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

[Detechtive]

When you share Tik Tok links, if and when we open them it has your profile at the top stating you're the one that shared the link.

You’re essentially doxing yourself.

Then the identities of the people/users who view your Tik Tok links show up for you, so you can see who has viewed your video / link, which essentially doxes us.


IMO

This Tiktok kind of made me fall in love with him. What a handsome (but short) devil!

 

[Deleted member 363451]

When you share Tik Tok links, if and when we open them it has your profile at the top stating you're the one that shared the link.

You’re essentially doxing yourself.

Then the identities of the people/users who view your Tik Tok links show up for you, so you can see who has viewed your video / link, which essentially doxes us.


IMO

I wasn't logged in to my Tik Tok account.

 

[Deleted member 363451]

This Tiktok kind of made me fall in love with him. What a handsome (but short) devil!

He's too short for me, but intelligent men are very attractive and he does have an aura about him, even though he was the defence lawyer. lol

 

[Deleted member 363451]

You can't see her profile from that post. And you can disable "suggest your account to others" in your privacy settings which will prevent seeing profiles from sender and receiver.

Thank you squirrel.

 

[Monstradamus]

When you share Tik Tok links, if and when we open them it has your profile at the top stating you're the one that shared the link.

You’re essentially doxing yourself.

Then the identities of the people/users who view your Tik Tok links show up for you, so you can see who has viewed your video / link, which essentially doxes us.


IMO

Lucky I don't have TikTok

 

[Eloise]

How much of the courtroom daily deeds and drama are authors really allowed to spill?

Can the Pattersons and Wilkinsons ask to be excluded from any mention in future forms of media entertainment ie movies, books, documentaries? I can't imagine they would like it.. Just curious what rights persons have in these circumstances?

Eta - Do they need to give permission, and would there be any lucrative reason they would? (Ie proceeds to charities)

The best documentaries definitely do involve families and usually will pay them to get them to give as much as they can. But this won't always be possible, given many families will want to keep their privacy. I guess we'll wait and see what comes out.

I listened to a podcast today ('The Rest is Entertainment', Mushroom Murders: True Crime Wars) that talked about this case and the inevitable proliferation of podcasts, tv shows etc.

They said when it comes to documentaries when you don't have the major players involved or haven't been there since day one filming the whole thing, show creators could choose other options. Either the cheapest way, which is just using tv news footage and a bunch of talking heads and you basically just talk "about" the whole thing. And then the other way is you base it all around one person eg a relative who is willing to talk to the media and sell their story, or someone else who was involved (eg a police officer who might have since retired and willing to speak) and maybe give you never-before-seen stuff, and you tell it from that persons POV.

You can't just blanket ask to never be talked about. If someone creates a show that defames you, you can sue them for defamation. But other than that, there's no inherent right to privacy in Australia that prevents someone making a tv show about you - so long as they don't defame or misrepresent you, or breach confidentiality (plus you can't breach court orders that prevent the media naming certain people such as when connected to child victims/ crimes against children). If some doco maker found a neighbour willing to talk, they could do so - so long as they stuck to those rules.

In Australia, there is no general right of privacy, nor a right prohibiting one person from telling a story about another person.

Also - dead people cannot legally be defamed. As in, the 3 dead people are actually open season in terms of doco making. Their family cannot seek to sue anyone on their behalf, either.

It is a complete defence to a defamation action if you can prove the material published was true in substance or not materially different from the truth.

 

[Warshawski]

BBM - Anyone know why?

I didn’t realise that the Accused can challenge members of the Jury ! I thought it was either the Defence or Prosecution who did that.

 

[Warshawski]

Lisa’s podcast is not reliable.

I was the group owner and admin, Lisa never spoke to Erin. She wasn’t really present in the group. Everything she knows is from myself and Daniel.

Lisa is someone who has main character syndrome.

Guess there was a battle between Lisa & Erin for that ‘main character’ position

 

[JBowie]

I didn’t realise that the Accused can challenge members of the Jury ! I thought it was either the Defence or Prosecution who did that.

I guess the accused is in the best position to recognize someone who they know could be totally biased against them.

 

[Ellery84]

Guess there was a battle between Lisa & Erin for that ‘main character’ position

Oh wow!!

 

[Warshawski]

She got her affairs in order days after the lunch which was 4 months prior to her arrest

That’s interesting Detechtive. .. .

Perhaps it a process that went on over some time. e.g. Am thinking she will have rewritten her Will, and got her POA in place ( maybe Executor of Will & POA are same person) since she absolutely was done with Simon & his family so was making sure they had no say in anything,

Perhaps when she poisoned them she was quite prepared to go down for it !!

Her arrest was 3 mths & 3 days after the lunch. Seems she would’ve been very busy in that time preparing for her time away.

