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

[Tortoise]

Another thing after hearing Simon's version of how things played out, is that I now think it most probable that she went for the others as a relatively last minute thing born out of frustration at not being able to get to Simon.

I might be wrong, but when you hear them all lined up it is clear she's been trying for some time and failing. The meal seems like a ruse purely to get him there, but when he wouldn't come she decided to punish him by murdering his family.

I doubt we'll ever know for sure, but I'd put this as the most likely scenario for me.

I think she planned to kill them all. She would have made her pasties well in advance of the time they arrived, when she still didn't know if Simon would go in response to her last text.

 

[LinasK]

I listened to the extra Mushroom Daily podcast today, and was interested to hear some of the detail they went into.

Specifically, they mentioned that the defence had an expert witness basically refuting all of Simon's poison claims and indicating that his symptoms didn't align with having ingested something. I don't think he could say 100% though.

Quite late in the game, the prosecution brought out the rat poison link based on searches but the expert wasn't there to possibly refute.

I suspect this had quite a lot to do with why the charges were dropped. Had the defence pulled apart those claims they might have feared it could have had a knock on effect on the more significant ones. It could've ended up looking like Simon had it in for Erin and was out to get her.

Instead, they let the main case play out and the much clearer evidence from that took her down. Once you realise she did those, then it becomes much more likely that she was simply very cunning with how she poisoned Simon.

His GP doctor and the ER doctor could both refute that "expert". Yes she used different poisons than Death Caps mushrooms, and probably different poisons each time; however, food poisoning does NOT cause you to need a bowel resection. I've had food poisoning. All you experience is vomiting and diarrhea.

 

[LinasK]

Another thing after hearing Simon's version of how things played out, is that I now think it most probable that she went for the others as a relatively last minute thing born out of frustration at not being able to get to Simon.

I might be wrong, but when you hear them all lined up it is clear she's been trying for some time and failing. The meal seems like a ruse purely to get him there, but when he wouldn't come she decided to punish him by murdering his family.

I doubt we'll ever know for sure, but I'd put this as the most likely scenario for me.

Possibly, but she also texted that she was done with this family, and at minimum, even if she couldn't get Simon to come, she still hurts him by killing his family. It's reported that the invitation to Ian and Heather was further inducement to get Simon to come.

 

[Montrealaise]

It's plain wrong that Simon wasn't allowed to tell the whole truth. The fact that he suspected she had been poisoning him shaped his whole world and his relationship with Erin. It's enough that charges were dropped because they could prejudice the jury, but a husband's suspicions are not in the same league as charges against her. It skewed reality so far the other way as to have imperiled justice being served for these victims, had the jury decided she had no motive and no intent or malice and this must have been an accident. The court cleansed a scheming wicked poisoner with a husband who actually feared for his life before the incident that killed his family. I am incensed that the jury was given a sanitised version of her dealings with Simon, that her internet searches about poisons were hidden from them, and so too was her trip to the tip right after the lunch. How dare they suggest she had no such plates in her house as the victims saw. She was allowed to get away with lying about her actions after the lunch, and the prosecution could say nothing!

Simon's experience would have explained his, in the circumstances, very reasonable and measured texts to her about being glad she was well enough to drive etc. but it made him seem callous and uncaring without the context. Even the hospital doctors weren't allowed to share what his own doctor had shared with them. This is justice skewed too far in the corner of a dangerous killer.

All in my opinion

It's chilling to think that she could have been acquitted and set free - free to keep on killing (and she would have - a victory in court would have emboldened her and reinforced her arrogance and her sense of invulnerability). I hope that the members of the jury are able to see all of this new information and realize, with a tremendous sense of relief, that they made the right decision and sent a dangerous killer behind bars.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

Possibly, but she also texted that she was done with this family, and at minimum, even if she couldn't get Simon to come, she still hurts him by killing his family. It's reported that the invitation to Ian and Heather was further inducement to get Simon to come.

