while at same time claiming she had no idea where the Asian Market was--not even the town. But her memory about other past details was impeccable.

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.

She knew there were foraged mushrooms every moment. No need to 'remember' anything.

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

She should have done so but didn't.

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.

The prosecution is right. I was saying that at the moment she was buying it, she couldn't foresee that it would even matter that she was buying that innocent kitchen appliance. She was confident she could carry it out secretly.

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.

Erin is a sloppy, overly emotional, lazy criminal, IMO, who planned to use Death Caps 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.

If you want to make someone sick, you don't serve them blitzed Death Caps in their own personal hand made Beef Wellington. Death caps are one of the most toxic natural substances known to man.

 

[Moll]

Mushroom killer: How 'super sleuth' Erin Patterson became true crime obsession

A jury found Erin Patterson guilty on all charges - but the frenzy of speculation has only intensified.

www.bbc.co.uk

Not a helpful piece of work by the BBC, I'm sorry to say - it may hide under 'This what they're all saying!' but the effect IMO is that prejudice is at work in the verdict.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

Mushroom killer: How 'super sleuth' Erin Patterson became true crime obsession

A jury found Erin Patterson guilty on all charges - but the frenzy of speculation has only intensified.

www.bbc.co.uk

Not a helpful piece of work by the BBC, I'm sorry to say - it may hide under 'This what they're all saying!' but the effect IMO is that prejudice is at work in the verdict.

Absolutely, I read this before and thought the same. They gave an inordinate amount of time to some random woman from Switzerland.

Of course, the whole Lindy Chamberlain thing came up again. I've just finished listening to a whole series on this and have a bit of a different perspective than I had before.

For me, that whole fiasco was the result of 2 things mainly. A police force that had decided she was guilty, but more than that, highly flawed scientific evidence. Much is made of the witchhunt by ordinary Australians, but if they're being told that there was a spurt of baby blood in the car and scissored cuts to the baby grow then I'm not sure why they would have thought differently.

There will always be random cases that capture the publics imagination because they are so strange and intriguing. The nature of the level of interest will mean there is always a sensationalist and scandalous vibe. They don't always involve women, although those that do tend to have certain aspects that men's cases don't.

What they aren't, is a predictor of future miscarriages of justice. There are plenty of examples where actual witches are caught up in a witch hunt.

I think EP is one of them. Unlike Lindy, there has been no created version of events that went against eye-witnesses. She actually caused the deaths of 3 and nearly another. All that was at stake was whether there was intent or not. Evidence wise there is no spurious or disputed science. Literally, all she had going for her was a lack of obvious motive, and slapdash planning for the aftermath.

 

[Warshawski]

I wonder if EP had previously done SP's taxes until the 2022 financial year because she was a Book Keeper/Accountant? Perhaps another element of losing her control over Simon and his new-found freedom? Maybe even the catalyst for her perceived need for revenge?
MOO

I suggested way back that (imo) EP had ‘managed their books’, and therefore would have always done his Tax Return - until the time came in 2022 that Simon took a step out of her control ( after having been separated since 2015) and as part of his ‘independence’ he found his own accountant / tax agent.

I firmly believe that this was the ‘straw’ for Erin. … and it set in motion her determination to exercise her Control once & for all.
After all:
* Everyone in the region were imbeciles yet she had to try to navigate that / them in order to publish the Newsletter & keep the world on track
* Simon’s parents were no longer at her beck & call
(instead they were taking a path of no sides, and praying for her & Simon to communicate constructively in order to reach sound compromise & decisions)
* Simon was now pushing back on her demands & making his own independent decisions

She determined she was better off without them all and set out to develop (and carry out) her plan to ensure that none of them would any longer have involvement or influence in the lives of her or her children.

Our lives are built on the making of constant decisions - many of which are made subconsciously- but it’s the decisions we make that shape the course of our lives, In Good times & in Tuff times.

I wonder now as times goes on, how Erin will balance her previous life with Simon’s family members V her current situation of life behind bars!

