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

[drsleuth]

There doesn't seem to be rulings published for 2 & 5.

 

[Warshawski]

I think they are just such nice trusting people. They didn't feel at risk, probably thought Simon was exaggerating or being a bit 'silly', even.
Plus, she said she really needed to talk to them about a serious medical issue. There was that family pressure there to attend, and they seemed like really good samaritans. She knew how to play them like a fiddle, IMO.

I think this throws some light on just how these types ‘achieve’ what they do, over the ‘unsuspecting’. So many people have fallen victim, often in the most horrendous of situations & with the most detrimental of experiences.

'It doesn't happen the way you think it will': How Sarah's brush with Melissa Caddick helped her understand cults

Sarah Steel has interviewed countless former cult members and found they're just like "you and me". So, how do so many people find themselves in these situations? The answer comes straight from a power and control playbook.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Susjay]

She was actually in the same room when the doctor spoke to her at Leongatha Hospital and she didn't even look in their direction, let alone ask after them.

And I think Dr Webster knew about the suggestion of poisoning - jar of vomit at other hospital etc - that’s why he knew what or who he was dealing with when the Beef Wellington chef presented at the hospital needing, “a couple of bags of saline”. Because she didn’t need medical attention - she knew what she needed!

 

[Moll]

I found this particularly callous. And she was in the same medical centre as them when she first went to hospital, and still didn’t ask to see them. Just awful.

IMO

Well - she had just tried to kill them all. So would it have been less callous in your view if she'd pretended to be concerned for their welfare?

 

[Susjay]

Yep, she's dreadful. Cowardly and contemptuous of her victims. Surely she'll get locked up for life

I’ve just listened to a few podcasts from reputable clinicians about Malignant Narcissism and read a few recent research articles about same. She’s got a lot going on but I think she would easily be awarded the MN hat following assessment. I’m a psych but Narcissism is not my specialty. Although, being awarded that hat doesn’t excuse heinous behaviour or murder! Just saying.

 

[Susjay]

Continued from above post

(c) SPO[275] – THE ACCUSED’S POST REGARDING MUSHROOMS POISONING CAT

1. TheSummary of Prosecution Opening states, relevantly (footnotes deleted):

1. Theaccused submitted that the evidence was irrelevant, noting that the mushroomsshown in the photographs are not death cap mushrooms.The accused submitted thatthe provenance of the photos is also uncertain. The accused submitted that ifrelevant, the probativevalue of the evidence was outweighed by the danger ofunfair prejudice.

The prosecution submitted that the evidence is relevant as it shows theaccused’s continuing interest in poisons. The prosecutionsubmitted thatthe provenance of the photographs is not uncertain as the same images were foundon an SD card seized from the accused’shome.

1. This post occurred 18 months prior to Event 1. In my view, even if the evidenceof this post shows an interest in poisons, it is temporally remote. I note thatin Ruling 1, I excluded evidence regarding the accused downloading articles about poisons - see Summaryof Prosecution Opening at [274] and [276]— because they were more than two years or one year prior to Event 1 and were thus temporally remote.

(d) SPO[277], [282], [286], [288], [322-324] – CELL TOWER EVIDENCE REGARDINGUNDISPUTED TRIPS BY THE ACCUSED

1. TheSummary of Prosecution Opening states, relevantly (footnotes deleted):

1. Theaccused submitted that to adduce cell tower evidence in relation to the datesand times of undisputed trip would be a waste oftime and should be excludedunder s 135. The accused indicated that dates and times of travel can be led by agreement.

1. Theprosecution submitted that evidence bearing on a matter that is not in disputeis not thereby rendered irrelevant. The prosecutionsubmitted that the celltower evidence provides time certainty, which is especially relevant in relationto Event 2.

1. Inrelation to [322] of the Summary of Prosecution Opening, I note that I ruled inRuling 4 that evidence of theaccused’s disposal of items at the tip on 29 July 2023 is inadmissible asincriminating conduct. Even ifthe cell tower evidence of this trip has some slight residual relevance, theevidence is excluded by s 137 because its probative value is outweighed bythe danger that the jury will engage in impermissible incriminating conductreasoning.
2. Inrelation to the other undisputed trips, if there is an agreement of facts between the prosecution and the accused pursuant to s 191 as to the datesand times of these trips, it would be a waste of court time for the prosecution to lead cell tower evidenceabout those trips. Once that signed agreement offacts is filed, I will excludethe cell tower evidence under s 135(c).

