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

[Detechtive]

Do I have this right? EP claimed she wanted a divorce which SP denied her, but when he rightly declared his status as 'separated', she didn't  cheer, elated he was ready to move forward in the divorce process?

But instead got angry and launched right into arguing about child support?

And SP didn't argue it. He agreed to pay it!

So she moved the goalposts again, arguing now that -- in addition to child support -- she expected him to pay tuition/activities/etc as well. Seriously. Arguing that before having a discussion , reaching an agreement on the amount of child support? She sounds like someone who simply wants to argue. (Notable that SP was trying IMO not to engage with her for is very reason.)

Her argument was inane. A legal child support plan would surely have factored for the children's expenses and been calculated accordingly. It was an empty argument, one she invented 8n order t9 force SP's engagement. Negative attention is attention. And when SP held firm (no engagement), she upped the game, drawing his parents into her made up argument. Now SP is a bad dad, shirking his responsibilities, for I guess not paying overages to a child support amount that was never determined.

Remember, her "argument" was that SP was refusing to pay anything more for the children, ab9ve child support which hadn't been determined!!!!

Her in-laws IMO tried to be diplomatic... until EP started attacking  them (if you loved the children, you would....l), then tried to recuse themselves. But, as we've seen, there isn't a healthy boundary anywhere that that EP respects. She wanted them to force SP to engage with her.

That is what her relationship with SP was. Engagement. Maladaptive relationshipping.

(Same IMO with her relationship with her children. Not commending them for being honest, but instead modeling dishonesty, and worse, flipping it. She is honest, they are not (which flies in the face of what they themselves have experienced -- which is exactly how chronic gaslighting eventually erodes one's trust in one's own perception.)

When EP could not get SP's parents to engage in her fabricated fight against SP nor get them to force SP into engagement, she was done with them. They were as SP to her. One and the same.

Why the other couple? This is how cold, petty, indictive EP is -- she invited them (led them to slaughter) as BAIT, to draw the others in, because surely she'd mean them no harm.

That is how casually she willing to kill.

There is constant talk about no motive here. I think the stark truth is that her motive was so weak/minor/petty is hard to fathom a human being could murder so lightly.

Monster.

JMO

Erin didn’t ask for a divorce. The rest is true!

 

[Ellery84]

And above all, for your mother to essentially call both you and your sibling liars and mistaken in your evidence to the police, which no doubt may have been difficult to do in and of itself, would be terrible mentally at the very least.

When did that occur?

 

[tmar]

Right from the start, seeing her ridiculous response to media at her home, I found EP very unlikeable.

From then on, I referred to her by initials.
Did others here, feel the same: is it intuition, a gut feeling, even before evidence was released?

I thought GUILTY from the start, but very worried with Judge Beale's long explanations, fearing he was biased towards her.

Now worried, EP may not get 'LIFE without parole' due to Judge Beale's past lenient sentencings ie. Ristevski.

 

[Monstradamus]

When did that occur?

During Erin's testimony. She disagreed with the children's video evidence.

 

[Ellery84]

I don’t know what Ellery was referring to but I think it’s quite relevant overall, because when I knew Erin she was definitely purporting to be an atheist. I found it very strange to hear she was praying with people and attending church, etc. Not only was she an atheist, but she outright mocked religious people.

I think it goes to show her duplicitous character. I don’t believe she ever converted from atheist to theism. I think she pretended to be theist to get into Simon’s good graces.

IMO

Exactly. This

 

[dothetime]

When did that occur?

Erin contradicted the children's testimonies when she was on the stand. The children were not present in the court at any time, but their interviews were on video and shown in the court, i understand.

 

[Lord Peter Flimsy]

What I’m still struggling to get my head around was that Simon was hospitalised 4 times within a short 11 month period with severe gastrointestinal issues and other serious symptoms. He very nearly died after the 2nd episode.

This doesn’t sound like some simple case of food poisoning or common stomach complaint (coma, bowel removal etc!). Why didn’t the hospital even inquisitively question was he being deliberately poisoned when they couldn’t pinpoint what the issue was and why nobody else was coming down with it?

Perhaps they did and I missed it??

 

[Ellery84]

DM article written by Candace Sutton 12 hours ago hints at EP Serial Killer vibes etc.

We all had suspicions - WS questioned this back in 2023:

View attachment 608109

Of course; Web Sleuths are always a step or two ahead!!