 

[MaxDecimus13]

I've seen at least 2 references to 50gm of death cap mushrooms per person being the amount that would likely kill you. 5 intended victims = 250gm of death caps required. If they lose 90% of their weight when dehydrated, that then becomes 25gm of dehydrated death caps to do the job. Crush 25gm of dehydrated death caps, and it literally becomes just a sprinkle. I bet she either didn't do the maths, or sprinkled the allotted amount, decided it was way too little, and added a heap more to be sure.

50g would kill you but that isn't necessarily the required dose. An adult weighing 70kg could die from 7mg of amatoxins. A single mature deathcap (40-50g) can contain 10-12mg. This means that as little as 25g could deliver a fatal dose.

Gene family encoding the major toxins of lethal Amanita mushrooms - PMC

Amatoxins, the lethal constituents of poisonous mushrooms in the genus Amanita, are bicyclic octapeptides. Two genes in A. bisporigera, AMA1 and PHA1, directly encode α-amanitin, an amatoxin, and the related bicyclic heptapeptide phallacidin, a ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I've also done a bit of research myself, and 25g isn't close to a sprinkle. Obviously, I haven't powdered any mushrooms myself but if you look at the little spice jars that you buy in the shops they are a good indicator of size. For some lighter powders like chilli powder, 25g is nearly a whole jar and even for the heavier items like say powdered garlic granules 25g is nearly half a jar. I would suggest that powdered mushroom is quite light.

Per BW that seems far too much to realistically expect had been added.

Edit: I've just reread your post and noticed an error as you suggested 25mg for the whole thing.

The original video was suggesting each BW would need 100g of DC per portion as two guests died off only half a BW. This is what I disagreed with as it would still require quite a lot per BW.

This is roughly 10g of dried DC per BW, which chatGPT estimates to be 1-1.5 tablespoons per portion. I think that's too much to just stir in.

 

[Warshawski]

50g would kill you but that isn't necessarily the required dose. An adult weighing 70kg could die from 7mg of amatoxins. A single mature deathcap (40-50g) can contain 10-12mg. This means that as little as 25g could deliver a fatal dose.

Gene family encoding the major toxins of lethal Amanita mushrooms - PMC

Amatoxins, the lethal constituents of poisonous mushrooms in the genus Amanita, are bicyclic octapeptides. Two genes in A. bisporigera, AMA1 and PHA1, directly encode α-amanitin, an amatoxin, and the related bicyclic heptapeptide phallacidin, a ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I've also done a bit of research myself, and 25g isn't close to a sprinkle. Obviously, I haven't powdered any mushrooms myself but if you look at the little spice jars that you buy in the shops they are a good indicator of size. For some lighter powders like chilli powder, 25g is nearly a whole jar and even for the heavier items like say powdered garlic granules 25g is nearly half a jar. I would suggest that powdered mushroom is quite light.

Per BW that seems far too much to realistically expect had been added.

On tonight’s Ch 7 show a specialist said about 12 DC mushrooms would kill the 6 people

 

[Detechtive]

Is the wall under a suppression order?

No

 

[Warshawski]

Is it only me who thinks it Gary Jubelin narrating the Police Interviewer’s part in the Ch 7 show tonight ?

 

[MaxDecimus13]

On tonight’s Ch 7 show a specialist said about 12 DC mushrooms would kill the 6 people

Back of a cig packet maths:
12 x 30g (average is 20-40) = 360 grams.
Divided by 6 = 60 grams per person.
Reduced by 10 = 6g per BW.

It would be a more reasonable amount, but I suppose the issue is that Gail and Heather only had half. The original video suggested you'd therefore have to double the amount per BW, which I suspect you wouldn't.

What I would say, is that this has essentially caused even more doubt on EPs version. There is no way that she's just chucked in a few extra mushrooms for taste.