(e) SPO[293]-[295] – THE ACCUSED’S ATTITUDE TOWARDS SIMON PATTERSON, DONPATTERSON AND GAIL PATTERSON

1. TheSummary of Prosecution Opening states, relevantly (footnotes deleted):

1. During the s 198B hearings, a number of witnesses including Matthew Patterson and Anna Terrington, Simon Patterson’s brother and sister, were cross examined about the positive relationships the accused had with Simon Patterson, Don Patterson and Gail Patterson.
2. At his s 198B hearing, Matthew Patterson was asked the following questions and gave the following answers in cross examination:

1. At her s 198B hearing, Simon Patterson’s sister, Anna Terrington, was asked the following questions and gave the following answersin cross examination:

1. Inher recorded police interview of 5 August 2023, the following passage appears:

1. The accused submitted the impugned evidence should be excluded under s 137.
2. The accused submitted that some of the disparaging remarks made by the accused about Simon Patterson, Don Patterson and Gail Pattersonin the messages could inflame the jury. The accused submitted the messages could also mislead the jury as tothe true nature of he rrelationship with Simon Patterson, Don Patterson and Gail Patterson. Moreover, the jury might treat the relationship evidence asevidenceof motive, even though the prosecution does not rely on it in thatway.

1. The prosecution submitted the evidence is relevant as relationship and context evidence. It indicates the accused harboured resentment towards Simon Patterson,Don Patterson and Gail Patterson. It rebuts evidence that the prosecution anticipates the accused will adduce that the accused’s relationships with Simon Patterson, Don Patterson and Gail Patterson were positive and, thus, she had amotive not to poison them.

1. The impugned evidence seems to me to be of significant probative value with respect to Event 4, to which Simon Patterson was also invited but failed to attend. It demonstrates considerable resentment on the accused’s part towards Simon Patterson, Don Pattersonand Gail Patterson at a time proximate to Event 4. As occurred in thes 198B hearings with,for example, Simon Patterson’s brother Matthew and sister Anna, the accused will probably adduce evidence at trial from several of the prosecution’s witnesses of the accused having positive relationships with Simon Patterson, Don Patterson and Gail Patterson : indeed, the accused emphasised her positive relationships with Don Patterson and Gail Patterson in her recorded police interview. The impugned evidenceis significant rebuttal evidence.
2. The prosecution will not be submitting to the jury that the accused’s resentment towards Simon Patterson, Don Patterson and Gail Patterson amounts toa motive for her to murder them. This minimises the risk of the jury overvaluing the evidence. If requested,I could give the jury directions reinforcing the pointthat the prosecutiononly relies on the relationship evidence for rebuttal purposes. Nor do I think the disparaging comments made by the accused about Simon Patterson, Don Patterson and Gail Patterson will inflame the jury. On the spectrum of inflammatory material ,this falls at the very bottom end of the spectrum, if at all. The jury can be expected to abide the standard direction not to decide the case based on sympathy or prejudice. I am not persuaded that the danger of unfair prejudice outweighs the probative value of the evidence.

[Redacted]

1. It is convenient to deal with [298] and [309] of the Summary of Prosecution Opening jointly. The Summary of Prosecution Opening states,relevantly (footnotesdeleted):

1. Th eaccused submitted it was speculation that the accused sighted the posts inquestion and therefore the impugned evidence was irrelevant.

1. The prosecution submitted that the impugned evidence passes the test of relevance because it is part of the evidence of opportunity for the accused to have deliberately sourced death cap mushrooms locally.