 

[Ellery84]

IIRC, she claimed that her mother was an alcoholic. I wonder of that was a fact, or if it was EP simply making suppositions based on that find?

Erin is not a reliable historian.

 

[Warshawski]

I think her children, certainly the oldest, would have guessed right then and there that she was guilty...

I think ( certainly hope) the children will have been kept well away from any of the testimony given in court, and all of its reporting.

 

[Warshawski]

Let’s hope they are adults by then.

Let’s hope they have been given the right psychological & emotional support to enable them to ‘ appropriately deal ‘ with everything , even if they are adults when it all comes clear to them.
I imagine even now, there will be so many things that they considered to be ‘normal’ over the years of their young lives up to that July date - that now they will be starting to look at differently.

 

[JBowie]

Erin is not a reliable historian.

To put it mildly!

 

[ch_13]

What I’m still struggling to get my head around was that Simon was hospitalised 4 times within a short 11 month period with severe gastrointestinal issues and other serious symptoms. He very nearly died after the 2nd episode.

This doesn’t sound like some simple case of food poisoning or common stomach complaint (coma, bowel removal etc!). Why didn’t the hospital even inquisitively question was he being deliberately poisoned when they couldn’t pinpoint what the issue was and why nobody else was coming down with it?

Perhaps they did and I missed it??

It's easy now with 20/20 hindsight to say that it was poison. But it wouldn't have been the obvious diagnosis at the time. The doctors must have thought there was something systematically wrong with Simon. Also every time he got sick, the symptoms were different. So, it wouldn't have been at all apparent that he was being fed different poisons, each with different effects.

How many magazine articles, tv programs, and movies are about a person going from doctor to doctor because no one can explain their symptoms? Often in these stories it turns out they have a rare or unknown condition that was difficult to diagnose. That was probably what the doctors were thinking was going on with Simon.

 

[Doesitmakesense]

So I had an errand to run yesterday that took me through Loch, Korumburra & Leongatha. It's was interesting to see the distance between Loch and Leongatha in real life. It's not just a little zip up the road. Also from my little travels, seeing there is not a lot going on in Loch, but more interesting there's not a lot surrounding Loch that could could think, oh some person might have gone here

 

[Ellery84]

So I had an errand to run yesterday that took me through Loch, Korumburra & Leongatha. It's was interesting to see the distance between Loch and Leongatha in real life. It's not just a little zip up the road. Also from my little travels, seeing there is not a lot going on in Loch, but more interesting there's not a lot surrounding Loch that could could think, oh some person might have gone here

That’s a great insight, thanks for sharing.

 

[LinasK]

What I’m still struggling to get my head around was that Simon was hospitalised 4 times within a short 11 month period with severe gastrointestinal issues and other serious symptoms. He very nearly died after the 2nd episode.

This doesn’t sound like some simple case of food poisoning or common stomach complaint (coma, bowel removal etc!). Why didn’t the hospital even inquisitively question was he being deliberately poisoned when they couldn’t pinpoint what the issue was and why nobody else was coming down with it?

Perhaps they did and I missed it??

Exactly! That doesn't sound at all like Food Poisoning "gastro" or even IBS/Crohn's disease. Especially when it always occurred after eating her food. Wonder if she was taking him to different hospitals each time to avoid them putting the pieces together. Was he seeing a GI doctor?

 

[LinasK]

It's easy now with 20/20 hindsight to say that it was poison. But it wouldn't have been the obvious diagnosis at the time. The doctors must have thought there was something systematically wrong with Simon. Also every time he got sick, the symptoms were different. So, it wouldn't have been at all apparent that he was being fed different poisons, each with different effects.

How many magazine articles, tv programs, and movies are about a person going from doctor to doctor because no one can explain their symptoms? Often in these stories it turns out they have a rare or unknown condition that was difficult to diagnose. That was probably what the doctors were thinking was going on with Simon.

Because it always happened after eating her food. At some point, you put 2 and 2 together.

 

[ch_13]

Because it always happened after eating her food. At some point, you put 2 and 2 together.

Did it happen every time he ate EP's food, or just sometimes? How much time passed between eating the food and getting sick? What other health issues was he having at the same time? All questions that could affect how easy it was to recognize the pattern.

I mean, Simon seems like a pretty smart guy. And I'm sure his doctors were pretty intelligent too. If it took them a while to connect the dots, then I trust that it wasn't as obvious as everyone here seems to think it was.

