GUILTY Australia - 3 dead after eating wild mushrooms, Leongatha, Victoria, Aug 2023 *Arrest* #19

[packetgravy]

Can you please post the source that says the Simon charges were dropped due to lack of evidence?

“Since the cause of Simon Patterson’s gastrointestinal disturbance is indeterminable, and the fact that he fell ill after consuming food prepared by the respondent is no proof that he was poisoned, the facts founding charges 1, 2 and 3 cannot properly be considered coincidence evidence capable of going in proof of charges 4, 5, 6 and 7. In my view, in order to use the events founding charges 1, 2 and 3 in proof of the disputed fact on charges 4, 5, 6 and 7, it must first be assumed that the respondent deliberately poisoned Simon Patterson. But in circumstances where the cause of his gastrointestinal disturbance cannot be determined, to endeavour to use the evidence in that way would be fallacious. It would involve circular reasoning, permitting impermissible speculation to displace legitimate inference. Plainly, in my view, the evidence does not have significant probative value, substantially outweighing any prejudicial effect it would have on the respondent.

The Judges ruling was correct, none of the grounds have substance.”

Director of Public Prosecutions

https://jade.io/article/src/1146363/2960932

 

[packetgravy]

There isn’t any source for this. The judge said the charges were dropped due to prejudice.
The other attempted murder charge of Simon on the day of the lunch was dropped prior to the trial, but there has been no reasoning published as to why. I also suspect that it would be too hard to prove, particularly because she didn't actually poison him that day, but it was her plan to.
Nevertheless, there is no reasoning that anyone has currently seen that says it was lack of evidence.

Source: Director of Public Prosecutions…

https://jade.io/article/src/1146363/2960932

The appeal documents are available to the public.
As a result of a lack of evidence, the charges were dropped in order to prevent prejudicial speculation.

<Mod snipped- rude>

 

[Detechtive]

View attachment 609182

Source: Director of Public Prosecutions…

https://jade.io/article/src/1146363/2960932

The appeal documents are available to the public.
As a result of a lack of evidence, the charges were dropped in order to prevent prejudicial speculation.

<Mod snipped- rude>

That isn't saying what you think it is saying.

The judge is saying this piece of evidence isn’t strong enough to be worth the risk of prejudice.

The court is not saying “there’s not enough evidence” overall. It is saying: you can’t use unproven poisoning of Simon to prove the fatal poisonings of the others.
It’s a ruling on the admissibility and logical structure of the argument - not a denial of wrongdoing.

 

[ch_13]

View attachment 609182

Source: Director of Public Prosecutions…

https://jade.io/article/src/1146363/2960932

The appeal documents are available to the public.
As a result of a lack of evidence, the charges were dropped in order to prevent prejudicial speculation.
<modsnipped: Don't be rude>

You're misreading this.

The appeal you linked says nothing about lack of evidence or the dropping of any charges. If you actually read the document, they don't address the substance of the evidence at all.

Instead, the decision says that the two sets of charges have to be separated into different trials. Charges 1-3 all relate to Simon's poisoning would be in one trial, while charges 4-7 which relate to the murders of Don, Gail, Heather and the attempted murder of Ian would be in the other trial.

The prejudice that you refer to has nothing to do with lack of evidence. Rather, the decision says that if the jury believed the prosecution on 1-3, they would be more likely to convict on 4-7, simply because the jury would feel the coincidences were too improbable. And that would be "prejudicial speculation" and why the split was required.

Edit - @Detechtive said it much more succinctly than I did.

 

[Jake18]

What Erin lacked in her pre planning was awareness of a modern lab’s capacity for toxin/drug testing. It’s clear she’s not a follower of elite sport or she’s be aware how minuscule the amounts of drugs/toxins can be and still be detected.

 

[Monstradamus]

What Erin lacked in her pre planning was awareness of a modern lab’s capacity for toxin/drug testing. It’s clear she’s not a follower of elite sport or she’s be aware how minuscule the amounts of drugs/toxins can be and still be detected.

She must be incredibly disappointed in her inability to escape detection, imo.
Oh well. Hope she enjoys her new life.

Not.

 

[packetgravy]

You're misreading this.

The appeal you linked says nothing about lack of evidence or the dropping of any charges. If you actually read the document, they don't address the substance of the evidence at all.