1. Thei mpugned evidence of the iNaturalist posts summarised in [298] and [309] of theSummary of Prosecution Opening is not to be consideredin isolation. In Ruling1, I noted that the evidence summarised at [283] to [285] of the Summary of Prosecution Opening was not objected to by the accused. In other words, there is admissible evidence from which a jury could infer that the accused was not only familiar with the iNaturalist website but knew how to utilise its worldwide map to find thelocations of death cap mushrooms locally. [REDACTED] In Ruling2, I ruled that cell tower evidence of the accused possibly visiting Loch twice (28 April 2023 and 22 May2023) and Outtrim once (22May 2023) was admissible. The possible visit to Lochon 28 April 2023 — 10 days after McKenzie’s post — was followed by the accused purchasing a Sunbeam food dehydrator on the same day. The possible visit to Outtrim on 22 May 2023 was a day after May’s post oniNaturalist. It is not in dispute that on 29 July 2023, the accused served her lunch guests Beef Wellingtons that were laced with death cap mushrooms. When these pieces of evidence are considered in combination, they pass the test of relevance because, at the very least, they are evidence of opportunity for the accused to have deliberately sourced death cap mushrooms locally,rather than having inadvertently purchased them from an Asian grocery, as she claimed to investigators. I note that a thorough investigation by the Health Departmentfound no support for that claim.

(g) SPO[327] – THE ACCUSED CHANGING SIM CARD FROM SAMSUNG TABLET TO PHONE B &NOT PUTTING OUT BINS ON 3 AUGUST 2023

1. The Summary of Prosecution Opening states, relevantly (footnotes deleted):

1. The accused submitted the evidence is irrelevant or, in the alternative, excluded bys 137.

1. The prosecution submitted that the evidence about the SIM card is relevant as part of the accused’s alleged incriminating conduct in relation to her phones.The prosecution also submitted it is relevant to explain an absence of evidence,namely, the absence of evidence that the accused accessed posts on iNaturalist in April and May 2023 about sightings of death cap mushrooms in Loch and Outtrim. The prosecution submitted that the accused may have accessed those posts on the accused’s usual phone — PhoneA — which was never found by investigators.

1. In relation to the SIM card, evidence of the accused setting up Phone B on 3 August 2023 is part of the course of conduct regarding the accused’s phones which the prosecution relies on as incriminating conduct. In Ruling 4, I ruled inrelation to items (k), (l), (m) & (q) that the accused could rely on that course of conduct as incriminating conduct. It follows that the evidence summarised in the first sentence of [327] of the Summary of ProsecutionOpening is relevant and admissible.
2. In relation to the accused not putting out her rubbish bins, the prosecution relies on this omission as supporting the inference that the accused’s visit to and disposal of unknown items at the tip on 29 July 2023 shortly after the fatal lunch was unnecessary (because she had plenty of space in her bins at home) andamounts to incriminating conduct. In Ruling 4, I ruled that the visit to anddisposal of unknown items at the tip on 29 July 23 was inadmissible as incriminating conduct. Accordingly,the fact that the accused failed to put outher bins on 3 August 2023 is irrelevant and inadmissible.

(h) SPO[334] – THE ACCUSED ASKING TANYA PATTERSON TO CARE FOR HER CHILDREN

1. The Summary of Prosecution Opening states, relevantly (footnotes deleted):

1. Th eaccused submitted the evidence summarised in [334] of the Summary of Prosecution Opening is irrelevant. The accused was asking Tanya Patterson for help on 7August 2023 because of the prospect of protective services taking her children.The accused submitted this request is irrelevant to what happened on 31 July2023 when the accused left Leongatha Hospital against medical advice. Alternatively,the accused submitted that the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by the danger of unfairprejudice.

1. The prosecution submitted that this evidence is relevant to item (c) of the incriminating conduct relied on by the prosecution. On 31 July 2023, after the accused’s first presentation at Leongatha Hospital, the accused ignored strong medical advice thatshe remain at the hospital, saying she had to leave to, amongst other things, sort out things for her children. The prosecution submitted that Tanya Patterson was someone who had looked after theaccused’s children before when the accused had gone away on trips with Simon Patterson.The prosecution submitted that Tanya Patterson was someone the accused could have turned to on31 July 2023 to sort out things forher children and that the accused’s email to Tanya on 7 August 2023 confirms that.

1. In Ruling 4, I ruled that the prosecution could rely on evidence of the accused leaving Leongatha Hospital against medical adviceas incriminating conduct. This evidence is relevant to that alleged incriminating conduct. It supports the inference, which is open, that she did not have a good reason to leave Leongatha Hospital against medical advice on 31 July 2023 because she had people she could call upon to help with the children, including Tanya Patterson. I do not consider that thereis any unfair prejudice associated with this evidence.None was identified bythe accused.