JMO

 

[Monstradamus]

That’s interesting Detechtive. .. .

Perhaps it a process that went on over some time. e.g. Am thinking she will have rewritten her Will, and got her POA in place ( maybe Executor of Will & POA are same person) since she absolutely was done with Simon & his family so was making sure they had no say in anything,

Perhaps when she poisoned them she was quite prepared to go down for it !!

Her arrest was 3 mths & 3 days after the lunch. Seems she would’ve been very busy in that time preparing for her time away.

JMO

Very busy dumping the dehydrator, hiding other evidence, lying to the police and not successfully dodging media.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

The best documentaries definitely do involve families and usually will pay them to get them to give as much as they can. But this won't always be possible, given many families will want to keep their privacy. I guess we'll wait and see what comes out.

I listened to a podcast today ('The Rest is Entertainment', Mushroom Murders: True Crime Wars) that talked about this case and the inevitable proliferation of podcasts, tv shows etc.

They said when it comes to documentaries when you don't have the major players involved or haven't been there since day one filming the whole thing, show creators could choose other options. Either the cheapest way, which is just using tv news footage and a bunch of talking heads and you basically just talk "about" the whole thing. And then the other way is you base it all around one person eg a relative who is willing to talk to the media and sell their story, or someone else who was involved (eg a police officer who might have since retired and willing to speak) and maybe give you never-before-seen stuff, and you tell it from that persons POV.

You can't just blanket ask to never be talked about. If someone creates a show that defames you, you can sue them for defamation. But other than that, there's no inherent right to privacy in Australia that prevents someone making a tv show about you - so long as they don't defame or misrepresent you, or breach confidentiality (plus you can't breach court orders that prevent the media naming certain people such as when connected to child victims/ crimes against children). If some doco maker found a neighbour willing to talk, they could do so - so long as they stuck to those rules.

In Australia, there is no general right of privacy, nor a right prohibiting one person from telling a story about another person.

Also - dead people cannot legally be defamed. As in, the 3 dead people are actually open season in terms of doco making. Their family cannot seek to sue anyone on their behalf, either.

It is a complete defence to a defamation action if you can prove the material published was true in substance or not materially different from the truth.

Excellent, one of my favourite podcasts taking about the mushroom trial. What's not to like?

Richard Osman is something of a UK legend and Marina is well Marina.

 

[Detechtive]

That’s interesting Detechtive. .. .

Perhaps it a process that went on over some time. e.g. Am thinking she will have rewritten her Will, and got her POA in place ( maybe Executor of Will & POA are same person) since she absolutely was done with Simon & his family so was making sure they had no say in anything,

Perhaps when she poisoned them she was quite prepared to go down for it !!

Her arrest was 3 mths & 3 days after the lunch. Seems she would’ve been very busy in that time preparing for her time away.

JMO

I really don't think she knew she was going to go down for it. I think she was so arrogant that she thought she would get away with it.

But, I have said this a few times, now, Erin is a very planned methodical thinker. She is highly intelligent and precise. She spends months and years on her plans. She is not impulsive.

I felt frustrated seeing the commentary around this case when people thought she was a bumbling fool who made mistakes. She didn't. At least, not in her long thought out plan. The thing I personally believe she didn't anticipate is that the DC's would be detected by the hospital quickly, which sent her into a tailspin because she didn't plan for that in her plan.

She is not someone who usually leaves things to chance. It is much more chilling than it appears, IMO.

 

[Detechtive]

So if you look at the things we can see as 'mistakes' - dumping the dehydrator on CCTV at the tip in the days after. The smoking gun of dumping the rubbish at the dump on CCTV the day of the lunch. She would have been better going into the woods/bush and throwing it in there, but this wasn't because she is stupid, it's because she NEVER thought she would be suspected, IMO. She hadn't planned on being a suspect, and if she did, she wouldn't have done it.

It is pretty obvious that she dumped the plates / cutlery / etc in that original dump run on the day of the lunch.

If you get into her mind - of never being a suspect - someone planning the perfect murder - she never thought her bank statements and CCTV would be dug through. IMO

The POA was transferred to her best friend in the days after the lunch to protect herself - just in case, as the media descended upon her home, which was another thing she didn't anticipate, IMO.

My opinion only. I don't know what she planned on doing, I can only go on what I know of her and the evidence.

 

[Detechtive]

DBM

 

[Detechtive]

The best documentaries definitely do involve families and usually will pay them to get them to give as much as they can. But this won't always be possible, given many families will want to keep their privacy. I guess we'll wait and see what comes out.

I listened to a podcast today ('The Rest is Entertainment', Mushroom Murders: True Crime Wars) that talked about this case and the inevitable proliferation of podcasts, tv shows etc.