That's essentially what I mean. The random convoluted nature of the meal and guests, always made most sense as a way of getting Simon to the meal. Regardless of how psycho she is, it never quite seemed likely that she hated them all and wanted them all dead from the off. They were either supposed to be collateral as a way of making it look more like an accident or as a way of deliberately hurting Simon.

After hearing all the attempts laid out one after another, I can imagine her frustration at being unable to get him again after probably her most detailed and lengthy attempt yet. The resultant anger led to a vengeful and rash decision to punish Simon in a different way.

That seems most plausible to me at the moment.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

It's chilling to think that she could have been acquitted and set free - free to keep on killing (and she would have - a victory in court would have emboldened her and reinforced her arrogance and her sense of invulnerability). I hope that the members of the jury are able to see all of this new information and realize, with a tremendous sense of relief, that they made the right decision and sent a dangerous killer behind bars.

I've thought this as well. I'm sure those that maybe had some reservations are sleeping a lot better now they know more.

It wasn't actually a case of:

'Did separated mother of two Erin Patterson randomly murder her ex-husband's relatives?'

Like they had to contend with, but was actually a case of:

'Did previously suspected ex-husband poisoner Erin Patterson poison her ex-husband's relatives?'

 

[Deleted member 363451]

Rachael is still trying to spin it in Erin's favour re her previous poisoning attempts against Erin. She's just pathetic!

 

[MaxDecimus13]

Rachael is still trying to spin it in Erin's favour re her previous poisoning attempts against Erin. She's just pathetic!

I must admit I face-palmed when I heard her start going on.

 

[Deleted member 363451]

I must admit I face-palmed when I heard her start going on.

They're the only podcast I've seen on the case that don't allow comments. I wonder why?

 

[Megnut]

This is what I don't like. Much of this stuff is relevant circumstantially to indicate what she is like.

For instance, the defence can make the point that she was generous and gifted loans to family members (not that relevant to the case) etc but the prosecution cannot show that she's the sort of person who creates multiple fake online accounts and lies about having cats that eat poisonous mushrooms?

The most extreme example of this was during the closing arguments where the defence rested heavily on the fact that she'd never done anything like this before and had a perfect record. I don't see how it isn't relevant that her ex-husband didn't attend precisely because he thought she'd tried to poison him.

There is one positive ( to keeping the prior poisoning out of the trial) -- it's not a line item for appeal. Judge shut the door on it. Maybe there's wisdom there.

JMO

 

[LinasK]

That's essentially what I mean. The random convoluted nature of the meal and guests, always made most sense as a way of getting Simon to the meal. Regardless of how psycho she is, it never quite seemed likely that she hated them all and wanted them all dead from the off. They were either supposed to be collateral as a way of making it look more like an accident or as a way of deliberately hurting Simon.

After hearing all the attempts laid out one after another, I can imagine her frustration at being unable to get him again after probably her most detailed and lengthy attempt yet. The resultant anger led to a vengeful and rash decision to punish Simon in a different way.

That seems most plausible to me at the moment.

Also the "I think I have Cancer" and... I'll need you to watch the kids while I have Chemo., NOT "I have Cancer, how shall I tell the children?" conversation could easily have taken place over the phone. It would have been totally premature without any medical testing to suggest that she had Cancer. A lump on your elbow is a far cry from Ovarian Cancer, and how would it even be remotely related? It's not a symptom AFAIK.

 

[Megnut]

Also the "I think I have Cancer" and... I'll need you to watch the kids while I have Chemo., NOT "I have Cancer, how shall I tell the children?" conversation could easily have taken place over the phone. It would have been totally premature without any medical testing to suggest that she had Cancer. A lump on your elbow is a far cry from Ovarian Cancer, and how would it even be remotely related? It's not a symptom AFAIK.

As in,

Said the fox (wolf): I'm not going to poison you. I have a mysterious illness I will tell you about, so yes, you must come. For the children. Oh, but how to tell them. Do not worry about yourself. Think about me. See, I'm even inviting people with whom I've had no outward grievance. Come, sit at my table. It's safe.