With all due respect, thinking that this was something that should have been quickly detected is textbook hindsight bias.

Hindsight bias - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Charlot123]

Because it always happened after eating her food. At some point, you put 2 and 2 together.

I think that in general, to even think, “is my wife poisoning me?” is strange. You have lived with this woman for many years, have kids together. You may drift apart but it doesn’t mean you suspect her of being a poisoner. Someone very observant has to put together weird symptoms that can’t be explained in a regular way.

 

[drsleuth]

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

They are up now

R v Patterson (Ruling 2) [2025] VSC 103 (14 March 2025)​

R v Patterson (Ruling 2) [2025] VSC 103 (14 March 2025)

ERIN PATTERSON

Accused​

---​

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 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 103 (First Revision 19 March 2025)

---​

EVIDENCE — Admissibility of cell tower evidence — Whether the accused attended Loch on 28 April 2023 and Loch and Outtrim on 22 May 2023 — Where there is evidence that the accused accessed iNaturalist website in 2022, including a map of locations of death cap mushrooms — Where information was posted on iNaturalist website in April and May 2023 that death cap mushrooms were sighted in Loch and Outtrim, being towns which were not far from where the accused was living at the time in Leongatha — Whether cell tower evidence supports inference that the accused attended Loch and/or Outtrim on days alleged to source death cap mushrooms to use in the Beef Wellingtons which she served to her lunch guests on 29 July 2023 — Evidence of Opportunity — Evidence admissible — Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), ss 55, 56, 137.


4 This is a ruling regarding the admissibility of cell tower evidence which the prosecution relies on to prove that the accused probably sourced wild death cap mushrooms in Loch and/or Outtrim proximate to the fatal lunch.

R v Patterson (Ruling 5) [2025] VSC 106 (14 May 2025)​

https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSC/2025/106.html?context=1;query=r%20v%20patterson%20%20;mask_path=au/cases/vic/VSC

ERIN PATTERSON

Accused​

---​

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 5)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 106 (First revision 19 March 2025)

---​

EVIDENCE — Admissibility — Hearsay — Whether relevant — Whether danger of unfair prejudice outweighs probative value — Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), ss 55, 56, 65(2)(b), 65(2)(c), 66A, 137.

Hearsay Notices

1. The prosecution has filed three separate Hearsay Notices.
2. Hearsay Notice 1 dated 13 February 2025 concerns 22 previous representations by Don Patterson.In respect of his previous representations, the accused objects to previous representations 5, 7and 11. I note that during pre-trial submissions, the accused withdrew her objection to previous representation 2 after the prosecution undertook to limit the content of previous representation 2.
3. Hearsay Notice 2 dated 13 February 2025 concerns 21 previous representations by Gail Patterson. In respect of her previous representations, the accused objects to previous representations 10,13, 15, 21 and 24. I note that during pre‑trial submissions, the accused withdrew her objection to previous representations 2, 7 and 8 after the prosecution undertook to limit the content of those previous representations.
4. Hearsay Notice 3 dated 13 February 2025 concerns 17 previous representations by Heather Wilkinson. In respect of her previous representations,the accused objects to previous representation 10. I note that during pre-trial submissions, the accused withdrew her objections to previous representations 3 and5.
5. As will be made clear below, some of the accused’s objections to the previous representations are partial objections: in other words, some parts of some of the impugned previous representations are not objected to.

SubjectMatter of Previous Representations

1. There are three subjects to which the impugned previous representations relate:
   • The self-administration of ondansetron by Don Patterson (previous representations 5,7 and 11) and Gail Patterson (previous representations10, 13 and 15) following the lunch;
   • Symptoms reported by Gail Patterson (previous representations 21 and 24) in hospital;
   • Heather Wilkinson’s puzzlement (previous representation 10) at the accused having a different coloured plate to her lunch guests.
2. snip

Analysis

1. The evidence is part of the narrative of the trajectory of the Pattersons ’illnesses. A detailed comparison of their illness trajectories with the accused’s illness trajectory is relevant to whether the accused also consumed a poisoned Beef Wellington.If she did not, it increases the probabilities that she deliberately poisoned her lunch guests. The evidence is of brief compass and there is no prospect of the jury being prejudiced against the accused from the knowledge that the Pattersons took ondansetron. The evidence is admissible.