Instead, the decision says that the two sets of charges have to be separated into different trials. Charges 1-3 all relate to Simon's poisoning would be in one trial, while charges 4-7 which relate to the murders of Don, Gail, Heather and the attempted murder of Ian would be in the other trial.

The prejudice that you refer to has nothing to do with lack of evidence. Rather, the decision says that if the jury believed the prosecution on 1-3, they would be more likely to convict on 4-7, simply because the jury would feel the coincidences were too improbable. And that would be "prejudicial speculation" and why the split was required.

Edit - @Detechtive said it much more succinctly than I did.

You are referring to an earlier document at which point a decision was made to split the charges.

Were you unaware the charges have since been dropped in totality?

The final ruling has been updated and is available to read within the link, enjoy

 

[packetgravy]

That isn't saying what you think it is saying.

The judge is saying this piece of evidence isn’t strong enough to be worth the risk of prejudice.

The court is not saying “there’s not enough evidence” overall.

You sure about that?

“Importantly, however, I consider that an inference that Simon Patterson ingested poison — whether at the hands of his wife or by other means — could not safely be drawn on the available evidence. According to the medical evidence, the gastrointestinal symptoms he exhibited may well have been due to other cause.”

HIGH COURT

https://jade.io/article/src/1146363/2960932

 

[ch_13]

You are referring to an earlier document at which point a decision was made to split the charges.

Were you unaware the charges have since been dropped in totality?

The final ruling has been updated and is available to read within the link, enjoy

I was referring to the document you linked in your post. You misinterpreted the substance of the document. I suggest you read your own link.

Of course I am aware the charges were dropped, but the salient point the prosecution chose to drop them and focus on the murders. It was not done, as you claimed in your post, by order of the court.

 

[Deleted member 363451]

Speaking of which, I found this little morsel when going through the pretrial evidence.

Curious how she got this file on facebook messenger. IMO

R v Patterson (Ruling 1) [2025] VSC 102 - BarNet Jade

The smart way to search, annotate and share Australian legal judgments, decisions and statutes!

jade.io

Erin had quite an interest in poisons, didn't she?

274. On or before 12 October 2019 at 11.26pm, the accused, using a Samsung tablet which was later seized from her home, had access to a pdf file entitled ‘2007_Bookmatter_Criminal Poisoning.pdf’, which is an appendix entitled ‘Some Common Homicidal Poisons’.

276. On or before 27 October 2020, the accused, using a Samsung tablet which was later seized from her home, had access to a pdf file entitled ‘epidinfect00024-0031.pdf’, which is an article entitled ‘Red kidney bean poisoning in the UK: an analysis of 50 suspected incidents between 1976 and 1989’.

 

[Detechtive]

Erin had quite an interest in poisons, didn't she?

274. On or before 12 October 2019 at 11.26pm, the accused, using a Samsung tablet which was later seized from her home, had access to a pdf file entitled ‘2007_Bookmatter_Criminal Poisoning.pdf’, which is an appendix entitled ‘Some Common Homicidal Poisons’.

276. On or before 27 October 2020, the accused, using a Samsung tablet which was later seized from her home, had access to a pdf file entitled ‘epidinfect00024-0031.pdf’, which is an article entitled ‘Red kidney bean poisoning in the UK: an analysis of 50 suspected incidents between 1976 and 1989’.

I also saw somewhere she had a document about Rat poison on her computer. IMO

 

[Deleted member 363451]

I also saw somewhere she had a document about Rat poison on her computer. IMO

There was also a poisonous plant - was it hemlock? If the police did a check on my computer they wouldn't find any searches on poisons, except for Death Caps, which I looked at after Erin's killing spree...

 

[Detechtive]

There was also a poisonous plant - was it hemlock? If the police did a check on my computer they wouldn't find any searches on poisons, except for Death Caps, which I looked at after Erin's killing spree...

If police searched my computer they would find me researching every single poison in this case!
But ordinarily, they would only see me trying to find non toxic alternatives for a mouse I had in my house! (p.s Bunnings sells humane mousetraps - pop on a bit of peanut butter - worked a treat!).

It is not normal to research these things.

I also went back to our group chats at the time of Erin's research to cross reference whether anyone mentioned any poison cases which could have caused her to look at these things, also cross referenced her podcast play lists - nope, nada, none!