Only it's not.

She was luring them in, using whatever methods it took.

That is unhinged.

Jmo

 

[HoneyBunOne]

The testimony about her sad, hard life really backfired. I kept thinking, how much more of this woman’s history do we need to hear? How is it relevant? Hours and hours this poor me narrative - I’ve had such an awful life. It reminded me of Mr Bennet in Pride & Prejudice commenting about the lying cad Mr Wickham and his fictitious sob stories. “With such narratives to hand, who would read novels?”

Agreed. It dragged on, and I bet the prosecution objected as much as possible. I personally rolled my eyes so many times. To me, there was no relevance, it was all a ruse to paint the "poor me" picture, the picture of a woman hard done by, unloved as a child, given an eating disorder due to her mother's behaviour, blah, blah, blah. The defence wanted to use it as an excuse so the jury would take pity on her and perhaps it would sway those that were on the fence and she would be found not guilty, or at the very least to have sympathy for her should she be found guilty, and the judge would hand down a lighter sentence.

 

[IBR]

Agreed. It dragged on, and I bet the prosecution objected as much as possible. I personally rolled my eyes so many times. To me, there was no relevance, it was all a ruse to paint the "poor me" picture, the picture of a woman hard done by, unloved as a child, given an eating disorder due to her mother's behaviour, blah, blah, blah. The defence wanted to use it as an excuse so the jury would take pity on her and perhaps it would sway those that were on the fence and she would be found not guilty, or at the very least to have sympathy for her should she be found guilty, and the judge would hand down a lighter sentence.

Well, she was used to being very successful in her true crime groups (and anywhere else, I guess) with all her made up stories, so that’s how she was sure to convince the jury as well. Didn’t go too well, though

 

[Megnut]

I'm not familiar with sentencing there. Will the judge address her directly? I hope she gets a scathing dressing down.

JMO

 

[Normmm99]

1LA8RU: Red 2018 Holden Wagon. Cancelled 29/6/24

1XZ4OZ: Red 2023 MG Wagon. Current to 17/7/25 (tomorrow)

Ex Holden employee here. The Holdens VIN indicates it’s a Holden Equinox. It hasn’t been re-registered in Victoria since being cancelled in late June of 2024. The MG ZST has had its registration renewed, but it seems Erin still owns it as it was seen hidden behind black mesh at her house on the day of the verdict.

 

[CuriosityKilledtheCat]

Ex Holden employee here. The Holdens VIN indicates it’s a Holden Equinox. It hasn’t been re-registered in Victoria since being cancelled in late June of 2024. The MG ZST has had its registration renewed, but it seems Erin still owns it as it was seen hidden behind black mesh at her house on the day of the verdict.

I think she honestly thought she'd be driving around again in her red MG after the jury returned a not guilty verdict.

JMO

 

[Detechtive]

Also the "I think I have Cancer" and... I'll need you to watch the kids while I have Chemo., NOT "I have Cancer, how shall I tell the children?" conversation could easily have taken place over the phone. It would have been totally premature without any medical testing to suggest that she had Cancer. A lump on your elbow is a far cry from Ovarian Cancer, and how would it even be remotely related? It's not a symptom AFAIK.

There's still so much to unpack, about it all. It is so heinous. The cancer lie alone is disgraceful without any of the other elements.

 

[Detechtive]

Well, she was used to being very successful in her true crime groups (and anywhere else, I guess) with all her made up stories, so that’s how she was sure to convince the jury as well. Didn’t go too well, though

People can perceive a lot, I think - in person. Mannerisms, contemptuous facial expressions, coldness.
She was only successful with friends online because we never got to see that, I think.

 

[Detechtive]

I'm not familiar with sentencing there. Will the judge address her directly? I hope she gets a scathing dressing down.

JMO

The judge will address her directly, and it will be damning, but it's usually more conservative than Judges sentencing comments in the USA.