(i) SPO[336c & d] – PHOTOGRAPHS OF MUSHROOMS MATCHING THOSE POSTED BY THEACCUSED ON FACEBOOK IN MAY 2020

1. The Summary of Prosecution Opening states, relevantly (footnotes deleted):

1. The accused submitted that evidence that the accused had an interest in poisons is too vague to be relevant.

1. The prosecution submitted that the photographs of the mushrooms, some of which are possibly mushrooms foraged in the wild, suppor tthe inference that the accused had a continuous state of mind, namely an interest in poisons.

1. The photos were taken in 2020, some 2.5 to 3 years before the fatal lunch on 29 July2023. As with the evidence summarised at [275]of the Summary of Prosecution Opening, I regard the evidence as temporally remote and consequently irrelevant.

Great, this is amazing. Thanks.

 

[drsleuth]

DPP v Patterson [2025] VSCA 82 (17 April 2025)

Supreme Court of Victoria - Court of Appeal​

DPP v Patterson [2025] VSCA 82 (17 April 2025)​

JUDGES:	EMERTON P, PRIEST and T FORREST JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 April 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 April 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 82
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	R v Patterson (Ruling 6) [2025] VSC 108R (Beale J)

---​

CRIMINAL LAW – Interlocutory appeal – Coincidence evidence – Three charges of murder and one of attempted murder by alleged poisoning of four lunch guests – Three charges of attempted murder of husband by alleged poisoning in three preceding episodes – Whether evidence relating to alleged poisoning of lunch guests admissible to prove that husband was poisoned – Whether evidence relating to alleged poisoning of husband admissible to prove lunch guests deliberately poisoned – Whether circular reasoning – Whether charges relating to husband should be severed from those relating to lunch guests – Whether probative value of coincidence evidence substantially outweighs any prejudicial effect on the accused – Judge was correct to sever indictment – Leave to appeal refused.




43 Simon rang Dr Ford and told him about Donald and Gail. Dr Ford was familiar with Simon’s previous illnesses and aware of his concerns about potential poisoning. He made contact with the hospital to notify them of his concerns regarding potential poisoning. All four lunch guests were eventually transferred to Dandenong Hospital.
BBM

 

[katydid23]

Not to mention cooking poison cookies with her daughter who gave them to him!

THAT^^^ was just so disgusting and despicable. Shows us how little she actually cared about her daughter, IMO.

 

[katydid23]

Something triggered her to decide to hell with all of them, that's for sure.

As she said to her friend group---" I'm DONE with them."

 

[Tortoise]

It's saying something when most everything you've ever said and done would prejudice a jury against you. LOL

Your honour, the fact my client served death caps to her lunch guests is prejudicial. We seek an order banning all prejudicial evidence against her.

 

[katydid23]

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

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

I think it was this^^^^^. I think the main reason he didn't go to the lunch was because he suspects she was trying to poison him. But it never occurred to him that she would poison the family.

I think he thought the attack on him was because he was going to divorce her,so they'd have custody issues, and he was probably seeing someone else so she was jealous too.

I am sure he felt incredibly guilty about not protecting his parents and Aunt and Uncle.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

Continued from above post

(c) SPO[275] – THE ACCUSED’S POST REGARDING MUSHROOMS POISONING CAT

1. TheSummary of Prosecution Opening states, relevantly (footnotes deleted):

1. Theaccused submitted that the evidence was irrelevant, noting that the mushroomsshown in the photographs are not death cap mushrooms.The accused submitted thatthe provenance of the photos is also uncertain. The accused submitted that ifrelevant, the probativevalue of the evidence was outweighed by the danger ofunfair prejudice.

The prosecution submitted that the evidence is relevant as it shows theaccused’s continuing interest in poisons. The prosecutionsubmitted thatthe provenance of the photographs is not uncertain as the same images were foundon an SD card seized from the accused’shome.