IMO.

 

[packetgravy]

I was referring to the document you linked in your post. You misinterpreted the substance of the document. I suggest you read your own link.

Of course I am aware the charges were dropped, but the salient point the prosecution chose to drop them and focus on the murders. It was not done, as you claimed in your post, by order of the court.

The document I linked in my post is the most recent update/final decision and ruling. <modsnipped: rude and personalizing>

As below, a screenshot of my post: see “Source”


Source once more, below:
HIGH COURT
https://jade.io/article/src/1146363/2960932

QUOTES sourced directly from linked document:
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

“Importantly, however, I consider that an inference that Simon Patterson ingested poison — whether at the hands of his wife or by other means — could not safely be drawn on the available evidence. According to the medical evidence, the gastrointestinal symptoms he exhibited may well have been due to other cause.”

“To my mind, these supposed similarities are wholly unremarkable, and do not imbue the evidence with significant probative value. Even if the fact that her lunch guests were poisoned were capable of going some way towards founding an inference that the respondent’s husband was also poisoned, in circumstances where the source of Simon Patterson’s gastrointestinal disturbance is empirically undeterminable, any such inference would be weak.”

“Clearly on principle it is not admissible, on a charge of murder or attempted murder by poisoning, to give evidence that the accused has poisoned other persons, where that evidence shows no more than that the accused is a poisoner.”

 

[Jake18]

Erin had quite an interest in poisons, didn't she?

274. On or before 12 October 2019 at 11.26pm, the accused, using a Samsung tablet which was later seized from her home, had access to a pdf file entitled ‘2007_Bookmatter_Criminal Poisoning.pdf’, which is an appendix entitled ‘Some Common Homicidal Poisons’.

276. On or before 27 October 2020, the accused, using a Samsung tablet which was later seized from her home, had access to a pdf file entitled ‘epidinfect00024-0031.pdf’, which is an article entitled ‘Red kidney bean poisoning in the UK: an analysis of 50 suspected incidents between 1976 and 1989’.

The contents of phone A would have no doubt been fascinating

 

[Deleted member 363451]

I understand that, I have a genuine interest in how those views came to be and of course you have the autonomy to answer or not

You have demonstrated prejudicial speculation by siting the murders of Don, Gail and Heather.
This is human nature, in theory I suspect the same but in practise I require solid evidence.

Unfortunately the charges had to be dropped due to exactly that, meaning Simon may never see justice for the violence committed against HIM.
Erin is in jail yes, but not for what she did to him and he may never be fairly compensated.

We don’t have solid proof to say yes, she definitely poisoned Simon but we know she coincidentally poisoned his family and we use that information to form the conclusion of guilt. This is prejudicial speculation… rendering all charges dropped.

It is inevitably human nature that lets us down.

Well Erin certainly let Simon and her lovely in-laws down...

 

[Deleted member 363451]

You are referring to an earlier document at which point a decision was made to split the charges.

Were you unaware the charges have since been dropped in totality?

The final ruling has been updated and is available to read within the link, enjoy

Whether she poisoned Simon or not, the woman is a despicable mass murderer, who is most likely a psychopath.

Anyone who defends her after what she has done, needs help...

 

[packetgravy]

Whether she poisoned Simon or not, the woman is a despicable mass murderer, who is most likely a psychopath.

Anyone who defends her after what she has done, needs help...

I am not disputing conviction.

I am directly quoting public information from the high court and Judge.

This was requested of me earlier when I mentioned the lack of evidence and subsequent dropped charges. My opinion is not driven by emotion, I rely on the facts, evidence and the law.

This is not the same as “defending a murderer.”

 

[Deleted member 363451]

I am not disputing conviction.

I am directly quoting public information from the high court and Judge.

This was requested of me earlier when I mentioned the lack of evidence and subsequent dropped charges. My opinion is not driven by emotion, I rely on the facts, evidence and the law.

This is not the same as “defending a murderer.”

What is your personal opinion of Erin Patterson?

 

[Charlot123]

Not necessarily. You may have noticed that Erin likes to choose poisons which quickly exit the body/blood stream. IMO

The problem is, that many medications have anticholinergic effect so it would be very difficult to discriminate between adding crushed meds or drops and nightshade. I wonder why the doctors suspected something herbaceous? Did Erin add berries into food?