 

[Detechtive]

Back of a cig packet maths:
12 x 30g (average is 20-40) = 360 grams.
Divided by 6 = 60 grams per person.
Reduced by 10 = 6g per BW.

It would be a more reasonable amount, but I suppose the issue is that Gail and Heather only had half. The original video suggested you'd therefore have to double the amount per BW, which I suspect you wouldn't.

What I would say, is that this has essentially caused even more doubt on EPs version. There is no way that she's just chucked in a few extra mushrooms for taste.

I think your math is wrong. Dehydrating and 'powdering them' doesn't change the amount of death cap toxins contained in the mushrooms, it just takes the 90% of water out of them. So the 10g left is extremely concentrated amanitins.

We know that she had around 500gms of fresh deathcaps (because of her photos on the scales).

Fresh death cap mushrooms typically contain about 0.36 mg of amatoxins per gram in the cap, making even a 500 g portion contain roughly 180 mg of toxin

Given that the estimated lethal dose for humans is about 0.1 mg/kg—or around 7 mg for a 70 kg adult—this means that 500 g of fresh mushroom yields roughly 25 times, and the same in dry form yields over 100 times, the lethal dosage.

So, she had enough to kill (probably) 21 people (with maybe 4 survivors IF they had prompt medical attention) whether they were fresh or dried from the 500gm quantity.
IMO

 

[Ellery84]

Is it only me who thinks it Gary Jubelin narrating the Police Interviewer’s part in the Ch 7 show tonight ?

I don’t think it is him. But I mean, it’s something he would do.
IMO

 

[Ellery84]

she had enough to kill 25 people whether they were fresh or dried

Sheesh, she must have been very surprised that Ian pulled through. IMO

 

[Detechtive]

Each person would have had 4.3 x the lethal dosage (because she had enough to kill maybe 25 people, but each persons pasty/pie (6) only contained about 4.3 x the lethal dose). So that's why Gail and Heather still succumbed. But out of 6 people eating 4.3 x the lethal dosage, you would still expect maybe one to survive with prompt medical attention.
Ian was just purely lucky. If Simon ate the extra one she made for him, still, only 1 of the 6 could have theoretically survived (maybe, with a lot of luck!).

Men metabolise poisons differently due to body weight, muscle mass, but also hormonal differences. The women were always going to be more at risk.

Like I said a while back - this was overkill. IMO

 

[Detechtive]

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.

Can you list out the amount of incorrect jury decisions in Australia? As a percentage, please? Curious to see how you quantify "plenty".

As far as I know, only a few people have had convictions overturned in the last 30 years. One of which was clearly guilty (Kathleen Folbigg), and ... I can't remember any others.

 

[Detechtive]

It's not 'blind deference', it's respect for the time and energy they put into that process. They all know much more than you or I do about the evidence from the trial.

Yep, let's chalk it up to a fundamental philosophical difference.

You can only be 'comfortable' stating there was 'no motive' if you believe she is innocent. Another fundamental philosophical difference. ...

The persistent lying did obviously damage her credibility. And the entire defense was was based upon her testimony, so ...

Just because some of them have 'potentially' benign explanations, it does not mean those are the correct explanations. Once we have a long list of incriminating circumstances, it is hard to explain away every single one. As you noted, especially if the jury believes she is a liar.

So? I wouldn't expect her to start with that cancer story. Serve lunch first---get the mission done, then relax and say whatever she wants. It's not like she has to talk to them anymore after that day.

It had two purposes, IMO. The cancer story gave them a theme, and a reason to show up for the luncheon. They had to support her in her time of need. But it also gave an excuse for her to send the kids away while poison was served.

And I do believe she made a big mistake when she tried to deny that story about telling them she had medical issues to discuss. The P tore her apart with texts and messages where she had discussed upcoming medical issues and she had told the children they needed to leave so adults could talk, Who she disagreed with her kids testimony, and Simon's and Ian's about that---IT WAS A BAD MISTAKE BY HER.

She dumped something 30 minutes after the lunch was over. It looked like it could have been the plates.