1. This post occurred 18 months prior to Event 1. In my view, even if the evidenceof this post shows an interest in poisons, it is temporally remote. I note thatin Ruling 1, I excluded evidence regarding the accused downloading articles about poisons - see Summaryof Prosecution Opening at [274] and [276]— because they were more than two years or one year prior to Event 1 and were thus temporally remote.

(d) SPO[277], [282], [286], [288], [322-324] – CELL TOWER EVIDENCE REGARDINGUNDISPUTED TRIPS BY THE ACCUSED

1. TheSummary of Prosecution Opening states, relevantly (footnotes deleted):

1. Theaccused submitted that to adduce cell tower evidence in relation to the datesand times of undisputed trip would be a waste oftime and should be excludedunder s 135. The accused indicated that dates and times of travel can be led by agreement.

1. Theprosecution submitted that evidence bearing on a matter that is not in disputeis not thereby rendered irrelevant. The prosecutionsubmitted that the celltower evidence provides time certainty, which is especially relevant in relationto Event 2.

1. Inrelation to [322] of the Summary of Prosecution Opening, I note that I ruled inRuling 4 that evidence of theaccused’s disposal of items at the tip on 29 July 2023 is inadmissible asincriminating conduct. Even ifthe cell tower evidence of this trip has some slight residual relevance, theevidence is excluded by s 137 because its probative value is outweighed bythe danger that the jury will engage in impermissible incriminating conductreasoning.
2. Inrelation to the other undisputed trips, if there is an agreement of facts between the prosecution and the accused pursuant to s 191 as to the datesand times of these trips, it would be a waste of court time for the prosecution to lead cell tower evidenceabout those trips. Once that signed agreement offacts is filed, I will excludethe cell tower evidence under s 135(c).

(e) SPO[293]-[295] – THE ACCUSED’S ATTITUDE TOWARDS SIMON PATTERSON, DONPATTERSON AND GAIL PATTERSON

1. TheSummary of Prosecution Opening states, relevantly (footnotes deleted):

1. During the s 198B hearings, a number of witnesses including Matthew Patterson and Anna Terrington, Simon Patterson’s brother and sister, were cross examined about the positive relationships the accused had with Simon Patterson, Don Patterson and Gail Patterson.
2. At his s 198B hearing, Matthew Patterson was asked the following questions and gave the following answers in cross examination:

1. At her s 198B hearing, Simon Patterson’s sister, Anna Terrington, was asked the following questions and gave the following answersin cross examination:

1. Inher recorded police interview of 5 August 2023, the following passage appears:

1. The accused submitted the impugned evidence should be excluded under s 137.
2. The accused submitted that some of the disparaging remarks made by the accused about Simon Patterson, Don Patterson and Gail Pattersonin the messages could inflame the jury. The accused submitted the messages could also mislead the jury as tothe true nature of he rrelationship with Simon Patterson, Don Patterson and Gail Patterson. Moreover, the jury might treat the relationship evidence asevidenceof motive, even though the prosecution does not rely on it in thatway.

1. The prosecution submitted the evidence is relevant as relationship and context evidence. It indicates the accused harboured resentment towards Simon Patterson,Don Patterson and Gail Patterson. It rebuts evidence that the prosecution anticipates the accused will adduce that the accused’s relationships with Simon Patterson, Don Patterson and Gail Patterson were positive and, thus, she had amotive not to poison them.

1. The impugned evidence seems to me to be of significant probative value with respect to Event 4, to which Simon Patterson was also invited but failed to attend. It demonstrates considerable resentment on the accused’s part towards Simon Patterson, Don Pattersonand Gail Patterson at a time proximate to Event 4. As occurred in thes 198B hearings with,for example, Simon Patterson’s brother Matthew and sister Anna, the accused will probably adduce evidence at trial from several of the prosecution’s witnesses of the accused having positive relationships with Simon Patterson, Don Patterson and Gail Patterson : indeed, the accused emphasised her positive relationships with Don Patterson and Gail Patterson in her recorded police interview. The impugned evidenceis significant rebuttal evidence.
2. The prosecution will not be submitting to the jury that the accused’s resentment towards Simon Patterson, Don Patterson and Gail Patterson amounts toa motive for her to murder them. This minimises the risk of the jury overvaluing the evidence. If requested,I could give the jury directions reinforcing the pointthat the prosecutiononly relies on the relationship evidence for rebuttal purposes. Nor do I think the disparaging comments made by the accused about Simon Patterson, Don Patterson and Gail Patterson will inflame the jury. On the spectrum of inflammatory material ,this falls at the very bottom end of the spectrum, if at all. The jury can be expected to abide the standard direction not to decide the case based on sympathy or prejudice. I am not persuaded that the danger of unfair prejudice outweighs the probative value of the evidence.

