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

[JBowie]

And yet his family went to her lunch, supposedly knowing that she'd tried to poison Simon in the past...

I don't believe that was shared among the family to that extent. I gather that the 2 people SP raised his suspicions with were in favour of his saying nothing. As I have said here before about that: IMO he got very bad advice.

It's inconceivable that they would all willingly turn up to be fed by a suspected poisoner.

 

[Detechtive]

... and inherited some $2 million from her grandmother and about $1 million from her mother (you know, "the cold robot")

The $2m back in those days - 2006-2015 was also worth a lot more than $2m today. You could have bought 7 homes with that back then.

Also, the 2019 inheritance before the Covid property boom was worth a lot more than it would be today.

 

[Deleted member 363451]

I don't believe that was shared among the family to that extent. I gather that the 2 people SP raised his suspicions with were in favour of his saying nothing. As I have said here before about that: IMO he got very bad advice.

It's inconceivable that they would all willingly turn up to be fed by a suspected poisoner.

We don't know that Don didn't tell his wife about it. I'm not suggesting that Ian and Heather knew about Erin poisoning Simon.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

What if....... Erin somehow knew Simon suspected her?

That's an interesting point, at the same time Simon wasn't really 'onto her' as I don't think he'd fully realised his own suspicion to himself, never mind to anyone else.

Otherwise he'd have prevented them from going to her house. He'd been so unwell that it was too high risk to test out if other people became sick too.

Unless, he firmly believed the targeting of him was personal and not translated to anyone else? JMO MOO

 

[Monstradamus]

And yet his family went to her lunch, supposedly knowing that she'd tried to poison Simon in the past...

Only Don suspected (and couldn't bring himself to believe it). Did Simon's siblings and cousins know prior to the lunch? His sister definitely knew, because she tried to warn them.

 

[JBowie]

The $2m back in those days - 2006-2015 was also worth a lot more than $2m today. You could have bought 7 homes with that back then.

Also, the 2019 inheritance before the Covid property boom was worth a lot more than it would be today.

Reserve Bank says $2 million in 2006 is worth $3,227,814 now.

(Total change in cost is 61.4 per cent, over 18 years, at an average annual inflation rate of 2.7 per cent.)

 

[drsleuth]

With all these crimes we follow, I often wonder if the perps ever think " Was it worth it??"

 

[Deleted member 363451]

That's an interesting point, at the same time Simon wasn't really 'onto her' as I don't think he'd fully realised his own suspicion to himself, never mind to anyone else.

Otherwise he'd have prevented them from going to her house. He'd been so unwell that it was too high risk to test out if other people became sick too.

Unless, he firmly believed the targeting of him was personal and not translated to anyone else? JMO MOO

And yet he had mentioned to his church friend and his doctor that he suspected that she was poisoning him...

 

[Jake18]

I agree Erin’s woes showed her lack of self-awareness. At her age it’s common to have a parent who has died, or who is ailing.

Her children’s medical issues were minor, IMO. Her daughter as an infant had a benign ovarian mass, which is unusual, but wouldn’t cause issues once removed. She then, at 4 years, became constipated and needed a nasogastric washout. Her son had an orthopaedic procedure. It’s not that much to dredge up as evidence of her “medical trauma” leading to distrust of doctors.

 

[Deleted member 363451]

Only Don suspected (and couldn't bring himself to believe it). Did Simon's siblings and cousins know prior to the lunch? His sister definitely knew, because she tried to warn them.

Well I find it odd that Simon's parents went ahead and attended the lunch when at least Don knew that Erin had poisoned Simon in the past. I'm NOT victim blaming, but the whole thing is really strange, sorry.

 

[Deleted member 363451]

We have a situation where Simon didn't attend the lunch because of Erin trying to poison him on 4 occasions in the past, and yet his parents and his aunt and uncle do attend. Can anyone see the elephant in the room?

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Regarding EP's mental health / state of mind / childhood trauma. It's the chicken x egg scenario for me.

IMO happy healthy well rounded functional people do not go around harming others. Therefore something has gone wrong.

Wealth and privilege is no indicator of whether psychological abuse or neglect, abandonment, or any form of violation has taken place. Also EP is of the age where we didn't talk about things happening to us in childhood if they were devastating, such as being sexually violated by an older relative or neighbour or person in authority ... mostly, we just went home and pretended nothing had happened so as not to get in more trouble.

I'm not making excuses for her but something went wrong, this much is clear. If she was the younger sibling, she wasn't raised in a loving home but a cold and harsh home, she could have developed the pathological envy that sits under Narc PD and the secretive, vengeful, hateful, selfish side. Also finding that the only place to take her power is dominance and control. If these things develop in infancy, unchecked, they're the over-arching structure by adult-hood.

JMO MOO

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

We have a situation where Simon didn't attend the lunch because of Erin trying to poison him on 4 occasions in the past, and yet his parents and his aunt and uncle do attend. Can anyone see the elephant in the room?

Well we cannot victim blame here on WS but yeah something isn't logical about that and we would need to know more.