They said when it comes to documentaries when you don't have the major players involved or haven't been there since day one filming the whole thing, show creators could choose other options. Either the cheapest way, which is just using tv news footage and a bunch of talking heads and you basically just talk "about" the whole thing. And then the other way is you base it all around one person eg a relative who is willing to talk to the media and sell their story, or someone else who was involved (eg a police officer who might have since retired and willing to speak) and maybe give you never-before-seen stuff, and you tell it from that persons POV.

You can't just blanket ask to never be talked about. If someone creates a show that defames you, you can sue them for defamation. But other than that, there's no inherent right to privacy in Australia that prevents someone making a tv show about you - so long as they don't defame or misrepresent you, or breach confidentiality (plus you can't breach court orders that prevent the media naming certain people such as when connected to child victims/ crimes against children). If some doco maker found a neighbour willing to talk, they could do so - so long as they stuck to those rules.

In Australia, there is no general right of privacy, nor a right prohibiting one person from telling a story about another person.

Also - dead people cannot legally be defamed. As in, the 3 dead people are actually open season in terms of doco making. Their family cannot seek to sue anyone on their behalf, either.

It is a complete defence to a defamation action if you can prove the material published was true in substance or not materially different from the truth.

Stan was contacting us a year ago. Their documentary has been in the works for a long long time.
They were going to focus on the group dynamics originally, but the main members of the group didn't want to participate. They wanted to force us into exclusivity contracts with them, with some vague outline of what they were going to do and I personally didn't like the direction - to paint online crime sleuths as some weirdo middle aged women with nothing better to do.

I see they have now changed their doco to be something much more 'neutral' - the trial, and commentary on 'justice' - the same boring coverage everyone else has done ad nauseam during this trial.

I don't want to watch any of it, or read anything coming out because it will just be the same regurgitated nonsense. None of them know Erin, or anything about her. IMO

 

[wallyworld]

Xanthé M. who is a forensic anthropologist, calls out the possibility of Erin Patterson potentially being both a narcissist and having a borderline personality diagnosis and being unmedicated, and the potential consequences of that. About 7 minutes into the podcast episode.

Me Me Me

Podcast Episode · The Trial of Erin Patterson · 08/07/2025 · 27m

podcasts.apple.com

Then from around 12minutes in, Xanthé alludes to Erin being a narcissistic psychopath and thinking she can outsmart everybody.

Is Xanthé serious?

I know she’s spoken to her friend Tim Watson Munro who is an Australian criminal psychologist - but it’s her opinion she’s giving, she can’t really speak on behalf of Tim.

I know she’s an Associate Professor but I still don’t think she has the qualifications to diagnose Erin - quite apart from the fact that she has had no access to Erin and has never even spoken to her.

Not only is Xanthe Mallett a forensic anthropologist, she is also an Associate Professor and the Coordinator of the Bachelor of Criminology programs in the School of Humanities and Social Science. She would be more qualified than most to have an opinion on personality types - opinion and diagnosis are very different things.

 

[wallyworld]

Welcome to Xanthe's Dial-a-Comment. Please use the following menu:

1. A dissertation on Proust's À la recherche du temps perdu

2. The likelihood of the Reserve Bank lowering rates in the next 6 months, and why

3. A psychological diagnosis of Erin Patterson's personality

why the hate fest on Xanthe Mallett?

 

[Tortoise]

So if you look at the things we can see as 'mistakes' - dumping the dehydrator on CCTV at the tip in the days after. The smoking gun of dumping the rubbish at the dump on CCTV the day of the lunch. She would have been better going into the woods/bush and throwing it in there, but this wasn't because she is stupid, it's because she NEVER thought she would be suspected, IMO. She hadn't planned on being a suspect, and if she did, she wouldn't have done it.

It is pretty obvious that she dumped the plates / cutlery / etc in that original dump run on the day of the lunch.

If you get into her mind - of never being a suspect - someone planning the perfect murder - she never thought her bank statements and CCTV would be dug through. IMO

The POA was transferred to her best friend in the days after the lunch to protect herself - just in case, as the media descended upon her home, which was another thing she didn't anticipate, IMO.

My opinion only. I don't know what she planned on doing, I can only go on what I know of her and the evidence.

Just throwing this out there for people's thoughts, is it possible she went to take everything she needed to dispose of, including the dehydrator, right after the lunch, not knowing until she got there that she would have to make an advance payment to dispose of that one thing, so she dumped its box and a bag of utensils/plates/cutlery, and had to take the dehydrator back home on that occasion?

I think she didn't dispose of the dehydrator before the lunch in case her plan went awry, say they went moldy or she spilled them, or no one turned up, and she needed to use the machine again.

Then when she had to make a payment she thought about how she could do it without leaving a record, and decided to wipe and ditch her phone IF she was investigated, maybe not thinking that the tip would be investigated by police?