[Redacted]

1. It is convenient to deal with [298] and [309] of the Summary of Prosecution Opening jointly. The Summary of Prosecution Opening states,relevantly (footnotesdeleted):

1. Th eaccused submitted it was speculation that the accused sighted the posts inquestion and therefore the impugned evidence was irrelevant.

1. The prosecution submitted that the impugned evidence passes the test of relevance because it is part of the evidence of opportunity for the accused to have deliberately sourced death cap mushrooms locally.

1. Thei mpugned evidence of the iNaturalist posts summarised in [298] and [309] of theSummary of Prosecution Opening is not to be consideredin isolation. In Ruling1, I noted that the evidence summarised at [283] to [285] of the Summary of Prosecution Opening was not objected to by the accused. In other words, there is admissible evidence from which a jury could infer that the accused was not only familiar with the iNaturalist website but knew how to utilise its worldwide map to find thelocations of death cap mushrooms locally. [REDACTED] In Ruling2, I ruled that cell tower evidence of the accused possibly visiting Loch twice (28 April 2023 and 22 May2023) and Outtrim once (22May 2023) was admissible. The possible visit to Lochon 28 April 2023 — 10 days after McKenzie’s post — was followed by the accused purchasing a Sunbeam food dehydrator on the same day. The possible visit to Outtrim on 22 May 2023 was a day after May’s post oniNaturalist. It is not in dispute that on 29 July 2023, the accused served her lunch guests Beef Wellingtons that were laced with death cap mushrooms. When these pieces of evidence are considered in combination, they pass the test of relevance because, at the very least, they are evidence of opportunity for the accused to have deliberately sourced death cap mushrooms locally,rather than having inadvertently purchased them from an Asian grocery, as she claimed to investigators. I note that a thorough investigation by the Health Departmentfound no support for that claim.

(g) SPO[327] – THE ACCUSED CHANGING SIM CARD FROM SAMSUNG TABLET TO PHONE B &NOT PUTTING OUT BINS ON 3 AUGUST 2023

1. The Summary of Prosecution Opening states, relevantly (footnotes deleted):

1. The accused submitted the evidence is irrelevant or, in the alternative, excluded bys 137.

1. The prosecution submitted that the evidence about the SIM card is relevant as part of the accused’s alleged incriminating conduct in relation to her phones.The prosecution also submitted it is relevant to explain an absence of evidence,namely, the absence of evidence that the accused accessed posts on iNaturalist in April and May 2023 about sightings of death cap mushrooms in Loch and Outtrim. The prosecution submitted that the accused may have accessed those posts on the accused’s usual phone — PhoneA — which was never found by investigators.

1. In relation to the SIM card, evidence of the accused setting up Phone B on 3 August 2023 is part of the course of conduct regarding the accused’s phones which the prosecution relies on as incriminating conduct. In Ruling 4, I ruled inrelation to items (k), (l), (m) & (q) that the accused could rely on that course of conduct as incriminating conduct. It follows that the evidence summarised in the first sentence of [327] of the Summary of ProsecutionOpening is relevant and admissible.
2. In relation to the accused not putting out her rubbish bins, the prosecution relies on this omission as supporting the inference that the accused’s visit to and disposal of unknown items at the tip on 29 July 2023 shortly after the fatal lunch was unnecessary (because she had plenty of space in her bins at home) andamounts to incriminating conduct. In Ruling 4, I ruled that the visit to anddisposal of unknown items at the tip on 29 July 23 was inadmissible as incriminating conduct. Accordingly,the fact that the accused failed to put outher bins on 3 August 2023 is irrelevant and inadmissible.