I believe Heather because she had picked up on something being very suspicious. I take Heather and Ian's word over Erin's any day.

NO, she initially said the mushrooms were from Woolies. It was later on that she said Asian market---and every time she told the story she said a different town.

That makes no sense. Someone tells her that her lunch guests have severe mushroom poisoning, and she does not immediately know sh had foraged mushrooms in her pantry? Come on, that is not believable, in any way.

That I^^^ s exactly what she did. Total wild goose chase, giving four different suburbs to search.
And there were never any Asian Market mushrooms anyway---totally bogus story

She should have but it is not in her nature to do so

They blew it apart by asking her questions and letting her true self be revealed. She argued tiny details in a detailed fashion, while at same time claiming she had no idea where the Asian Market was--not even the town. But her memory about other past details was impeccable.

She knew there were foraged mushrooms every moment. No need to 'remember' anything.

She should have done so but didn't.

The prosecution is right. I was saying that at the moment she was buying it, she couldn't foresee that it would even matter that she was buying that innocent kitchen appliance. She was confident she could carry it out secretly.

Erin is a sloppy, overly emotional, lazy criminal, IMO, who planned to use Death Caps for over a year.

If you want to make someone sick, you don't serve them blitzed Death Caps in their own personal hand made Beef Wellington. Death caps are one of the most toxic natural substances known to man.

I just can't get on board with the people claiming that death Cap mushrooms might have been used to make people sick. They are not called sick caps. It's literally right there in the name.

But it's a bad argument anyway, because if she "just" tried to make them sick, then she is still guilty of murder as per the definitions of murder.

IMO

 

[Mirabel091]

Back of a cig packet maths:
12 x 30g (average is 20-40) = 360 grams.
Divided by 6 = 60 grams per person.
Reduced by 10 = 6g per BW.

It would be a more reasonable amount, but I suppose the issue is that Gail and Heather only had half. The original video suggested you'd therefore have to double the amount per BW, which I suspect you wouldn't.

What I would say, is that this has essentially caused even more doubt on EPs version. There is no way that she's just chucked in a few extra mushrooms for taste.

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.)

 

[Monstradamus]

Is it only me who thinks it Gary Jubelin narrating the Police Interviewer’s part in the Ch 7 show tonight ?

Gary Jubelin works for Channel 9, I believe.

 

[Baby baby Jane]

I think your math is wrong. Dehydrating and 'powdering them' doesn't change the amount of death cap toxins contained in the mushrooms, it just takes the 90% of water out of them. So the 10g left is extremely concentrated amanitins.

We know that she had around 500gms of fresh deathcaps (because of her photos on the scales).

Fresh death cap mushrooms typically contain about 0.36 mg of amatoxins per gram in the cap, making even a 500 g portion contain roughly 180 mg of toxin

Given that the estimated lethal dose for humans is about 0.1 mg/kg—or around 7 mg for a 70 kg adult—this means that 500 g of fresh mushroom yields roughly 25 times, and the same in dry form yields over 100 times, the lethal dosage.

So, she had enough to kill (probably) 21 people (with maybe 4 survivors IF they had prompt medical attention) whether they were fresh or dried from the 500gm quantity.
IMO

On my deep dive into this … I learned that the cell structure of mushrooms (chitin) is “difficult” to digest and release toxins. mushroom would remain in stomach a while, before moving along to small intestine with some parts remaining un digested.
But if powdered, they would be more easily & quickly digested & absorbed. Fatal dosage might be lower if powdered as more absorbed more quickly. I’d be certain there is no research into powdered dose.

 

[Megnut]

On my deep dive into this … I learned that the cell structure of mushrooms (chitin) is “difficult” to digest and release toxins. mushroom would remain in stomach a while, before moving along to small intestine with some parts remaining un digested.
But if powdered, they would be more easily & quickly digested & absorbed. Fatal dosage might be lower if powdered as more absorbed more quickly. I’d be certain there is no research into powdered dose.

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