 

[Monstradamus]

We have a situation where Simon didn't attend the lunch because of Erin trying to poison him on 4 occasions in the past, and yet his parents and his aunt and uncle do attend. Can anyone see the elephant in the room?

He thought he was the only target.
Couldn't conceive that she would poison his family.
He must wrestle with that guilt every day.

 

[drsleuth]

We have a situation where Simon didn't attend the lunch because of Erin trying to poison him on 4 occasions in the past, and yet his parents and his aunt and uncle do attend. Can anyone see the elephant in the room?

I don't think in anyone's wildest dreams ,anyone thought that Erin would murder Don & Gail or Heather & Ian ( thankfully Ian survived )

 

[Goosewhisperer]

We have a situation where Simon didn't attend the lunch because of Erin trying to poison him on 4 occasions in the past, and yet his parents and his aunt and uncle do attend. Can anyone see the elephant in the room?

Simon also said he was uncomfortable about going. She had previously tried to get his parents to mediate.

 

[Tortoise]

I think this is very likely.

Yes, hence another reason for the invitation to his parents and the Wilkinsons, to ease his fears, IMO

 

[Detechtive]

Regarding EP's mental health / state of mind / childhood trauma. It's the chicken x egg scenario for me.

IMO happy healthy well rounded functional people do not go around harming others. Therefore something has gone wrong.

Wealth and privilege is no indicator of whether psychological abuse or neglect, abandonment, or any form of violation has taken place. Also EP is of the age where we didn't talk about things happening to us in childhood if they were devastating, such as being sexually violated by an older relative or neighbour or person in authority ... mostly, we just went home and pretended nothing had happened so as not to get in more trouble.

I'm not making excuses for her but something went wrong, this much is clear. If she was the younger sibling, she wasn't raised in a loving home but a cold and harsh home, she could have developed the pathological envy that sits under Narc PD and the secretive, vengeful, hateful, selfish side. Also finding that the only place to take her power is dominance and control. If these things develop in infancy, unchecked, they're the over-arching structure by adult-hood.

JMO MOO

Whilst I do agree that the majority of psychopaths come from "broken homes", I keep seeing this idea pop up that every mass murderer, serial killer, or psychopath must have come from a “broken home”- abusive parents, neglect, constant fighting. Sure, that’s true for some, and even the majority, but it’s not true for all.

Some people show psychopathic traits even if they grew up in loving, stable families. Brain scans have found differences in areas like the amygdala and prefrontal cortex that affect empathy, fear, and impulse control, and those differences can be there from birth.

Then there’s outside influence. A solid home life doesn’t make you immune to extremist ideas, violent subcultures, or the pull of a dangerous peer group. Sometimes that’s all it takes to push the right (or wrong) buttons in someone with a certain personality.

And let’s not forget the “good” homes that weren’t so good in practice - parents who overindulge, never set boundaries, or shield their kids from consequences. That can breed narcissism and entitlement just as easily as abuse can breed resentment.

There’s not a one-size-fits-all origin story here. You can have a killer from a chaotic, violent home or from a picture-perfect one. The paths are different, but the outcome can look the same.

IMO

 

[drsleuth]

I've been waiting & watching for all the pre trial rulings to be uploaded & it finally has!

R v Patterson (Ruling 1) [2025] VSC 102 (14 March 2025)​

R v Patterson (Ruling 1) [2025] VSC 102 (14 March 2025)

JUDGE:	Beale J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	6-7 & 10-14 February 2025
DATE OF RULING:	14 March 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Patterson (Ruling 1)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 102 (First Revision 18 March 2025)

---​

EVIDENCE — Admissibility — Evidence of computer records on devices seized from home of accused concerning access to, or possible access to, information on poisons — Where evidence relied on by prosecution to show that, leading up to and during the period of the alleged offences (attempted murder x4 and murder x3), the accused had a continuous state of mind, namely, an interest in poisons generally and in death cap mushrooms in particular — Where much of the computer evidence is also relied on by the prosecution to show that the accused had a tendency to access information online about death cap mushrooms and/or poisons on the iNaturalist website — Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) ss 55, 56, 76, 137.

 

[drsleuth]

R v Patterson (Ruling 3) [2025] VSC 104 (14 March 2025)

R v Patterson (Ruling 3) [2025] VSC 104 (14 March 2025)​

JUDGE:	Beale J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	6-7 & 10-14 February 2025
DATE OF RULING:	14 March 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Patterson (Ruling 3)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 104 (First revision 19 March 2025)

---​

EVIDENCE — Admissibility — Tendency evidence — Whether accused had a tendency to act in a particular way, namely, to access websites (including iNaturalist) regarding poisons, including death cap mushrooms — Where sightings of death cap mushrooms in Loch and Outtrim posted on iNaturalist on 18 April 2023 and 21 May 2023 — Where no records on electronic devices seized from the accused of her accessing that particular information on iNaturalist — Where tendency evidence relied on for inference that the accused accessed that particular information on iNaturalist — Where cell tower evidence of the accused possibly visiting Loch and Outtrim in days following iNaturalist postings — Tendency evidence inadmissible — Hughes v R (2017) 263 CLR 338 — Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), ss 97, 98.