(h) SPO[334] – THE ACCUSED ASKING TANYA PATTERSON TO CARE FOR HER CHILDREN

1. The Summary of Prosecution Opening states, relevantly (footnotes deleted):

1. Th eaccused submitted the evidence summarised in [334] of the Summary of Prosecution Opening is irrelevant. The accused was asking Tanya Patterson for help on 7August 2023 because of the prospect of protective services taking her children.The accused submitted this request is irrelevant to what happened on 31 July2023 when the accused left Leongatha Hospital against medical advice. Alternatively,the accused submitted that the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by the danger of unfairprejudice.

1. The prosecution submitted that this evidence is relevant to item (c) of the incriminating conduct relied on by the prosecution. On 31 July 2023, after the accused’s first presentation at Leongatha Hospital, the accused ignored strong medical advice thatshe remain at the hospital, saying she had to leave to, amongst other things, sort out things for her children. The prosecution submitted that Tanya Patterson was someone who had looked after theaccused’s children before when the accused had gone away on trips with Simon Patterson.The prosecution submitted that Tanya Patterson was someone the accused could have turned to on31 July 2023 to sort out things forher children and that the accused’s email to Tanya on 7 August 2023 confirms that.

1. In Ruling 4, I ruled that the prosecution could rely on evidence of the accused leaving Leongatha Hospital against medical adviceas incriminating conduct. This evidence is relevant to that alleged incriminating conduct. It supports the inference, which is open, that she did not have a good reason to leave Leongatha Hospital against medical advice on 31 July 2023 because she had people she could call upon to help with the children, including Tanya Patterson. I do not consider that thereis any unfair prejudice associated with this evidence.None was identified bythe accused.

(i) SPO[336c & d] – PHOTOGRAPHS OF MUSHROOMS MATCHING THOSE POSTED BY THEACCUSED ON FACEBOOK IN MAY 2020

1. The Summary of Prosecution Opening states, relevantly (footnotes deleted):

1. The accused submitted that evidence that the accused had an interest in poisons is too vague to be relevant.

1. The prosecution submitted that the photographs of the mushrooms, some of which are possibly mushrooms foraged in the wild, suppor tthe inference that the accused had a continuous state of mind, namely an interest in poisons.

1. The photos were taken in 2020, some 2.5 to 3 years before the fatal lunch on 29 July2023. As with the evidence summarised at [275]of the Summary of Prosecution Opening, I regard the evidence as temporally remote and consequently irrelevant.

Very interesting, and absolutely crazy when you consider that some of these things could have been kept out of the trial. There are two things that jump out from this overall set of evidence:

1) The reliability of cell-tower pings: there was a big part of the trial about how the pings might not actually locate Outrim and Loch accurately. Here, you can see how the pings very reliably located Erin's movements in different situations. There is also the somewhat strange example of the pings indicating she went somewhere during her exit from the hospital.

2) The timing of the death-cap searches: as Simon's attempted poisonings were removed from the trial, this was something completely missed. Before he went into a coma, he was actually temporarily discharged from hospital. It was at this moment that she searched for death-cap mushrooms in the local area.

How that wasn't able to be used as relevant information I don't know.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

And I think Dr Webster knew about the suggestion of poisoning - jar of vomit at other hospital etc - that’s why he knew what or who he was dealing with when the Beef Wellington chef presented at the hospital needing, “a couple of bags of saline”. Because she didn’t need medical attention - she knew what she needed!

One interesting thing that came out in the Mushroom Daily Podcast is that Dr Webster had spoken to the same doctor that Simon had told prior to Erin coming in.

He knew full well that she'd been accused of poisoning before. It explains a lot about his 'You did this' comment.

 

[katydid23]

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

YES. I truly believe that the main reason she invited poor Ian and Heather was to ease the other's fears about attending----surely she'd have no reason to harm them. So it's safe to attend her luncheon.

And it was also an excuse the Defense used---'Erin had no motive to hurt the Wilkinson's, surely it was just an awful accident, nothing more.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

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

I think it was this^^^^^. I think the main reason he didn't go to the lunch was because he suspects she was trying to poison him. But it never occurred to him that she would poison the family.

I think he thought the attack on him was because he was going to divorce her,so they'd have custody issues, and he was probably seeing someone else so she was jealous too.

I am sure he felt incredibly guilty about not protecting his parents and Aunt and Uncle.

My memory is terrible, but I'm pretty sure there was a meal about a month before between Erin and just the in-laws?

If this is true, it would explain why they weren't particularly apprehensive about this meal.

I also think Simon wasn't necessarily as certain at the time, as he is now. Pre-meditated murder is an incredibly rare thing, it's one thing thinking it and another believing it for certain.

 

[katydid23]

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

Yes. I know two families, that each had one psychopathic offspring, while all the siblings were healthy, normal, well rounded and non violent.

My daughter's best friend in elementary school had an older brother that was just plain weird, even as a young boy. He was the only one out of the 4 kids that was ever that way.

Before we realised how crazy he really was, my daughter spent a lot of time at their house because they were very wealthy and had lots of great fun things to do. My daughter knew the parents very well and they were not mean to their son---they tried hard to understand him. But he was just plain sadistic and mean, even as a very young child. He could not be trusted around family pets for example.

But that stuff was kept 'strictly' in the family. WE didn't know any of that or I wouldn't have let my 8 yr old play at their house. Years later, after I got to know the parents better, I learned about their struggles, trying to help him but also trying to protect th other kids, etc.

He ended up in prison around age 20 for rape. He raped an 80 yr old woman. He was just sick and twisted. And his mom was just never the same once she realised how violent he had become.

I do think that occasionally there are just 'bad seed' type kids that maybe inherited a bad gene or maybe fell on their head, or whatever, and even with loving family and wholesome childhood, it was not enough?

 

[katydid23]

Actually it was 3 times she had allegedly poisoned him. It would probably have been 4 times had he eaten the cookies. Yes, they must have been such kind people. The type of in-laws that anyone could hope for...

I think they were trying to keep communication open so they would not lose contact with their grandchildren. Trying to stay civil with her, and be helpful with her medical crisis, etc.

I don't think they were certain that she had actually poisoned Simon previously. It was a strong suspicion, but they had no reason to think she'd harm them, imo.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

I think they were trying to keep communication open so they would not lose contact with their grandchildren. Trying to stay civil with her, and be helpful with her medical crisis, etc.

I don't think they were certain that she had actually poisoned Simon previously. It was a strong suspicion, but they had no reason to think she'd harm them, imo.

A lot of people of that generation think that way IMO, especially if they are religious.

As I said earlier, pre-meditated murder is exceptionally rare. About 20 years ago, I had an ex-girlfriend who was not well-liked by anybody really. However, if after a break-up I accused her of having tried to poison me, I don't think people would truly believe me.

 

[Detechtive]

It's saying something when most everything you've ever said and done would prejudice a jury against you. LOL

Your honour, the fact my client served death caps to her lunch guests is prejudicial. We seek an order banning all prejudicial evidence against her.

I was thinking the same thing about the prejudice

 

[Detechtive]

Yes. I know two families, that each had one psychopathic offspring, while all the siblings were healthy, normal, well rounded and non violent.

My daughter's best friend in elementary school had an older brother that was just plain weird, even as a young boy. He was the only one out of the 4 kids that was ever that way.

Before we realised how crazy he really was, my daughter spent a lot of time at their house because they were very wealthy and had lots of great fun things to do. My daughter knew the parents very well and they were not mean to their son---they tried hard to understand him. But he was just plain sadistic and mean, even as a very young child. He could not be trusted around family pets for example.

But that stuff was kept 'strictly' in the family. WE didn't know any of that or I wouldn't have let my 8 yr old play at their house. Years later, after I got to know the parents better, I learned about their struggles, trying to help him but also trying to protect th other kids, etc.

He ended up in prison around age 20 for rape. He raped an 80 yr old woman. He was just sick and twisted. And his mom was just never the same once she realised how violent he had become.

I do think that occasionally there are just 'bad seed' type kids that maybe inherited a bad gene or maybe fell on their head, or whatever, and even with loving family and wholesome childhood, it was not enough?

That’s really interesting and disturbing, but it’s not that uncommon. A lot of psychopaths of course go on to be highly successful CEOs, politicans, etc and never kill, but of those in the prison population around 75% had a head injury prior to 16, which can definitely account for some of the psychopaths who grew up in a stable caring home. IMO